 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2005Neil Brooks commentary
Dear Friends, Subject: Arguments concerning prevention -- as the "second-opinion". Re: Neil Brooks -- and his commentary opposed to the concept. Neil has chosen to send me some "messages". I would be nice if Neil had the courage to identify himself more completely so we could understand his point-of-view regarding the proven dynamic nature of the fundamental priamte eye. I will help him: NEIL BROOKS: CV: _________________ Publications _________________ Profession: Optometrist? Have some guts Neil -- explain yourself. I will post your emails to me so we can have a pleasant discussion about your scientific orentation and interests. If you have any qualities aa professional I expect a competent response. Try to keep it "clean" my freind -- make youself "look good". Best, Otis ----- Original Message ----- From: "Neil Brooks" <NEIL.BROOKS@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Where'd you go?? Neil> As always, I enjoy our pleasant conversation on the dynamic nature of your dementia.... Neil> Oh, yeah: BOX CAMERA! +++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Neil, Subject: Optometrtic terminology Very few of the public know the term: +8.0 diopters OU. I conclude that you are either an optometrist, or have considerable experience in that area. I understand that you are defending your "professional position", and I guess I would do the same thing -- under similar circumstances. The reaction is normal -- and I expect it. Fortunately there are optometrists who are now taking that major step of placing their own children into a "plus" at the threshold -- so that THEY do not develop "stair-case" myopia -- like the general public does. It takes a "brave" OD to "buck" ths "system", and I deeply admire the courage of Steve Leung who offers this "option" to the public. www.chinamyopia.org The studies of Francis Young do indeed indicate that PREVENTION witht the plus is possible -- as the "second opinion". Both studies demonstrated that the "single-minus" went "down" at -1/2 diopter per year. This suggests that the ONLY future (for prevention) must START before the person begins wearing that minus lens -- and it also suggest that he should be informed in a competent manner about this difficult choice. In effect, once a person begins wearing a minus (his eyes "adapt" to the minus) his refractive state can not be reversed. It is critical that he clearly understand this issue -- before he even begins wearing the minus -- because of the life-time effects and consequences for him. BOX CAMERA VS. DYNAMIC EYE CONCEPT Both of these statments describe a "paradigm", or conceptual idealization of the behavior of the natural eye. Best, Otis Neil Brooks Speaks: Not an optometrist--as I've told you on many occasions- -just a knowledgeable person. How did I GET to be so knowledgeable? By paying attention to the facts and discarding the fiction. The facts which, incidentally, all say your ill- conceived and foolish notions are wrong. What you spew is fiction. Repeating something ad nauseum DOESN'T make it true, dear boy. It only makes you sound clinically insane. +++++++++++++++++++++ Neil, Why not "wise up" and make your posts here. Saves me the trouble doing it. In doing this work I have run into quite a few "interesting" people. The person who ranks up there with you is "Robin Parsons" -- who used to post on i-see. He was truly bizzare. Neil, please do not hide you "light" under a bushel basket. Do you posts here and let your wisdom shine forth. I'm listening. Best, Otis Gee Wiz, I was looking for Neil Brooks to respond and explain his concept of the "peventive" second opinion. Let us understand your concept Neil! Are all doctors who develop alternative methods "demented". Was the doctor who insisted that other doctors WASH THEIR HANDS before delivering babys -- demented? He was described as such when he "pushed" the issue. Same as other pioneers in the field. Seems that all inovative concetps receive this treatment. The ODs posting here have no choice but to do what they do -- I acknowledge that. I does not make it "right" but it does make it understandable. Equally, there are gifted doctors, ophthalmologists and optometrist who would start the process of "change" at the threshold, i.e., Steve Leung OD www.chinamyopia.org Do you describe him also as "demented" -- or perhaps you they have not let you into the "day room" so you could explain. Best, Otis Enjoy, Otis > Do you describe him also as "demented" -- or perhaps > you they have not let you into the "day room" so you > could explain. So, he has some data showing the efficacy of his technique? Mind telling us where? -MT Dear Neil, I see your friends in white coats let you into the day room. Some people "countert" with logical arguments and experimental facts. I know that "prevention" is tough -- I never said anything different. Probably, the only person and OD can actually help (given the profound opposition) is his own children. I am pleased that we have had these "debates", and the ODs have excluded all direct experimental fact concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural (monkey-primate) eye. There "exclusionary" principle the the human eye behave "completely differently" makes my arguments easy. In the future, the effort will be for the person who wishes to AVOID a negative refractive state (on the threshold) to learn to