 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2005*** OTIS BROWN WARNING ***
True to my word, I /have/ killfiled the ol' troll. I do, however, think that the aims of this newsgroup are probably well served with the addition of my tired, old disclaimer ... on top of the weekly posting, so ... for posterity, if nothing else ... (Otis: you're killfiled. Have at me to your heart's desire): -------------------- 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, in fact, directly contradicts it. Dear Neil, What I would suggest is that you write a "position" paper on your concept of supressing the second opinion concerning PREVENTION with the plus. Please try to remove your personal invective -- not good in an academic setting. We disagree about the natural eye as a sophisticated system -- not about "defects". Then submit it to Bev for review and ask her to publish it as part of her weekly anouncement. Best, Otis > Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > review and ask her to publish > it as part of her weekly anouncement. I only tidied it up -- grammar, spelling, etc. -- and added the executive summary at the top ("So that he who runs may read") If Neil wants I'll tag his onto the end (or put it at the beginning), but it would probably be more useful if he posted it himself on, say Thursdays.  SignatureCheers, Bev ------------------------------------------------------------- "We've got some stupid people out there. This morning, I woke up in a bathtub filled with ice and I had an extra kidney." Dear Bev, Since you post once a week, I think most "newbies" would read your post, and read about the majority opinion and the second-opinion -- and list Steve Leung OD's web site. That way they could do a "comparison" between these to "opposit" methods. They should know that "experts" have profoundly different views on prevention -- with the person concerned educated sufficiently to make an honest choice in the matter. Best, Otis > That way they could do a "comparison" between these > to "opposit" methods. They should know that > "experts" have profoundly different views on > prevention -- with the person concerned educated > sufficiently to make an honest choice in the matter. The problem is that I don't see that "experts" disagree. I see that the experts are fairly united in their opinion. But, then, you aren't an expert nor are you even remotely qualified to be one by virtue of your training in a completely different discipline, nor have you demonstrated the objectivity to evaluate the contemporary research. Dr. Leung is an optometrist who is being investigated by his own licensing body. Drs. Young and Oakley published a study that you have misinterpreted as being germane, when it is really about preventing accommodative, or functional myopia. Other studies have confirmed this. The Accomotrac was invented to cure myopia. Those machines were on the secondary market -- "ebay" -- within a couple of years of being introduced. Why? Because only the accommodative component of myopia is capable of responding. The promoters of another fraudulent technique to reduce and prevent myopia are defendants in a lawsuit filed by a state's attorney general. So much for your "experts." DrG > Drs. Young and Oakley published a study that you have misinterpreted as > being germane, when it is really about preventing accommodative, or > functional myopia. Other studies have confirmed this. Are you distinguishing here between "accomodative" and "axial" myopia, the latter being far more common? I am. The Young-Oakley study was performed on myopes who all showed nearpoint esophoria, which is not a common finding in my practice. So, bifocals can be recommended as part of a treatment program for those types of myopes. DrG > I am. The Young-Oakley study was performed on myopes who all showed > nearpoint esophoria, which is not a common finding in my practice. So, > bifocals can be recommended as part of a treatment program for those > types of myopes. Just by mentioning bifocals you are demonstrating a total lack of understanding (which with your experience seems incomprehensible) of how glasses ruin your vision (short term and long term but we'll focus on the short term here). As soon as the patient looks through the upper (minus) part of the glasses the inevitable eyestrain that results negates the plus lens benefits. The only way of using plus lenses is without minus lenses. Instead of arguing with someone who has tried it hundreds of times (when I was using minus lenses on and off) just try it!. Dear Georgeous G., Subject: Restraints on Francis Young in his study. There were severe restraints on Dr. Young. He could not get the kids to wear a simple plus!!!! With these "restrictions" he could only use kids that were moderately to seriously nearsighed. Thus, he HAD to clear their distant vision with a minus lens, and attempt to use a "plus" for near -- under these constraints. This was also a BLIND study so he was even PROHIBITED from even checking to see if the kids actually wore the plus, or EVEN