 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2005Hey, Otis ... your DIShonesty never fails to astound me....
Why don't you and Steve Leung ever post your failures ... you know: the cases where you either don't help, or possibly HURT people. Too many to list?? For example: Mrs. E. wrote in to Steve Leung's website. You and he were doing your knight-in-shining-armor routine to help her with her newly-diagnosed myopic son. What you don't seem to point out is what Mrs. E. just told me TODAY (she has asked that I don't post her name on this forum, but I gave her a link to s.m.v. and told her how she can participate herself): [QUOTE] I am not sure what went wrong. I did get the plus lens for my son . He used +2.00 lens . But when I got him tested last month, the doctor said that his vision got poorer . He prescribed him -2.75 in Right eye and -3.00 in left eye. Last year his eyes, before I started the plus lens, were -1.00 in R and -1.25 in the left. I feel guilty that I had opted for the wrong technique of plus lens for my son and consider myself responsible for his bad vision now. The doctor says that he is a case of progressive myopia and his eyes will continue to get bad. [/QUOTE] You're messing with people's lives here, Otis, and you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. I know, I know, Otis: the child didn't work at it hard enough ... or whatever bull$hit you like to spew at this point. Back off, you sick old man. TO THE DOCS ON THIS SITE: Mrs. E. is looking for a referral to a top-notch optometrist/ophthalmologist to follow her son's case. He has, to her knowlege, /never/ had a cycloplegic exam. She's located in the Bay Area of California. I'm not a professional in this field, but I know when someone's not contributing to a discussion and no longer welcome. Otis should pack up his opinions, swallow his pride and just GO. Joe's Garage?? Nice! >Joe's Garage?? Yeah well - I've been on some weird music kicks lately - I was getting back into some old 80's stuff for awhile, and recently came across a buttload of Zappa, some of which I'd heard many years ago (Joe's Garage, Zoot Allures, Thing-Fish...) - but most of which I'd never seen. So I'm wading through it all, seeing what I do and don't like. I'm getting some strange reactions when I quote some of the lyrics and laugh, but oh well. Gotta keep 'em guessing. ;-) Dear Neil, Subject: Choice and decision. I have no problem with a person's child who is at 20/40 to 20/50. The EASY way is no doubt a minus lens of about --1.0 to -1.5 diopters. The "minus" works as it always has -- by making the kid's vison 20/20, 20/15 and even 20/10 -- if the kid's retina is capable of that kind of resolution. At that point the child can function with-out the minus. The only issue would be if the parents were OFFERED the use of the plus as the SECOND OPINION. In my judgment, the parents should be offered a discussion, and a "signature" indicating that they had been informed of this "choice". If they REJECT the use of the plus at that point -- then no further "work" would be done for prevention for that person. But you do make a good point. If anything (for prevention) is to be done, then most likely the person will have to do it for himself. But that is the nature of prevention -- and the difficulties assocated with it. The alternative is to continue with the minus lens, and say gee-wiz, I wonder why there is so mucy mopia about. Best, Otis Dear Neil, Subject: Taking over "personal control" If you have read my web-site it is -- for the most part limited to mature people, who can make a decision in their life. In all cases, one way or the other, they have had medical issues checked by a medical person. The only issue is vision less than 20/40 but better than 20/70. In each case the person concerned (if he had the motivation) read his own eye chart -- and worked with the plus. No doubt most will quit before they see results. But that is up to them. In stronges terms -- I suggest that the person review what is important to him --before he starts this process. But to respond: ______________________ What you don't seem to point out is what Mrs. E. just told me TODAY (she has asked that I don't post her name on this forum, but I gave her a link to s.m.v. and told her how she can participate herself): Otis> REMEMBER I only SUGGEST that a person informed of this POTENTIAL choice -- at 20/50, and BEFORE the child starts wearing the minus. If he is wearing a minus -- then he is beyone the point where the plus can be effective. For any OD or MD, I would hope that this person has been informed of this type of "agreement" by signed consent. I would have gladly signed that type of agreement. [QUOTE] I am not sure what went wrong. I did get the plus lens for my son . He used +2.00 lens . But when I got him tested last month, the doctor said that his vision got poorer . Otis> What was his eye chart when he started? He prescribed him -2.75 in Right eye and -3.00 in left eye. Otis> If he was that deep into it -- then he was beyond the point where the plus could have been effective FOR PREVENTION. I have made THAT POINT VERY CLEAR. Last year his eyes, before I started the plus lens, were -1.00 in R and -1.25 