 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 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 Reader, Subject: Keep an open mind about the OBJECTIVE FACTS concerning the PROVEN dynamic behavior of the eye. The subject of SCIENCE is part of this discussion. Science means repeatable objective facts. I have just posted facts proving that the natural eye is dynamic (see differential testing) if you have a "mathematical mind", and are willing to think for yourself. Neil has his "opinion" which he expresses forcefully. But he never presents any objective facts to support it. It is true that prevention is difficult, and takes a "will" to do it. But others have done it. The mindless "lock-step" is clear from the statistics published in China. If you wish have your children become part of this lock-step process -- then be my guest. Do it. But if you are prepared to recognize the need for fundamental change, then recognized that you can not "lead" a person -- until that person learns leadership for himself. You should understand that none of this is cut-and-dried, but rather, times and methods do change. So why not read the "second opnion" by Steve Leung OD, and give you kids a break. www.chinamyopia.org Just remember, there are some intellectually stunted people on sci.med.vision -- who haven't a clue. Best, Otis > Just remember, there are some intellectually > stunted people on sci.med.vision -- who > haven't a clue. Just what I was thinking. By the way, you apparently have not figured out how to do a search on PubMed yet, becuase you still haven't found the study about how Alaskan Eskimos become more hyperopic with age, and that 70 percent of Alaskan Eskimos over the age of 80 are hyperopic. In fact, I don't think you've ready any studies published since the 1970's. Is that what you meant by being intellectually stunted? DrG Dear DrG, Apparently you go intellectually blind to all posts on sci.med.vision. The posts on "stair-case" myopia produced by an over-prescribed minus are on sci.med.vision and have dates AFTER 1970. But then you choose to ignore ALL SCIENTIFC FACTS YOU DON'T LIKE. Sounds like systematic bias to me. Best, Otis Sorry, Otis. We've already proved that you are a nut-case, a single minded zealot with an agenda. An agenda based on century-old drivel long since disproved. Once in a while you dig up something more recent, like from a few decades ago, but likewise useless and easily disproved. Once in a while you come up with something that might make some sense---and then we show you how it actually disproves your theory. Three years of daily posting of the same garbage that has been carefully and scientifically shown to you to be nonsense and you don't give up. I think that qualifies you as a nut-case, if not a moron. >Sorry, Otis. We've already proved that you are a nut-case, a single >minded zealot with an agenda. An agenda based on century-old drivel long [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >I think that qualifies you as a nut-case, if not a moron. Larry, Please remember that those two are--clearly, in this case--not mutually exclusive. Neil Sorry - but Otis's opinions completely correlate with my experience. And lots of others. But I've got to commend you on your literary ability. Very humourous choice of words. You write with the authority of a lawyer. I'm sure your post cracked up a lot of people, whether they agree or not with poor ol' Otis. Sorry, Otis. We've already proved that you are a nut-case, a single minded zealot with an agenda. An agenda based on century-old drivel long since disproved. Once in a while you dig up something more recent, like from a few decades ago, but likewise useless and easily disproved. Once in a while you come up with something that might make some sense---and then we show you how it actually disproves your theory. > Three years of daily posting of the same garbage that has been > carefully and scientifically shown to you to be nonsense and you don't > give up. > > I think that qualifies you as a nut-case, if not a moron. > The posts on "stair-case" myopia produced by > an over-prescribed minus are on sci.med.vision > and have dates AFTER 1970. Well, HELLO. They were all posted by you. You've just proven Neil to be correct. DrG > The posts on "stair-case" myopia produced by > an over-prescribed minus are on sci.med.vision > and have dates AFTER 1970. Where are the published comparisons between myopes who wear glasses versus those who don't? > But then you choose to ignore ALL SCIENTIFC > FACTS YOU DON'T LIKE. I'd LOVE to publish a study showing that myopes who wear glasses get myopic faster. D'ya think it's ever been tried? > Sounds like systematic bias to me. As if you'd ever entertained a competing thought.... -MT >Dear Reader, > >Subject: Keep an open mind about the OBJECTIVE FACTS >concerning the PROVEN dynamic behavior of the eye. This is what your pal Fred Deakins has to say "Remember that my system uses the power of leverage to improve your eyesight naturally, similar to using weights at the gym. Can you imagine working out at the gym and not using weights? Certainly you would improve your strength and tone, but I think you'd agree that your results would be significantly less than if you had used weights in your workouts." I love the image.. ROFL. Ann > 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. His interest seems to be directed mainly or entirely to low myopes (or those who are worried about becoming such) with no medical eye problems. For this reason, they would probably be of little interest to most in this group anyhow. >> Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown >> (otisbrown@pa.net) writes, I invite you to review all of his previous [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > problems. For this reason, they would probably be of little interest to > most in this group anyhow. That's a very good point. Otis you should mention that right in the beginning of your posts. There are an awful lot of people that are worse than -2 and would find it very restrictive doing much without correction. Dear Trip-a Joe, Subject: Prevention at the threshold -- avoid stair-case myiopa. >From long experience of interviewing optometrists (prevention minded) it was clear that effective prevention was difficult -- and the person himself would have to make a decision about "taking control" and using the plus agressively and successfully. The goal is to "stop it" before you get too deep into it. Robert Kopp is correct -- that I am interested in helping the person (on the threshold) understand these various issues, an ultimately sufficently motivated to use the plus agressively (checking his own eye chart) and clearing his vision by that process. Obviously I believe (from the direct experimental data) that the natural eye will go "down" when you place a minus lens on it. (As a NATURAL PROCESS not a "defective" process".) So I do set a limit on what I believe can be "effective" for the person -- i.e., start using the plus before you begin wearing the minus -- with a great deal of responsibility and "control" transferred to the person to do it "right". I have developed a "preventive" site: www.myopiafree.com to provide assistance to the optometrist who wishes to "suggest" prevetion to the parents whose children are at that threshold. www.chinamyopia.org I obviously believe that the parents should understand that this is an "either-or" choice, and a "second-opinion". I also believe that an optometrist is completely empowered to practice BOTH methods, and that the preventive method can only be effective if the parents understand it -- and support it. Clearly the "statistics" suggest that the combination of a "near" environment, made "nearer" by a minus lens, is creating massive stair-case myopia for these Chinese. But when you talk to them they always think that "someone else should do something". But equally I understand the "position" of these ODs. Most people ONLY want there vision made very-sharp with an excessively strong minus lens -- and would be "upset" if the ODs stated that there were "risks" to wearing an excessive minus -- all the time. But as always, enjoy our thoughtful analysis of the eye's behavior concerning prevention. Best, Otis > Robert Kopp is correct -- that I am interested in helping the person > (on the threshold) understand these various issues, an ultimately > sufficently motivated to use the plus agressively (checking his own eye > chart) and clearing his vision by that process. It seems more to me that you are on a rather single-minded mission rummaging through the garbage dumpster of discarded and failed ideas to find a scapegoat for your own myopic genes. DrG Dear Robert, A fair comment. This issue might also be of interest to parents who are seriously myopic, who MIGHT be interested in a preventive method offered by an optometrist who has his own children systematically wearing the plus for all close work -- to help them avoid getting into it. But you never know. Some parents are concerned with prevention -- others have no interest. But at least they should have enought knowledge to understand "prevention" as the second-opinion. That way when there kids get stair-case myopia (i.e., -1/2 dipoter per year) they will be under no illusions about who was responsible. Best, Otis |
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.