 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2005Science based opinion on Plus lenses to Prevent Myopia
I have been making an effort to keep out of the Otis plus lens threads, but here is some info about the credibility of the "experts" he quotes. Otis posted a expert opinion about the validity of claims made by Steve Leung, Otis's favourite OD on the i-see@yahoo groups forum. Dr Leung is apparently facing charges from his licensing body regarding the vision improvement with plus lenses claims he makes. The opinion also contains information about Francis Young, Dr Colgate and Dr Guyton, some of Otis's other favourite experts. It points out that Young's early statements about plus lens prevention were proven incorrect by Young's own latter work, that Colgate's statements predated Young's work. It quotes Dr Guyton as saying the plus lens will not work for those already myopic and also quotes Dr Guyton as saying that a randomized, controlled 3-5 year clinical trial is needed to determine the effectives of Dr Leung's methods. Gee, Dr Guyton wants to do a medical, not engineering study using proper experimental control -- something Otis claims is unneeded and then uses Dr Guyton's opinions as a reason it is not needed. I can't believe that Otis actually posted an opinion that is factual and clearly outlines the science that says plus doesn't work and points out the lack of science to show it does work. Of course, Otis says it shows how "the system" persecutes optometists who share his views. Here is the link, the first page is in Chinese, the rest is in English. http://www.chinamyopia.org/special/odboarddoc3.htm Dr Judy On 7/24/05 8:49 AM, in article X_WdneFzuJ_qJX7fRVn-tg@rogers.com, "Dr Judy" <mpace99nospam@rogers.com> wrote: > Gee, Dr Guyton wants to do a medical, not engineering study using proper > experimental control... How does a medical study differ fundamentally from an engineering study? I have long thought of medicine as an engineering art. Medicine's subject is principally living humans as opposed to engineering's principally large inanimate projects. When it comes to Public Health, there is great overlap. Consider the great projects of sewerage and water supply that has much more to do with our quality of life than all the medications ever provided by physicians. Bill Dear Bill, Some problems indeed are NOT medical in nature -- although neglect EVENTUALLY creates the "medical problem". This is the "deeper analysis" that can EVENTUALLY lead to a better (though more difficult) solution. I was thinking about James Cook and scurvey of the 1700's. When long-voyages were attempted (gradually extended to years) the crew would develop scurvey (not everyone -- but about 30 perecent would die in three years.) Captain Cook did his research and attempted a number of "solutions". The effect of his efforts ON HIS CREW was that in a three year voyage no one died of scurvey. Did this prove the "cause"? Perhaps not, but his ability to control the crew's diet made a major change in the diet habits of the British navy. Thus a "medical problem" was partially resolved by a ship's captain. People who "stand back" from the immediate problem can sometimes be more effective then people who are using the traditional minus-lens quick-fix of the last 400 years. Best, Otis Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: The second-opinion (for true-prevention with plus) If you are interested, Alfred has placed the "proceedings" on his web: http://www.chinamyopia.org/special/odboarddoc3.htm The "Board" excluded ALL scientific research (concering the dynamic behavor of the primate eye) the BOARD did not "like". This is not science and abstract intellectual analysis -- this is called "rail-roading". But then, you decide. Best, Otis > But then, you decide. We've decided that you have a selective reading disability. -MT Dear prevention minded friends, here are three scientific studies ON HUMANS (not animals) demonstrating that Otis' theories are full of crap. he has been presented with these studies before but refuses to comment. he counters by presenting studies performed on chickens and monkeys, and then dropping the names of old optometrists whom he doesn't even know. ------------- first, this study concludes that Otis stairstep theory of myopia progression is wrong: Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic progression. Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=6703013&query_hl=3 Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages from 7.38 to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over the power required to correct their myopia exactly. These 36 experimental subjects were matched by control subjects selected at random from the files of the Indiana University Optometry Clinics. The criteria used in matching were sex, beginning age, beginning refractive error, and duration of time covered by the record. The mean rate of change of refractive error for the experimental group was (minus indicating increase of myopia) -0.49 D/year (range, +0.37 to -1.95 D/year) on retinoscopy and -0.52 D/year (range, +0.21 to -1.32 D/year) on subjective refraction. The mean rate of change for the control group was -0.47 D/year (range, +0.06 to -2.03 D/year) on retinoscopy and -0.47 D/year (range, +0.28 to -1.72 D/year) on subjective refraction. Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly different. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that an overcorrected myope has a lower rate of increase of myopia than a myope wearing a conventional spectacle correction. ------- secondly, these two studies show that Otis theory of plus lens prevention is wrong: 1.Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9. The Chung study is a small (n=94), 2 year randomized and masked prospective study comparing the effects of full-time undercorrection (UC, by approx 0.75 D) with full-time fully correction (FC) in young myopes (mean: -2.86 D). The study group comprised approximately 1.4 time the numbers of girls as boys with Chinese and Malay ethnic groups being approximately equally represented. Over the 2 years of the study, the FC group showed a progression of -0.77 D compared to the UC group that exhibited a progression of -1.00 D. Rates of eye growth also differed between the two groups, as expected, being slower for the FC group. This study suggests that leaving myopes partially uncorrected (i.e. with a net plus prescription) may in fact promote myopia development rather than reduce it. 2. COMET multicenter study on use of bifocal glasses to slow myopia progression. http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/viewStudyWeb.aspx?id=9 In summary, results of COMET suggest that PALs should not be prescribed routinely for slowing myopia progression in children. However, they still may be prescribed for other ocular conditions. Findings from this study will influence ongoing and future studies of myopia interventions and mechanisms of eye growth. Go away Otis. Take up shuffleboard. Build a better sextant. Dear Friends, If I am working to determine if the natural eye is a sophisticated system, then I am going to depend on objective scientific tests to accurately determine the natural eye's behavior. This analysis RESPECTS the eye as a competent design. The proof is in this respect. Since you (with your closed mind) sweep all SCIENTIFIC data off the table -- before there is any anlysis, then yes, you can maintain your myth the a "quick fix" is based on "your science". But that is the issue as to who controlls the preception of the natural eye as a dynamic system. Best, Otis I'm sorry, but your reply makes no sense. You were presented with scientific data. No one swept it off. Why do you avoid the issues. Why do you keep trying to redefine the valid postings that argue against your unfounded theories. IN HUMANS, THERE IS NO VALID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT PLUS LENSES PREVENT MYOPIA PROGRESSION, JUST AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MINUS LENSES CAUSE THEM. Plain and simple! ================= > Dear Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Otis On 7/24/05 1:11 PM, in article 1122235887.170176.23590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com, "p.clarkii@gmail.com" > Dear prevention minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > Go away Otis. Take up shuffleboard. Build a better sextant. As I read these summaries, my eyes glaze over. The writing has all the earmarks of crap! Giving ages in years of participants to two decimal places--give me a break. Even the amount of correction is ambiguous. Does over correction mean too positive or too negative. Give me another break. The little I remember from my childhood is that as I and my cousin became more myopic, we took our glasses off and held comic books closer. Bill > As I read these summaries, my eyes glaze over. The writing has all the > earmarks of crap! A little dry, but not crap. >Giving ages in years of participants to two decimal > places--give me a break. Even the amount of correction is ambiguous. Does > over correction mean too positive or too negative. Over correction means giving a myopic more minus (negative) than they need. > The little I remember from my childhood is that as I and my cousin became > more myopic, we took our glasses off and held comic books closer. Well that's nice, but what does that have to do with Otis and his continuing refusal to accept scientific evidence (that evidently causes your eyes to glaze over and result in you calling it "crap") that demonstrates that minus lenses do not cause myopia and that plus lenses do not prevent it? On 7/24/05 7:23 PM, in article dc1if201tr9@enews3.newsguy.com, "RM" <privacy@piracy.net> wrote: > Well that's nice, but what does that have to do with Otis and his continuing > refusal to accept scientific evidence (that evidently causes your eyes to > glaze over and result in you calling it "crap") that demonstrates that minus > lenses do not cause myopia and that plus lenses do not prevent it? It has nothing to do with Otis. Substituting crap for crap does not help. Part of good science is good reporting. A scientist like Richard Feynman hated to write. But when he did, it was easy to read--not obfuscation. Bill well, OK ? anyway the studies are valid and I suppose the choice of words in the abstracts sound complicated, confusing, and maybe even boring. perhaps the authors could be better writers but their real job is to do good relevant science. do you suppose our buddy Otis is, like you, disinterested in the results of their studies because they seem boring to him? perhaps thats why he is ignoring them? perhaps the chicken and shrew data that he embraces captures his imagination (like his fond stories of Raphaelson and "The Printers Son") and that's why he gives them excessive weight even in light of the overwhelming evidence against his plus lens prevention theory by researchers who address these issues in real-life humans! On 7/25/05 5:22 PM, in article 1122337360.924730.209300@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com, "p.clarkii@gmail.com" > well, OK ? > anyway the studies are valid and I suppose the choice of words in the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > plus lens prevention theory by researchers who address these issues in > real-life humans! Researchers primarily publish or perish. Science be damned. Well, that might be a bit too cynical. While I did my share of publishing as field worker, publish or perish was something I did not have to worry about. Getting papers published was an ego tip. Some of my colleagues were more on the publishing track. We were working in the field of lasers. I noticed when they published in the Physical Review, they were more pedantic than when they published in Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers publication such as Quantum Electronics. There was just something about the terser journal that got the one-upmanship juices flowing. Richard Feynman did not do that because he had other ways of one-upping. Bill > Dear Prevention minded friends, alot of snops > This is not science and abstract intellectual analysis -- this is > called > "rail-roading". This is called evidence based medicine > But then, you decide. > > Best, > > Otis Let's hear it for the humble lift station. DrG Dear Judy, Subject: Factual corrction on Dr. Young and his bifocal study. Re: The "Houston" study Francis Young's name was placed on the first report. This is a compete error. Francis Young was not involved in the Houston study. Francis Young NEVER received either report -- and asked if I had a copy of it! Francis has published a correction -- asking that his name be REMOVED from the Houston study. ++++++++++++ It points out that Young's early statements about plus lens prevention were proven incorrect by Young's own latter work, This is false -- as stated above. OSB |
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.