Dear Prevention Minded Friends,

Subject:  Claims by OD to their "Science" versus pure science and the
     proven behavior of the primate eye -- and the human eye's
     behavior by implication.

Re:  Who decides what is science as it concerns the dynamic
    behavior of the fundamental eye.  OD Boards -- or
    scientists?

    These ODs have powerful reasons to de-rail preception of the
natural eye as "dynamic".  That is obvious.

    Thus they sweep all OBJECTIVE, repeatable experiments off the
table, and insist that their own flawed "bi-focal" studies
"count".

    I guess they can get away with the sham of science for a long
time into the future.

    [We should discuss an ODs responsibility to us (i.e.,
prevention) and our responsibility to respond to true-prevention
with the plus if we can.]

    We are here on i-see to LEARN -- even if that means re-organizing
our terminology to describe the proven behavior of the fundamental
eye.

    Best,

    Otis

_________________________

Date:  Monday, July 25, 2005 3:03 AM

TOPIC:    The opinion of ODs on on sci.med.vision to Prevent Myopia by
    use of the plus on the theshold.

[OSB Subtitle:    Science (not medical-OD bias) based studys of the
        dynamic behavior of the eye by direct testing. OSB]

    ________________________

== 1 of 8 ==

From: "otisbrown@pa.net"

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  The second-opinion (for true-prevention with plus)

    If you are interested, advocacy for the preventive "second
opinion" is stated on:

www.chinamyopia.org

    I believe that accurate science defines the natural eye as
"dynamic", and tests of the fundamental primate eye prove this
point beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Best,

    Otis

== 2 of 8 ==

From: "Mike Tyner"  (OD)

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

Otis> But then, you decide.

MikeOD> We've decided that you have a selective reading disability.

-MT

[Comment:  No wonder the public gets stair-case myopia from
      this type of "attitude.  The facts provide the proof.
      Mike provides an obvious quick-fix which the superfical
      public loves.  Who is responsible for the obvious
      consequences?

[Comment:  This is clearly a matter of selective intellectual
      blindness.  Who has the "selective" scientific
      disability?    OSB]

== 3 of 8 ==

From: p.clarkii@gmail.com  (OD -- but of course)

Clark> 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.

[Comment:  I did comment -- Clark obviously ignored the
       commentary.  What I said was that there was no proof
       that these kids actually looked THROUGH the low-placed
       small-segment "plus".  As a result, there was not
       "control" and the publication can not be trusted.
       That means that to get the "true" behavior of the
       fundamental or natural primate eye it is necessary to
       run OBJECTIVE experiments of the FUNDAMENAL eye -- to
       establish this characteristic.  OSB]

    -------------

Clark> first, this study concludes that Otis stairstep theory of
      myopia progression is wrong:

[Comment:  I do not see my name mentioned in these studies that I
      am "wrong" about the dynamic behavior of the primate
      eye.  Secondly, the "control group" clearly indicate
      that the "single-minus" lens group goes "down" at an
      AVERAGE rate of -1/2 diopter per year.  This is
      average, and some go down at -1 diopter/year.  It is
      the FACTS that demonstrate the reality of "stair-case"
      myopia -- not my statements about it.  OSB]

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=Abstract&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.

[Comment:  The kids were not looking through the "small-segment"
plus.  Therefore the "test" and "control" group were BOTH
using the same-strength minus lens.  No one "controlled"
to make certain the plus was ACTUALLY USED.  But no one
cared to check.  No validity.  Run the study on primates
where you can actually CONTROL the input -- and measure
the output.  Makes perfect sense -- in SCIENCE.  OSB]

-------

ClarkOD> secondly, these two studies show that Otis theory of plus
    lens prevention is wrong:

[Comment:  How easy it is to love the box-camera "theory" of the
      last 140 years -- with no SCIENTIFIC proof for it.  OSB]

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.

[Comment:  It is doubtful if these kids had any idea of what they
      were doing.    Further, the "best" bifocal study
      conducted by Francis Young where a "high" plus was used
      demonstrated that the "single minus" when down at -1/2
      diopter per year, where the "plus" group stopped
      further negative movement.  Even here the kids received
      no instruction in the proper use of the "plus".  At the
      very minimum, this study supports the concecpt of
      prevention-with-plus as the second-opinion.    OSB]

== 4 of 8 ==

From: "otisbrown@pa.net"

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 (i.e., the primate
data) -- before there is any anlysis, then yes, you can maintain
your myth the a minus-lens "quick fix" is based on "your science".

    But the issue is a matter of who controlls the preception of
the natural eye as a dynamic system.

    Best,

    Otis

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sun 24 Jul 2005 21:28
From: Repeating Rifle (Bill, Ph.D.)

<p.clarkii@gmail.com> wrote:

Clark> Dear prevention minded friends,

Clark> 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.

Clark> first, this study concludes that Otis stairstep theory of
      myopia progression is wrong:

BillPhD> 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.

BillPhD> 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

    == 6 of 8 == Date:  Sun 24 Jul 2005 20:13

From:  "RM" (a "hard-over" OD indeed)

RM >    I'm sorry, but your reply makes no sense.

RM > You (Otis) were presented with scientific data.  No one swept
    it off the table.    Why do you avoid the issues.  Why do
    you keep trying to redefine the valid postings that
    argue against your unfounded theories.

[Comment:  He means un-founded scientific "facts" -- where he
      hates the correct preception of the natural eye as
      dynamic, and all its consequences for him if honestly
      stated.  I understand his "position" however.  OSB]

    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!

[Comment:  He states his desired belief as a "fact".  Sorry.
      Francis Young science shows that preveniton is POSSIBLE,
      but must be implemented before the minus lens is applied
      -- as the second-opinion.  NO ONE has the right to deny
      a person information concerning the possibility of
      prevention with the plus.  OSB]

    =================

From:  Otis

Dear Friends,

    When 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 of competent design.

    The proof is in the analysis of a population of primates when
we have COMPLETE CONTROL of the "input" enviroment, and can
measure the resultant "output".  This scientific research leaves
no doubt but that the eye is controling its refractive state to
its average visual-enviroment.    OSB]

    Since you (with your closed mind) sweep all SCIENTIFIC (primate)
data
off the table -- before there is any anlysis, then yes, you can
maintain your myth that 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

== 7 of 8 ==

From: "RM"  (Ditto -- OD)

BillPhD>  As I read these summaries, my eyes glaze over.  The
     writing has all the earmarks of crap!

RM >     A little dry, but not crap.

Bill >     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.

RM >     Over correction means giving a myopic more minus
     (negative) than they need.

Bill >     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.

RM >     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?

[Comment:  By DIRECT objective facts I ONLY stated that the
      refractive state of the fundamental eye "moves" in a
      negative direction.    (ALL EYES -- average.) That is
      clear.  Calling the refractive states of the natural
      eye "defects" is not correct under that circumstance.
      Direct object facts are more important that the
      ingrained (historical) mis-understanding of those
      scientific facts.  OSB]