take science, and facts seriously. But that issue is separate from OD-Medicine. Here is "Brooks" (perhaps Robin Parson) in all his splendor for your review. Best, Otis +++++++++++ Your post: Quoth the dottering old fool (that's you, Otis. Bully for you!): >Are all doctors who develop alternative >methods "demented". Not necessarily, but YOU CERTAINLY ARE :-) > children into a "plus" at > the threshold -- so that > THEY do not develop > "stair-case" myopia -- like > the general public does. 25-30% isn't "general public." > It takes a "brave" OD to "buck" > ths "system", and I deeply > admire the courage of > Steve Leung who offers this > "option" to the public. We admire results. Feel free to post his efficacy data. > The studies of Francis Young > do indeed indicate that PREVENTION > witht the plus is possible -- > as the "second opinion". The studies of Francis Young prove that you probably CAN make an infant farsighted by using plus inappropriately. That doesn't cure or prevent myopia without causing the opposite problem. > Both studies demonstrated > that the "single-minus" went > "down" at -1/2 diopter per year. But juvenile humans don't do that. > This suggests that the ONLY future > (for prevention) must START before [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in a competent manner about > this difficult choice. Data? Humans DON'T respond by the time they reach age 8 or 9. > In effect, once a person begins > wearing a minus (his eyes "adapt" > to the minus) his refractive > state can not be reversed. So the kids in Singapore who can't afford glasses - they don't get nearsighted? > It is critical that he clearly understand > this issue -- before he even begins > wearing the minus -- because > of the life-time effects and consequences > for him. Preach it, brother! > BOX CAMERA VS. DYNAMIC EYE > CONCEPT [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > idealization of the behavior > of the natural eye. These two statements exhaust your understanding of complex human physiology. That's called a "black box" paradigm. -MT "So the kids in Singapore who can't afford glasses - they don't get nearsighted?" No offence, but just wondering where the Singapore bit came from... And nearsighted? (Out of topic, but...) Considering that my myopia went to -2.25 and -3.25 before I even realised that I had myopia (this was from 6/9 vision in the course of half a year)? On a pretty alarming note, though, I saw at this pharmacy the other day this product called "Vision Therapy" which quotes "no glasses, no prescription" as a way of correcting vision and "slowing myopia, astigmatism, blah blah blah". :| > "So the kids in Singapore who can't afford glasses - they don't get > nearsighted?" > > No offence, but just wondering where the Singapore bit came from... About 70% of the adults in Singapore are nearsighted, as opposed to 20% in some other ethnic groups. The point is it happens whether they wear glasses or not. > And nearsighted? (Out of topic, but...) Considering that my myopia went > to -2.25 and -3.25 before I even realised that I had myopia (this was > from 6/9 vision in the course of half a year)? Otis is convinced you get more nearsighted if you wear full correction in glasses, despite Parssinen's study where kids who removed glasses got just as nearsighted as kids who wore them fulltime. Goss put excess correction on 38 kids. They didn't get nearsighted any faster than a similar control group. Chung found kids who were undercorrected got worse _faster_ than those who wore full correction. Otis calls his imaginary effect "staircase myopia." He firmly believes that wearing glasses causes further myopia. He provides no measurements or controlled studies to support his claim, and we can't find any either. Since pediatricians and ophthalmologists disagree with him, he glorifies his point of view by calling it a "second opinion." > On a pretty alarming note, though, I saw at this pharmacy the other day > this product called "Vision Therapy" which quotes "no glasses, no > prescription" as a way of correcting vision and "slowing myopia, > astigmatism, blah blah blah". :| Somewhere in the fine print it might also say "these statements have not been evaluated by the FDA." As long as these products do no harm, they're tolerated, usually shelved right next to the penis growth cream. -MT Yup I know that a lot of Singaporeans are myopic (being in Singapore myself), just didn't realise that your point was referring to that. (Slightly off topic, but in my school, if you see someone without glasses, it's more likely that he/she wears contacts than if he/she has perfect vision) Just wondering, does myopia/astigmatism get worse if you read a lot in places with dim lighting, or on moving cars? Or is this just an urban legend? At any rate, I don't quite see how wearing glasses can worsen myopia, anyway... I'm much more inclined to think that without glasses (when I first started to have myopia), I was straining my eyes so much that my myopia probably got worse after that... And just remembered that unless I'm severely mistaken, when I first started wearing glasses the optometrists actually used to undercorrect my myopia slightly. Apparently it didn't work, and I needed a new pair of glasses every year anyway as my myopia (and later on, astigmatism) worsened. Oh well. So obviously undercorrection doesn't quite work. you are clearly more rational than Otis > Just wondering, does