 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005####### Warning against excessive hubris.
Dear Prevention minded friends, Neil chooses to post "warnings" about true-preveniton with the plus. Just remember that their are SUPPORTIVE ODs that will help you with prevention with the plus -- if you ask them. Jon cleared his vision from a PRESCRIPTION of -1.5 diopters with vision stated to be 20/60. By heavy use of the plus -- he verified his vision as a 20/20, with some readings at 20/15. His OD was totally against this "clearing" effort of Jon's. Here is the Jon's statement of his efforts, and the comentary of the OD. You can take this "warning" as you see fit. If you get stair-case myopia from the minus, the that is because you were not wanred of the consequences of wearing the over-prescribed minus. If Neil keeps on posting not-professional "warnings" the this is the "second-opinion" response. Please enjoy our pleasant discussions about scientific proof that the natural eye is dynamic. Best, Otis _______________ Dear Jon, Subject: Additional commentary -- trusting yourself and verifying your 20/20 vision. Re: Your eye exam results - And yes, typical OD BS It is essential that you trust your own eye-chart readings. If I could I would supply you with a low-cost trial-lens kit (same as phoropter). Maybe not quite as accurate, but you could get good readings for both refraction and astigmatism. That way you would get away from "trusting" some third-party measurement by a man who has no interest in you protecting your distant vision -- for life. Since you see 20/20 -- as good as your parents and as good as your fellow students, you have absolutly NORMAL vision. There is NOTHING wrong with your eyes. The range of astigmatism is normal and if you measured it you would find that it varies from week to week. I do not know why you went for an "exam" in the first place, since you have 20/20 vision. Was your mother "concerned" with your work with the preventive plus? I understand her "concern" and that is normal, but the OD is defending his "position" that you are a "dumb kid" and he is a "God". You effectively "solved" the problem of effective nearsighedness prevention -- and that is SUPPOSED to be HIS JOB. No wonder he is pissed. Some more discussion: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Jon, Jon > I went to the OD this morning. They put me on the computer, and it said my left eye was -0.25D and my right eye was -0.75D. Otis> That was probably an "auto-refracter". They are not very accurate. Trust your eye chart. Again, I would trust YOU with a trial lens kit. Repeated measurement BY YOU over time would be much more accurate. Jon > I then went into the OD office, and when he is getting my to read the letters 20 feet away he is pushing that thing used to cover one eye into my eye so that I couldn't actually concentrate at the letters. Otis> I think this type of measurement is on "shaky ground". But that must be a matter of YOUR judgment. Jon > He winds up telling me that I read 20/40+2 in both eyes with -0.50D with -0.75D atigmatism, left eye. -0.75D with -0.50D of astigmatism in my right eye. After he put all that in he got me to read 20/15. Otis> It is always easy to "over-prescribe" a person -- and this is how it is done. You read 20/20 on your own eye chart -- same as pilot-John. Trust your eye chart. Jon > I told him to put in -0.25D with -0.75D of astigmatism, in my left eye, and -0.50D with -0.50D of astigmatism in my right eye. And I could read the 20/15 line perfectly. He said "yeah, they're about the same." Otis> If you had your own trial-lens kit -- you could avoid this screwed-up bad measurements completely. Otis> Also, if you want -- for deep dusk -- 20/15 vision then just buy some -0.75 or -0.50 Diopter glasses from $19 glasses. Jon > He just seemed to rush through it all, 5 minutes in his office and that was it. Otis> He thinks you are a "smart" kid that is attempting to show him up. He paid $140 k and four years of his life to get to his position. You think he is going to let YOU show him "wrong"? REMEMBER -- the man is defending his sourse of income -- and not YOUR long-term visual welfare. But equally you have the responsibility to maintain 20/20 naked-eye with the plus. Jon > I am pretty distgusted over that OD. I told my mom that i wanted a second opinion, and she told me to ask her another day. Otis> With your 20/20, and the ODs defense of his 140 K "education" I do not see why you "bother" with them any more. Only if you could not see 20/20 youself would I have them check. You now have responsibility and the ability to "control", or keep your distant vision at 20/20. Why do you need "them"? Jon > No matter what that OD said, I KNOW that my eyes have improved. Otis> You MUST believe your eye chart. Don't bother with a man who only wants to "quick-fix" the public with a strong minus lens. You simply waste your time and money on that "project". The next series of young men will simply get over-prescribed minus lenses -- and stair-case myopia. But what does this OD care about that consequence? Jon > After I was with him in the office he went out and told my mom that my eyes were slightly worse, Otis> With you reading 20/20 on the eye chart (confirmed by both your parents) that is close to criminal fraud -- in my opinion. Further he is attempting to "under-cut" you in the eye's of your mother. And that is truly a rotten thing to do. Jon > I had to butt in and say it was only the astigmatism. Otis> And the FAA totally ignores astigmatism less than 1 diopter if you read at 20/20 -- as you do. Don't get hung up on astigmatism that is in a normal range as far as the FAA is concerned. Jon > What a crock. Otis> Pulling that "stunt" with your mother to protect his "position" is truly a crock. Only YOU can protect youself from this type of self-serving abuse and over-prescription (or any prescription) of an un-necessary minus lens.) Best, Otis Jon > Jon cleared his vision from