LOOKED THROUG THE PLUS. With all these constraints -- he turned in good results. What these results intimate, is that a study run BEFORE THE PERSON IS DEPENDENT ON THE MINUS, could have the result of achieveing successful prevention -- say in a four year aeronautical college. Thus the use of the plus must start while the individual is on the cusp of nearsigheness (but still passes that State DMV test.) And yes, a pure-plus study would reject the use of the minus, and would start before the minus was necessary, the the term, plus-preventive study. And I agee with you -- after this review. "Just try it". Your are very clear an to-the-point. Best, Otis Young also endured more restraints in his study. He only used patients who were myopes and who were esophoric at near with their prescriptions. In other words, all of the subjects had accommodative-convergence abnormalities. Subsequent studies have been done to verify Young's results, and have found only a weak effect at best during the first year, and not effect in subsequent years. But, the fact remains that IF I SEE A KID who has myopia and esophoria, I almost always suggest a bifocal. Out of all the myopic kids I see, about one or fewer will be esophoric on an annual basis. Even Young's study doesn't support OTIS. Go get another study, Otis. DrG > Young also endured more restraints in his study. He only used patients > who were myopes and who were esophoric at near with their [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > DrG I so enjoy that this thread retains the "OTIS BROWN WARNING" subject! Like DrG, I too (and probably thousands of other doctors) utilize "the plus" for children for whom that is a possibly appropriate treatment. Unlike zealots and other posters with a mission, we try to provide advice based on science and experience of that which we have knowledge that the advice has merit. Very much unlike some people around here. You, Georgeous Gertrude post junk science and fall prey to hockus-pokus nonsense. I had hoped that once you were tossed enough real science that some of it would sink in and you'd go and find a more hospitable environment to vent your beliefs. But like OTIS, ..;................. Item 2. For the last ten years my myopia has also decreased by about 1.5 diopters. All without my intervention. And significantly to my annoyance. You see that increase in plus means that I've turned into a blasted hyperope! And add on that truly annoying presbyopia, I'm not at all a supporter of "the plus" ! LB,OD >Item 2. For the last ten years my myopia has also decreased by about >1.5 diopters. All without my intervention. And significantly to my >annoyance. You see that increase in plus means that I've turned into a >blasted hyperope! And add on that truly annoying presbyopia, I'm not at >all a supporter of "the plus" ! Welcome to the club, Larry. I voted against you, but there was overwhelming support for your admission. Neil Hapless Hyperopes of America > Welcome to the club, Larry. I voted against you, but there was > overwhelming support for your admission. > > Neil > Hapless Hyperopes of America Thanks a lot ;-( Very<BG> LB,OD HHA/HHI (there's a really big international club) member since '02 > > I am. The Young-Oakley study was performed on myopes who all showed > > nearpoint esophoria, which is not a common finding in my practice. So, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > with someone who has tried it hundreds of times (when I was using > minus lenses on and off) just try it!. The Young-Oakley study was done with bifocals, as I recall. You say that glasses ruin vision, but offer no proof except by saying they cause "inevitable eyestrain." What kind of demonstration of understanding is that? You don't even have enough knowledge to argue the point. Let's take your example and apply it to me. I am a myope and a presbyope. My distance prescription was -4.75 about 10 years/ago, and was stable for many years. Now, it is -3.25. I lost 1.5 diopters of myopia by doing nothing. But, I digress. Let's assume that I want to become less myopic by following your advice NOT TO USE THE WICKED MINUS LENS -- that I should wear only the plus lens. Let's ignore the minor logistical problem of not being able to drive. Without my glasses, my punctum remotum is about 33 centimeters, or about 13 inches. Any amount of plus I would wear would make the punctum remotum even closer, which would make it even more difficult to use the computer. As it is, I wear contact lenses to correct my myopia, so that my punctum remotum is infinity. I wear progressive bifocal lenses with no prescription in the top for my close work. I have never felt a sense of "eyestrain," assuming that we have both have a common reference for such a term (and I am not sure that we do). I never feel eye pain or eye fatigue, assuming those are synonyms for the term "eyestrain." I would presume that all of my patients enjoy clear and comfortable vision from far to near or otherwise they would complain. I think you may have some other issues with your prescription, or else you are suffering from some kind of psychosomatic illness. We do agree on one thing, and that is that I really shouldn't be arguing with you. DrG >> > I am. The Young-Oakley study was performed on myopes who all showed >> > nearpoint esophoria, which is not a common finding in my practice. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > understanding is that? You don't even have enough knowledge to argue > the point. IT WORKS FOR ME. I don't need a study. My vision is far more blurred when I look outside after being on the computer OR reading for extended periods of time. Why are you "experts" so thick on this? If you tried it on yourself (if you're a myope) and it doesn't work, so be it. But don't try to tell me something that I have proven hundreds of times in the last 20 years. > Let's take your example and apply it to me. I am a myope and a > presbyope. My distance prescription was -4.75 about 10 years/ago, and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > amount of plus I would wear would make the punctum remotum even closer, > which would make it even more difficult to use the computer. Try - before you open your inexperienced mouth. THEN post your results. > As it is, I wear contact lenses to correct my myopia, so that my > punctum remotum is infinity. I wear progressive bifocal lenses with no > prescription in the top for my close work. I have never felt a sense > of "eyestrain," assuming that we have both have a common reference for > such a term (and I am not sure that we do). I never feel eye pain or > eye fatigue, assuming those are synonyms for the term "eyestrain." By saying that it proves you understand nothing about the eyestrain I've been referring to. Or are incapable of comprehending the written word. I'm glad you're no doctor of mine. > I > would presume that all of my patients enjoy clear and comfortable > vision from far to near or otherwise they would complain. If they did, you'd treat them like you treat me and others. You first wouldn't listen. Then you'd discount their input because it wasn't a valid, scientific study. You have a closed mind. Sometimes high education does that to people. > I think you may have some other issues with your prescription, or else > you are suffering from some kind of psychosomatic illness. We do agree > on one thing, and that is that I really shouldn't be arguing with you. So learn to use your fill filter. I hate responding to people that don't read and won't try new things. I hate even more you dispensing ignorant information to people that otherwise might live a lifetime without myopic correction. Knowledge most certainly does not equate with wisdom. >>> > I am. The Young-Oakley study was performed on myopes who all showed >>> > nearpoint esophoria, which is not a common finding in my practice. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >don't try to tell me something that I have proven hundreds of times in >the last 20 years. The problem here is that you don't seem to understand what it is you have going (despite my pointing you in the right direction on multiple occasions). If you think you're reversing myopia, you're wrong. If you understand what pseudomyopia is, and that myopes are better off /not/ wearing their minus lenses for near work, then you're getting closer to the real issue. Claiming some miracle cures without understanding the science behind them is ... what was your word again? thick. I'll join with others who imply that your ignorance (in the literal sense) is getting in the way of your learning. >> Let's take your example and apply it to me. I am a myope and a >> presbyope. My distance prescription was -4.75 about 10 years/ago, and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >I've been referring to. Or are incapable of comprehending the written >word. I'm glad you're no doctor of mine. I'm sure they're all equally glad that you are no patient of theirs. >> I >> would presume that all of my patients enjoy clear and comfortable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >a valid, scientific study. You have a closed mind. Sometimes high >education does that to people. Actually, most of us are trying to educate you--the hallmark, IMO, of a good doctor. You refuse to take the next steps in gaining an understanding of what's going on when you use these lenses. Instead, you follow behind a complete idiot (Otis) who makes disproven claims about what it accomplishes. How's that reading on accommodative lag/infacility coming? Are you ready to speak intelligently with the participants of this forum, or are you more interested in character assassination and verbal asssaults? >> I think you may have some other issues with your prescription, or else >> you are suffering from some kind of psychosomatic illness. We do agree [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >information to people that otherwise might live a lifetime without myopic >correction. Knowledge most certainly does not equate with wisdom. Pot . . . kettle ... black. You seem to be lacking in