 |
 | 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 ###
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 Prevention minded friends, There are many in the medical profession who recognize the need for change -- new ideas, better review of the experimental data. We all recognize that a great many people perhaps prefer an instant "fix" with a lens -- that might have a secondary problem with it. Neil Brooks is an unusual person in a number of ways: 1. He his a chauvinist for the "majority opinion". 2. He is acting more like a "defender of the faith" than a "thinking, rational person". 3. His knowledge of fundamental scientific facts, that RESPECTS the natural eye's proven behavior -- is a complete failure. It is true that you can not "reduce" an accurate understanding of the natural eye's behavior -- into a "quick-fix" for the general public walking in off the street. That is what optometry must do. (That is the medical approach.) But a person who is not "caught up" in this tradition of the last 400 years, MIGHT be able to understand and perhaps USE the preventive method on their own children -- before the situation gets out-of-hand. There are many in the OD profession who will argue that the "public" lacks the understanding of these issues, or that the lack the time to discuss these issues with you -- for the benifit of your own children. But then, this would be the "scientific" place to entertain this preventive idea for your own children. This does take time, and your thoughtful review might encourage you to consider the preventive method if offered to you by a "prevention minded" OD like Steve Leung OD. NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER -- YET. Therefor your wise review of the objective facts as then concern the natural eye's response to: 1. The average visual environment, and 2. An applied mild minus lens, would be a wise "starting-point" for a discussion of true prevention. Again, as stated by a number of OD, this would be a wise step. This is a learning experince for your -- which Neil Brooks would deny, because he is a "slave" to the traditional method. and practice. Take Mr. Brooks touching beliefs for what they are worth. Best, Otis > There are many in the medical profession who > recognize the need for change -- new > ideas, better review of the experimental > data. That's why optometrists quit using plus to control myopia. -MT Dear Mike, That is because if YOU are involved the process would be very expensive. Further we are taking about PREVENTION, which MUST involve the parents understanding of the implication of the Oakley-Young study, where the minus-lens group went down at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year. Therefore if ANYTHING effective is to be done -- it must START before that first minus lens is applied. After that minus lens is applied, both the "battle" and "war" are lost. The "cost" of prevention is therefore a person's knowledge of these truths. The "warninig" is that the parents should begin to understand these issues BEFORE they wind up in your office. Clearly the "bifocal" is not the intent -- but rather to learn how to use a strong plus "correctly" by the individual who can master the "art" of self-control of his long-term distant vision. If he "wakes up" to this issue, the "vision clearing" under HIS CONTROL can be effective. The cost of a strong plus $8 is trivial. The knowledge, and "will-power" counts for everything. The knowledge of the proven behavior of the natural eye (primate) can be a factor in that person's choice. But true prevention means that a person receives a "warning" about the existance of the "second-opinion" as stated by Steve Leung OD and others. Ultimate responsibility for "choice" must rest with the preson's concern with this issue. Posting "warnings" about a person's right to a fully informed competent second opinion is NOT how you go about resolving the scientific and personal issue. Best, Otis > Posting "warnings" about a person's right > to a fully informed competent second opinion is > NOT how you go about resolving the scientific > and personal issue. Otis has truly "gone over the edge", a useful USA expression which translates as "he's lost it", a useful USA expression which means he doesn't understand anything. 1. The "warnings" having nothing to do with informed second opinion, only a caution to unsuspecting readers that you're a fool, a nutcase, a zealot with an agenda. I suspect that the warnings are unnecessary as you have made your situation quite clear. 2. Resolving scientific issues requires the acceptance of facts, something Otis not capable of achieving from "over the edge." His is a mission---don't confuse him with facts. Nothing personal, either, just reaching for honesty and truth. "The TRUTH is more powerful than THE PLUS" --LB, O.D> > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > the minus-lens group went down at a rate of > -1/2 dioper per year. The implication of the Oakley-Young study, as other studies have demonstrated, is that bifocals will not stop myopic progression. The true implication is that bifocals are useful in slowing down the rate of myopic progression in the presence of large accommodative lag and esophoria....basically pseudomyopia. Unfortunately, Otis has hung his reputation on this one old study, which appears not to agree with him at all. DrG > Posting "warnings" about a person's right > to a fully informed competent second opinion is > NOT how you go about resolving the scientific > and personal issue. So why do you keep trying? -MT existance -> existence > Dear Prevention minded friends, > > There are many in the medical profession who > recognize the need for change -- new > ideas, better review of the experimental > data. That is why we have "moved on" from a discussion of plus lenses. > We all recognize that a great many people > perhaps prefer an instant "fix" with a > lens -- that might have a secondary > problem with it. People wish for and have a right