a PRESCRIPTION of -1.5 diopters > with vision stated to be 20/60. By heavy use of > the plus -- he verified his vision as a 20/20, with > some readings at 20/15. Dear friends, Please disregard Otis's postings. What he posts is fiction, not facts. This post is not facts since We have no way of verifying what he says, so ignore him. Just maybe he will go away! If Jon was so real, he could share his experiences on this newsgroup, but has not. Thank you. Allen Dear Friends, Given the vicious attacks against the preventive second-opinion, I would not allow Jon to be subjected to such destruction of his long-term visual wealfare. Steve Leung OD strongly supports the PREVENTIVE second-opinion, and is highly pleased the Jon was able to return his distant vision to 20/20. He is a true-professional. www.chinamyopia.org He also does not need to be subjected to the un-professional arrogant "rants" of Neil Brooks. He cares DEEPLY about a person right to avoid nearsightedness, and stair-case myopia that will follow if the plus in not used before the minus. Think about it. Best, Otis Dear Reader, Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown (otisbrown@pa.net) writes, I invite you to review all of his previous posts. Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy, but there IS plenty that proves him wrong. Otis gets the basis of his warped, disproved ideas from concepts written a century ago and one study done on CHICKENS! Any of you folks chickens ? Otis Brown is more than simply bizarre. He's wrong. See the weekly (Mondays) "welcome to sci.med.vision" for information on how to block his ramblings. If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof of the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression of myopia in humans then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist. "Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted within the "scientific method" explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence Otis's posts can be reviewed at: http://snipurl.com/e77s http://snipurl.com/fe3d The results of clinical trials of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression of myopia can be found at (hint: it did not work): http://snipurl.com/fij0 http://snipurl.com/fimq http://snipurl.com/fimr The details of a proper, controlled test have been proposed and can be reviewed at the following site, beginning with Page 40, Section 7(A) and continuing through Page 42: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/40.html The remainder of this text (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html) provides significant information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory. Much contained with in, in fact, directly contradicts it. > Given the vicious attacks against the preventive second-opinion, > I would not allow Jon to be subjected to such destruction of > his long-term visual wealfare. Dear Friends, Since we can not verify the existence of Jon, Jon is not fact but fiction... > He cares DEEPLY about a person right to > avoid nearsightedness, and stair-case myopia > that will follow if the plus in not used before > the minus. If he deeply cares, then have him come to this discussion group to share his positive results. Probably can't because Jon doesn't exist. > Think about it. Yeah, please don't think about Otis's postings PLEASE ignore Otis's posting as he is not in the medical profession and not in the position to give medical advice. Still waiting for proof outside your website Otis. Won't you please show us where there is a website the provide proof OUTSIDE your website. Betchya can't and won't Best, Allen (For as many bets I have made, I could have me a brand spanking new Lear). I think that the person "Jon" exists. It is just that Otis has taken his remarks totally out of context, as he has done with mine and others. Otis plays fast and loose with the facts. He is what is known as a "slippery old bird." DrG > He is a true-professional. Perhaps one day he'll publish his efficacy data. -MT >If Jon was so real, he could share his experiences on this newsgroup, but >has not. > > Hey Allen, Jonathan is a real teenager alright, I read an email from him and yes I do agree that he should come and visit this newsgroup just like I did. Even though he is a teenager, he should be able read and understand and produce a thought process and decide for himself at the end.  SignaturePV2 Yasar, M U.S. ARMY AH-64D "Armt Dawg" A Co/602d ASB/2ID/EUSA Camp Humphreys - South Korea Sunday, 12 Jun 2005 / 14:02:12 Korea Standard Time (+0900) >>If Jon was so real, he could share his experiences on this newsgroup, but >>has not. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Even though he is a teenager, he should be able read and understand and >produce a thought process and decide for himself at the end. Jonathan's existence is of no consequence to this discussion. I'm sure at least 50% of these characters are NOT products of Otis's tired, old imagination. The cycloplegic refractions of these characters ARE of consequence. PSEUDOmyopia can be relieved by any number of methods, including biofeedback (Trachtman's Accommotrac). It's MYOPIA that Otis claims he can prevent. Further, it's MYOPIA that Otis claims a minus lens accelerates. The facts just don't support either of these positions. > Jonathan is a real teenager alright, I read an email from him and yes I > do agree that he should come and visit this newsgroup just like I did. > Even though he is a teenager, he should be able read and understand and > produce a thought process and decide for himself at the end. Thanks John, I just question the "reality" of Otis's postings and why he uses children for his subjects. Allen Dear John, Allen lives in a dream world -- and thinks that anyone under 21 is a child. Both Mike and Jon have reached an age where they can make a choice between to contradictory opinions -- and understand a course of action that best meets their life-time goal