myopia/astigmatism get worse if you read a lot in > places with dim lighting, or on moving cars? Or is this just an urban > legend? Almost entirely, except that in a very general sense, people who are myopic seem to read more. Cause-and-effect are not well demonstrated. Myopia and astigmatism have different natural histories. It isn't reasonable to assume they arise from the same process. > first started to have myopia), I was straining my eyes so much that my > myopia probably got worse after that... So you assume that "straining" the eyes contributes to myopia. Problem is that Goss put excessively strong glasses on a group of children and they didn't get more nearsighted than others with the "right" correction. -MT No, I don't necessarily assume that "straining" the eyes contributes to myopia. Just that it's something that I grew up with (urban legend, perhaps?) and that a lot of people assume around here. Hmm... My take is that I'd have gotten myopia eventually anyway, regardless of what happened. Dear Mike, Subject: Francis Young and the Pullman Study Otis calls his imaginary effect "staircase myopia." Otis> Others have used the term, or some similar remark. He firmly believes that wearing glasses causes further myopia. Otis> You test the fundamental primate eye on an "input" versus "output", by using a minus lens, and the REFRACTIVE STATE of the test group moves in the direction of the applied minus lens. This is a natural process -- not a defective process. The natural eye is proven to be dynamic under direct test conditions. He provides no measurements or controlled studies to support his claim, Otis> Runing "bi-forcal" studies are VERY DIFFICULT. Francis Young (and Oakley) used a HIGH PLUS, on about 200 children. The result was that the "plus" group when down at zero diopters, and the "control" group (single minus) went "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year -- over the two or more years of the study. If you don't like these results then just say the study is the "second opinion" -- but do not deny these scientific results -- ON HUMANS. Stacy> and we can't find any either. Otis> That is because your intense bias blinds you to objective, scientific facts. Since pediatricians and ophthalmologists disagree with him, Otis> Some do -- some do not. This is why there is always a "second opinion" -- whether you like it or not. he glorifies his point of view by calling it a "second opinion." Otis> You don't like the "second opinion" concept in medicine? That is precisely WHY there is a second opinion. No one requires that you "practice" the preventive second opinion. To a certain extent, that depends on the evaluation of the person who wishes to do the work to AVOID getting into nearsightedness in the first place. Otis> These issues are simply not resolved. Certainly prevention with the plus is difficult -- no one denys that. But, there is an indication (based on Francis Young's study) the prevention at the threshold would be possible if the plus were agressively used at that point. But that must be the decision of the person who chooses to work on prevention -- under his OWN control. Otis> Once you start wearing the minus -- there is no further possibility of successful prevention. Best, Otis cc: Steve Leung OD > The natural eye is proven to be dynamic under direct test conditions. But human kids with no glasses get just as nearsighted. In real life. > do not deny these scientific results -- ON HUMANS. I don't. I just can't find them replicated. If it's so tough to replicate those results in precisely controlled conditions, it's impossible to consider them reliable in my office. > Otis> Once you start wearing the minus -- there is no > further possibility of successful prevention. Preach it, brother! -MT > I would be nice if Neil had the courage to > identify himself more completely so we > could understand his point-of-view regarding > the proven dynamic nature of the fundamental > priamte eye. It would be nice if you'd tell us which journal is printing human studies that confirm your assertions. I've been searching Medline for several years and I can't find more than one or two. The rest confirm that full correction is no worse than undercorrection at slowing myopia. It may even be better. Whatever Dr. Young believes, he will admit that several juvenile human studies impinge on his hypothesis have none have really confirmed it. If it worked, all those bifocal studies would confirm the effect. They don't. If it worked, myopic children who wear glasses would get more nearsighted than children who don't. Nope. Doesn't happen. If it worked, ophthalmologists and vision scientists would be recommending it. They don't. The MDs and PhDs don't believe it. Let's blame the optometrists. Let's make up our own definitions and create a lot of noise, but by all means don't seek out the experts that actually write these articles proving you wrong. Instead let's create a nuisance on a public newsgroup. Let's pop up from under our bridge at regular intervals, and sprinkle each conversation with our assertions and inexperience. Let's make lots of noise. News flash: optometrists are hiding secret knowledge to avoid treading on the toes of more specialized guild brethren. Video at 11. -MT >optometrists are hiding secret knowledge to avoid >treading on the toes of more specialized guild brethren. >Video at 11. great! |
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.