to clear vision. > 1. The average visual environment, and > > 2. An applied mild minus lens, would be a wise "starting-point" for a > discussion of true prevention. Basically, you want to discuss the issues on your terms, no matter how irrelevant they are. DrG benifit -> benefit Therefor -> Therefore Brooks -> Brooks's >benifit -> benefit >Therefor -> Therefore >Brooks -> Brooks's Your internet skills are appalling. You need to quote some of the post to which you are replying in order for us all to see what you're talking about. You obviously don't understand the different ways in which we read the newsgroup. Education is the key.. educate yourself. benifit -> benefit Therefor -> Therefore Brooks -> Brooks's myopia -> wild theories redundancy -> redundancy spell checkers -> better spelling :-) is..data -> are..data Dear Neil, Are you a victim of myopia? Have you ever tried to wear a pair of plus lens. Don't just criticise the others if you are not a victim or don't want to try it. I've been wearing the plus lens for more than 3 years and have sucessfully reduced my eyesight from -2.8D to -1D. No side effect has been found. My eyes always feel good and relaxed after using the plus lens for reading or just wearing for relaxation. No doubt that people once wore the glasses have to upgrade their diopters by exchanging another glasses some time later or even every year. It did happen to my friends and kids, I feel so upset why there was no way to cure(before I know the use of plus lens) but just put on a pair minus lens to get an instant effect on seeing and it will last for all the rest of life. It is very terrific that thousand of school boys & girls are getting on myopia and the so-called optomertirsts are doing nothing but selling the minus lens to them.They are not helping but jeopardising them. Thanks to Lawson where the optomertirst taugh me to use plus lens. So, pls try to find more evidence to support the use of plus lens as a prevention and cure and advocate more people to know & use. This could save more our next geneation eyes. Best Regards, > Dear Reader, > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory. > Much, in fact, directly contradicts it. > Dear Neil, > > Are you a victim of myopia? Have you ever tried to wear a pair of plus > lens. Don't just criticise the others if you are not a victim or don't > want to try it. I am a "victim" of myopia. I became myopic at the age of 7 years. Prior to that, I had never worn the "poison minus lens." How in the world did I get myopia without using the "poison minus lens." Why is it that children who don't wear the "poison minus lenses" become myopic at the same rate or greater than those who wear the dreaded minus lens? > I've been wearing the plus lens for more than 3 years and have > sucessfully reduced my eyesight from -2.8D to -1D. No side effect has > been found. My eyes always feel good and relaxed after using the plus > lens for reading or just wearing for relaxation. My myopia went from -4.75 to -3.25 in the course of a few years. The only thing I did was to get older. No plus lenses involved. There is something called accommodative myopia that is caused by over-action of the ciliary muscle. This type of myopia is typically in the range of 1 to 1.5 diopters. So, it is quite natural for someone with pseudomyopia to have the potential for reduction in the range you have experienced. > No doubt that people once wore the glasses have to upgrade their > diopters by exchanging another glasses some time later or even every > year. It did happen to my friends and kids, I feel so upset why there > was no way to cure(before I know the use of plus lens) but just put on > a pair minus lens to get an instant effect on seeing and it will last > for all the rest of life. Myopia tends to increase due to genetics and the environment. It is natural for people to exchange their eyeglasses as their refractive error changes, like getting a larger waist size when you put on weight, and a smaller waist size when you lose weight. You are confusing the effect with the cause. > It is very terrific that thousand of school boys & girls are getting on > myopia and the so-called optomertirsts are doing nothing but selling > the minus lens to them.They are not helping but jeopardising them. > > Thanks to Lawson where the optomertirst taugh me to use plus lens. I think your remark is rather cheeky. Optometrists are very much involved in trying to discover preventive techniques. Optometrists were at the forefront of using bifocals and plus lenses some years ago. This is old, old, old rehashed stuff. Unfortunately, real world experience combined with really good research studies convinced us that such methods were not effective. We now now that bifocals are helpful in reducing the progression of accommodative myopia in patients with a large lag of accommodation coupled with nearpoint esophoria. Perhaps you are one of those myopes. > So, pls try to find more evidence to support the use of plus lens as a > prevention and cure and advocate more people to know & use. This could > save more our next geneation eyes. But, dear sir, the evidence is there in abundance. Why do you choose to ignore it? Are you saying that your personal experience is more valid than the experiences of thousands of optometrists and their patients? Currently, there is no evidence whatsoever that we need to change the current clinical practice. If there is a cure for myopia in the future, the world will beat a path to it, and nobody will be able to stand in the way of progress. DrG >Dear Neil, > >Are you a victim of myopia? Did Otis simply rent a short bus for all you guys? >Have you ever tried to wear a pair of plus >lens. Don't just criticise the others if you are not a victim or don't >want to try it. I wear strong plus lenses during every waking hour. Hasn't changed my cycloplegic refraction one bit. >I've been wearing the plus lens for more than 3 years and have >sucessfully reduced my eyesight [snip] I'm