in the left. I feel guilty that I had opted for the wrong technique of plus lens for my son and consider myself responsible for his bad vision now. Otis> What was the "kids" habits? If the kid was this "nose on the page" type -- then the plus could have little or no effect. The most important step for the parents -- is to stop that "bad habit". [Sorry -- got to run now.] The doctor says that he is a case of progressive myopia and his eyes will continue to get bad. [/QUOTE] You're messing with people's lives here, Otis, and you have NO IDEA what you're talking about. I know, I know, Otis: the child didn't work at it hard enough ... or whatever bull$hit you like to spew at this point. > Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 20/15 and even 20/10 -- if the kid's retina is capable of that kind of > resolution. Isn't zero more "plus" than minus is? In other words, with no lens you're using a "plus" lens in the sense that it is more plus than the prescribed lens. >[QUOTE] I feel guilty > that I had opted for the wrong technique of plus lens for my son and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You're messing with people's lives here, Otis, and you have NO IDEA > what you're talking about. Perhaps Otis should be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. In the end it will be Mrs. E's fault for listening to some troll from the internet, but this is why fools like Otis should be stopped. They get dupped by snakeoil salesmen like Otis. In fact there is scientific evidence that undercorrecting myopia can cause the myopia to worsen so Otis' practices are actually making the problem worse rather than better. Go away you old fool. Go away before someone gets the authorities after you. Perhaps Otis should be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. In the end it will be Mrs. E's fault for listening to some troll from the internet, but this is why fools like Otis should be stopped. Otis> You seem to want to prosecute all ODs and MDs who do not agree with you. I suggest that the mechanism of the "second opinion" be used here. This is of course the recommendation of Steve Leung OD at: www.chinamyopia.org It is up to the "informed parent" to make the choice. My only suggestion is that the parent be presented with a "statement" about the proposed preventive measure (including a review of the Oakley-Young study) and allowed to make a choice. I see nothing wrong with being presented with a choice. Why do you have a problem with freedom of choice -- I wonder. RM> They get dupped by snakeoil salesmen like Otis. Otis> Sorry RM -- I don't sell anything anymore. My book is on the internet for free. Further, I would like to have the person undercontrol of a PREVENTION MINDED optometrist like Steve Leung -- who has HIS OWN CHILDREN wearing a plus -- when they do ANY READING. RM> In fact there is scientific evidence that undercorrecting myopia can cause the myopia to worsen ... Otis> With VERY SMALL GROUPS -- not valid statistically. With LARGE GROUPS, as per the Oakley Young study, the result of putting a single minus on a child was that their refractive state when "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. Otis> Thus you are VERY SELECTIVE in you judgment. This simply suggests that a "second opinion" is valid -- but the limit is that a decision to use the plus "agressively" must take place before that minus lens is applied. Further, the Oakley-Young does indicate that once you start wearing that minus (all the time) you simply can not get out of it at some future date. Snip the majority opinion blah, blah. Best, Otis > Otis> You seem to want to prosecute all ODs and MDs who do not agree > with you. I suggest that the mechanism of the "second opinion" be used > here. This is of course the recommendation of Steve Leung OD at: > > www.chinamyopia.org See, here we go again, 'round and 'round the merrygoround of misinformation. I believe that I read that Steven Leung was being investigated by his own licensing board in his home country. That is typically the way matters are handled with licensed professionals. On the other hand, Otis has no license to practice medicine, yet loves to wear the "mantle" of authority and wisdom and to dole out medical advice such as "myopia in a child can be prevented with plus lenses." Anyway, I am not in favor of prosecuting or persecuting anybody. Eventually the merits of the arguments, the evidence pro- and con- are much more persuasive. That is precisely the reason optometrists don't push plus lenses anymore. DrG Dear DrG, Subject: Supressing the "second opinion" If you love to over-prescribe your children and create stair-case myopia for them -- I have no problem with that If you tell the public that a minus lens has no effect on the NATURAL primate eye -- then I have a very serious scientific problem with that -- be cause it is not OBEJECTIVELY true -- in pure science. But if you tell me that the plublic will not "accept" the use of the plus (at the 20/40 and 20/50 level) then I would agree with you. But if you insist that there is no "preventive" second opinion I would strongly disagree with you on the basis of the FACT that Steve Leung has HIS OWN CHILDREN WEARING