both, Ms. Gertrude, your vehement protestations notwithstanding. Myopes do not reverse myopia through use of the plus lens. That's what the studies show ... virtually every time. They may, however, stave off PSEUDOmyopia, either through removing minus lenses for near work (good idea) or through the use of the plus lens at near. Good visual hygiene, or nightly use of cycloplegic drops, can accomplish the same thing. Should we assert that those can arrest myopia, or reverse its course? They can't (Atropine, can, but that's a different story with horrible side effects). Go try your "experiment" under the supervision of an optometrist--with before and after cycloplegic exams. Your underlying refraction won't change. It won't. I'm telling you (regardless of what you think. This one's easily proven). You are doing a remarkable job of sounding like Otis: demonstrating zealotry, certitude, defensiveness, and resentment rather than enlightening yourself as to what's /really/ going on. Why would you choose that route?? > How's that reading on accommodative lag/infacility coming? Sorry - I've misplaced the links - if you mentioned them before. Please be good enough to post them again. I need something written in laymen's language. Something a 2 year old with Alzheimer's and severe mental retardation can grasp at a glance. And I and others do appreciate you doctors educating the lay people here. We may not agree with the direction of your practice but you do exibit a lot of patience with us here. And for that we are grateful. >> How's that reading on accommodative lag/infacility coming? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >but you do exibit a lot of patience with us here. And for that >we are grateful. a) I'm not a doctor b) Search, using Google, or equivalent. You'll find the links c) I don't see that you're becoming educated. Just annoying. If you've come hear to learn, I and others are willing to provide you with tools to do so. If you've come here to be indignant, insulting, and a zealot, I've spent all the time that /I/ care to spend. d) (For Otis: so fond of pithy aphorisms) A wise man can learn from a fool, but a fool cannot learn from a wise man. Coming here with an insulting tone because others know more about vision than you will get you ... about the same place as plus lens therapy will get your axial-length myopia: nowhere. Back in the killfile, then. > Myopes do not reverse myopia through use of the plus lens. That's > what the studies show ... virtually every time. Neil, I have never said that that was so. I simply said I see better (in the distance) after doing close work if I wear Plus lenses. Also that my distance vision improved significantly after dumping my glasses. That took about 2 or 3 weeks. It didn't improve after that. I have never done any eye exercises or much of the Bates treatments. >> Myopes do not reverse myopia through use of the plus lens. That's >> what the studies show ... virtually every time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >glasses. That took about 2 or 3 weeks. It didn't improve after that. >I have never done any eye exercises or much of the Bates treatments. When did you first come to sci.med.vision? What induced you to participate in this newsgroup? >>> Myopes do not reverse myopia through use of the plus lens. That's >>> what the studies show ... virtually every time. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > When did you first come to sci.med.vision? I drop in and out. Haven't been here for quite a while though. > What induced you to participate in this newsgroup? I'd love to see better without glasses. I'm also worried about presbyopia though I haven't read anything about it. As a -1.5 myope it doesn't affect me much though in the future its inevitable. "Georgeous Gertrude" <gertrude-doesnt@live-here.sorry> > IT WORKS FOR ME. I don't need a study. My vision is far more blurred > when I look outside after being on the computer OR reading for extended > periods of time. Why are you "experts" so thick on this? Because eyeballs don't get shorter or longer when you read. And because we don't get the same results when we remove our glasses after reading. >> Let's take your example and apply it to me. I am a myope and a >> presbyope. My distance prescription was -4.75 about 10 years/ago, and >> was stable for many years. Now, it is -3.25. I lost 1.5 diopters of >> myopia by doing nothing. But, I digress. At your age, the entire population, on average, shows the same shift. How did you improve so much while you were presumably wearing glasses for driving and other distance tasks? > Try - before you open your inexperienced mouth. THEN post your results. I've TRIED it. My vision doesn't get blurrier after reading. > By saying that it proves you understand nothing about the eyestrain > I've been referring to. Or are incapable of comprehending the written > word. I'm glad you're no doctor of mine. Perhaps your doctor can define and identify the source of "eyestrain you can't feel?" > If they did, you'd treat them like you treat me and