sorry that your eyesight has been reduced. I would have cautioned you not to listen to Otis. >No doubt that people once wore the glasses have to upgrade their >diopters by exchanging another glasses some time later or even every >year. It did happen to my friends and kids, I feel so upset why there >was no way to cure(before I know the use of plus lens) but just put on >a pair minus lens to get an instant effect on seeing and it will last >for all the rest of life. More anecdotal bull$hit from the BestOtisEngineer Peanut Gallery, I fear. >It is very terrific that thousand of school boys & girls are getting on >myopia and the so-called optomertirsts are doing nothing but selling [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >prevention and cure and advocate more people to know & use. This could >save more our next geneation eyes. Or not. Who are you? Where do you come from? Tell your charismatic leader -- you know: the one who will, eventually, ask you to join him in a big punch bowl full of Kool Aid -- that the procedure for testing plus lens therapy has been laid out for him countless times. The onus is on him. It's his theory. Many other studies say it doesn't reverse myopia or prevent its 'inevitable' progression. What is this, Otis? Dawn of the dead?? Where are you dredging up your recent spate of zombies?? So far, the only _clear_ result of consistent use of the plus, in myopes, is that your ability to think critically immediately drops to zero, but your propensity to spout streams of logical fallacies is greatly enhanced. Welcome to my killfile, Senor Douchebag. > So far, the only _clear_ result of consistent use of the plus, in > myopes, is that your ability to think critically immediately drops to > zero, but your propensity to spout streams of logical fallacies is > greatly enhanced. I think you may have stumbled upon a new clinical entity. I'll dub it "Myopia plus lens syndrome", or MPLS. If you take a perfectly normal myope of above average intelligence, and have him/her wear plus lenses, in no time at all he falls into a semi-vegetative dream state in which he can only type to sci.med.vision the streams you mention which amount to nothing more than a hare krishna style hypnotic mantra. Fortunately, MPLS is immediately reversed when a friend or relative stumbles upon the poor creature and cleverly substitutes his old magic minus lenses for the dollar store readers. He immediately recalls that the earth is round, that fluoride in the water doesn't kill, and that the minus is not poison after all. And he can once again drive safely. Also fortunately enough, MPLS is exceedingly rare, affecting fewer than .0000001 of the human population. w.stacy, o.d. Neil, this is a perfect example of a well educated, highly trained, and very knowledgeable expert in his field simply not listening to the public. There will never be any advancements at the "street" level if doctors continue to ignore the feedback of their patients. >> Dear Neil, >> [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > Welcome to my killfile, Senor Douchebag. >Neil, this is a perfect example of a well educated, highly trained, and >very knowledgeable expert in his field simply not listening to the public. >There will never be any advancements at the "street" level if doctors >continue to ignore the feedback of their patients. Uh, no ... it isn't. It's an example of a person (me) saying "You repeating something over and over--or getting yet another to say that something is true for them--doesn't rise to the level of scientific proof." What you guys are guilty of is: 1) Post hoc ergo propter hoc 2) Repeating anecdotal evidence as gospel when it clearly is not 3) Failing to recognize what controlled testing has shown ... repeatedly 4) Not having the information to discern between accommodative myopia and axial-length myopia 5) Changing your on-screen identity to bypass my killfile Goodbye, GG. I'll add /this/ version of you to my killfile as well. Dear ODW, Subject: Respect for the second-opinion Re: Respecting the fundamental eye as "dynamic" on a scientific level. Thanks for your "vote" of confidence for Lawson's. There are now a few (very few) ODs who respect your right to an informed choice, when you are on the threshold. I would GLADLY PAY for their professional advice -- when I need it. I also respect the fact that it is (initially) hard to understand the necessity of agressive use of the plus on the threshold. You recognize that the "attacks" are not against me, but rather a method of maintaining the "status quo", and come down to an attack against your right to be fully informed of this "choice". So stay with this method that is working. It it difficult -- but it beats the alternative. I have BEGGED these ODs to drop there "pretense" and help us to lean about prevention -- even if we must do it "ourselves". But they will not budge. So let us all learn the science of the natural eye's behavior, and apply that knowledge to achieve effective prevention as suggested by the Oakley-Young study. Best, Otis > So let us all learn the science of the natural eye's behavior, and > apply that knowledge to achieve effective prevention as suggested by > the Oakley-Young study. Lead by example, and quit misinterpreting the meaning of the scientific data to fit your agenda. The Young-Oakley study does not support you at all. DrG Well said Otis. Knowledge most certainly doesn't equate to wisdom. Here you have experts in their field not listening to the feedback of people that are taking their advice. > Dear ODW, > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Otis Well said. > Are you a victim of myopia? Have you ever tried to wear a pair of plus > lens. Don't just criticise the others if you are not a victim or don't [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] >> information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory. >> Much, in fact, directly contradicts it.
|
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.