of keeping their distant vision clear. This means a "trade-off". Use the plus to keep their natural eye "in the distance", and their refractive state remains near zero (emmetropia), or "normal eye". It has been spelled out at both Annapolis and West Point the the natural eye moves negative at rate of -1.3 diopters in four years (spread -1.1 diopters to -1.6 diopters), therefore they can EXPECT that the "unprotected" eye will again move in that direction. But NOW they know what they must do when they see their "chart" at 20/25 to 20/30 -- just restart the plus lens use as Dr. Colgate recommends. Truly this is a PERSONAL decision that ONLY Mike and Jon can make. Equally -- after we have gone our separate ways -- Jon and Mike will be "controling" their distant vision in the manner -- and my nephew Keith did. Obviously this requires resolve that most "kids" simply do not have. (No offense intended.) Best, Otis I deeply regret that Otis Brown was not able to fulfill his childhood dream of becoming a pilot. Instead, he must have squandered it as an engineer, and now wants to be an optometrist. Perhaps if you have the requisite courses, they will let you in. DrG Otis, If you were to become an optometrist, you could prescribe plus lenses to your heart's content. You could also prescribe atropine. Think of the possibilities that await a man of your impeccable integrity in the field of optometry. You could hob-nob with the big boys. Instead of dropping names from the 1970's, you could be studying under scientists who are working at the frontiers of myopia. Instead of being on the outside looking in, you could be on the inside looking out. DrG Dear DrG, It is true that I would have liked to take the actions that are necessary for a pilot to keep his vision clear through a four year college. It is equally clear that it comes down to a person making that decision in full light of the scientific facts as they concern the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. Since reading "The Printer's Son" it became clear to me that -- even if you made the correct recommendations -- the public would reject you, and your plus lens. For that reason, I make the recommendation ONLY for the person who is on the threshold of nearsighedness (i.e., 20/50, refractive status -3/4 diopter) where a reasonable effort with the plus can reasult in his clearing his distant vision (under his own control) to 20/25, and perhaps 20/20. I have used "neutral" words to describe the behavior of the natural eye --- and would expect that the engineer or pilot would review that self-same OBJECTIVE experimental data. If he decides that "prevention" is not for him -- (and he is entering a four year college where the "down" rate is known) then I would think he is making a "wrong" decision. But I certainly would not bother with him any more. Obviously I could not use a minus lens on anyone, and equally, when the eye chart is 20/70 -- I would have no choice but to use it. The only issue is "reversing" it at the DMV level (20/40) when a minus is not yet REQUIRED. Obviously this is "empowerment" of the the individual, and the choice an results are going to depend COMPLETELY on his motivation and understanding of what he wants in his life. Best, Otis > Dear DrG, > > It is true that I would have liked to take the actions that are > necessary for a pilot to keep his vision clear through a > four year college. Since we have already proven Otis that a pilot does not need 20/20 UNCORRECTED vision to fly, you may want to pick a different profession. Maybe an engineer? No need for prevention when he can fly with 20/20 corrected eh? Read slowly Otis, one word at a time so you can understand what I am saying. Allen > Allen lives in a dream world -- and thinks that anyone under > 21 is a child. WRONG AGAIN OTIS. Show the group where I said a child is under the age of 21. I bet you can't. Let the readers decide Otis!!! Please tell everybody how old Jon and Mike is. Something tells me, you won't answer this direct question. Allen ***** OTIS WARNING ***** This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown", "otisbrown@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer". Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare training is nil. Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He falsely claims to be associated with doctors who do not know him. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to argue against people just for the sake of argument. Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space and it also just fulfils his sick psychological needs. No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only meant to forewarn newcomers who might misconstrue Otis as a expert. Those of us who have been here for awhile know Otis oh too well! For anyone who is interested in understanding the true state of scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following links: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?ArticleType=SiteSpec&page=osc/apr01/lesson_0401.htm http://dels.nas.edu/ilar/jour_online/40_2/V40_2NortonAnimalModels.asp http://www.optometrists.asn.au/gui/files/ceo865276.pdf If you are interested in Otis' theories of myopia prevention then visit his favorite websites www.i-see.org and www.chinamyopia.com. You can also post in the newsgroup alt.med.vision.improve or contact Otis directly by e-mail at otisbrown@pa.net Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision", which usually appears on Mondays, for a guide regarding this newsgroup and for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum. For further information on killfilling (filtering out the posts of a troll or spammer) see the following link: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm For additional information on handling "trolls" like Otis, refer to this link: http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm > Dear Prevention minded friends, |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.