others. You first > wouldn't listen. Then you'd discount their input because it wasn't > a valid, scientific study. You have a closed mind. Sometimes high > education does that to people. We never disbelieve symptoms. But often we have to get past the patient's own diagnosis of the cause. -MT So, what is it that you have tried and works? Works for what? Eyestrain? I prescribe plus lenses all the time for eyestrain and accommodative /convergence problems. I thought you were trying to argue that plus lenses prevent or reduce myopia. My mistake. DrG > So, what is it that you have tried and works? Works for what? > Eyestrain? I prescribe plus lenses all the time for eyestrain and > accommodative /convergence problems. > I thought you were trying to argue that plus lenses prevent or reduce > myopia. My mistake. I would think they do. But I can't comment on that since I haven't seen it happen for me. To me, +lenses simply allow me to see better (distance) after doing extended close work. If I don't use them, I see much worse. And it takes at least an hour for the eyes to seem to adjust. I never wear (maybe once a year) corrective lenses/contacts. As I thought. You have an accommodative infacility problem that results in blurred vision after close work. Your ciliary muscle contracts and is loathe to relax. This has long been recognized as being different from "true" myopia, caused by elongation of the posterior chamber, resulting in thinning retinas and all of the other myopic degenerations. Drg Dear GG, Suggestion: Responsiblity Since you are curious, why not look at an eye chart. Since you can "function" without the -1.5 diotper lens is sounds like you are an "accommodative" myope, and miight be PRESCRIBED a plius lens. These doctors seem to think that is a good idea. The only issue is to make certain you pass the required legal VA that applies to you. If you have accommodation-myopia, you can probably clear your distant vision. Further, as you get older, your distant vision is predicted to "clear" anyway. Best, Otis The problem is that GG has not worn minus lenses, which means that her accommodative system has become "lazy." This is indeed what happens when one wears plus lenses all the time. Not a desirable state of affairs, IMO. I doubt that she will clear 1.5 diopters of myopia. DrG > "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in message >> Drs. Young and Oakley published a study that you have misinterpreted as >> being germane, when it is really about preventing accommodative, or >> functional myopia. Other studies have confirmed this. > Are you distinguishing here between "accomodative" and "axial" myopia, the > latter being far more common? They often coexist, then the accommodative part diminishes naturally with age. The axial component is the durable part we consider "real" myopia, but the accommodation part is found in a greater population. The eye with accommodative myopia is in the very same state as every uncorrected young hyperope who "induces" myopia to offset his hyperopia. It is so effortless for young hyperopes that it must be easy for myopes, too, and individual variation dictates that some of them will over-accommodate.. Many or most young myopes over-accommodate by a quarter or half diopter. A minority of them over-accommodate to extremes, but add the uncorrected hyperopes and "overaccommodation" is more universal than axial myopia, in the US. Axial myopia usually peaks before age 30. Accommodation is a facile reflex in the young. Presbyopia eliminates accommodation. Therefore you'd expect a large number of myopes to get LESS nearsighted by a quarter or half diopter (or more!) between ages 30 and 50. Indeed that is what happens. Hyperopes get "worse" at the same age. -MT > That way they could do a "comparison" between these > to "opposit" methods. Just to make it clear, Otis is a native English speaker. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply >> That way they could do a "comparison" between these >> to "opposit" methods. > >Just to make it clear, Otis is a native English speaker. Now /that's/ funny! Dear Bev, Since you post once a week, I think most "newbies" would read your post, and read about the majority opinion and the second-opinion -- and list Steve Leung OD's web site. That way they could do a "comparison" between these to "opposit" methods. They should know that "experts" have profoundly different views on prevention -- with the person concerned educated sufficiently to make an honest choice in the matter. Best, Otis > and list Steve Leung OD's web site. > > to "opposit" methods. They should know that > "experts" have profoundly different views on > prevention I have a web site. You have a web site. Does that make us "experts?" -MT > Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Otis This is clearly not an academic setting. There is no peer review, and you can clearly say anything you want, and as many times as you want. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply
|
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.