THE PLUS FOR ALL CLOSE WORK. Clearly I do agree that this is "difficult". But I certainly agree that is wise -- based on objective scientific fact as they concern the dynamic behavior of the natural PRIMATE eye under STRICT scientific control. (i.e., testing on an "input" versus "output" conditions to prove that a population of NATURAL eyes "follows" a change in its average-visual environment.) It is clear that you don't understand this type of scientific testing -- where the goal it to prove the sophistication and capability of the natural eye -- as an "auto-focused" camera. But please to not attempt to "trash" the second-opinion. After all, if a son asked his father for bread -- would give him a stone. I am certain that you so love that minus lens -- that you would put your own children in it. That makes your "position" absolutly ethical. But when other ODs realize the effect of the minus lens on there own children -- they you have a true "sea change" in attitude towards prevention. This is why I suggest that the mechanism of "change" must be an more open "scientific" mind on the subject. Otherwise we just keep on repeating the mistakes of the past, again, and again and again. i.e., that -1/2 diopter per year of the minus-lens control group of the Oakley-Young study. Best, Otis > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > children and create stair-case myopia > for them -- I have no problem with that Oh, goody. Now I can sue you for libel. DrG Dear DrG, Presenting objective, confirmed scientific facts? No wonder we should doubt the "majority opinion", not to mention your attitude. Thank goodness there are optometrists like Steve Leung OD who do not support you. Best, Otis You implied that I loved to over-prescribe minus thereby causing stair-step myopia. I'll let you know what my attorney thinks. DrG Otis: Just out of curiosity, I did a web search on the Chung study. The first link I found was http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaNews/controllingMyopia.html In which the author of the article writes: "The message that the Chung et al study should send to other would-be clinical myopia researchers is that randomization and masking are good but too little information about the participants can still render even the most well-controlled study useless in terms of clinical applicability." Buuuut, I imagine you'll still quote the study. More power to ya. Dear Scrutinizer, Each "party", i.e., the "majority-opinion" and the "second-opinion" can cite studies -- to support there PREFERRED BELIEF SYSTEM. While I apprecite the need for SOME blind studies in medicine, I rather doubt there usefullness on a scientific level. Most of these studies have the effect of PROVING that a single minus placed on a child's face will result in his refractive state moving "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. (There are few execptions. I take these exceptions as the matter of the foxes being in charge of the chicken coop.) Even Francis Young's study was difficult for that matter. Francis recognized that it is natural for a child to AVOID looking through the "plus". Since this was a "blind" study -- there was no way that even HE could check. But he did use a "high plus" which forced the child to look THROUGH the plus -- but he still had to ASSUME that they actually did so. Even with these difficulties he showed that the "down" rate for the "plus" group was approximately zero, while the single-minus went down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. These studies can be reported by the "bais" of the reporter. We can draw several conclusions from this. 1. The second-opinion is valid -- but the Oakley-Young study suggests that a stronger plus be started BEFORE any minus is applied. 2. Some optometrists must be drawing the correct conclusion from this -- and more importantly the "pure science" primate studies. 3. Prevention is indeed difficult for these reasons. It is my understanding the Steve Leung has his 5 year-old child alway put on a stronger plus whenever she does any reading. (This is a matter of personal choice -- but suggests the nature of the optometrist of the future.) I have suggested that we must learn to "change together", and that means you and I, and the parents understanding the need for this change. 4. I have personally acknowledged some of my own "bad habits" as a 6 year old child. (Had I known then what I know now -- I would not have done it.) For that reason, I judge that the parents should have some of this scientific information presented to them. The worst that they could do would be to totally ignore it. But then they could hardly asign responsibilty elsewhere for the consequences. 5. The difference between my "suggestions" and the "majority opinion" is that I check the facts -- the proven that a population of natural eyes "follow" a negative change in there visual enviroment (as a sophisticated control system.) The purpose of the exhaustive review was not to "disparage" the optometrist -- but rather to "open up" to new concepts and preventive approaches. 6. Someone suggested that proving that a population of natural eye are "dynamic" is "dishonest". That is of course false, since anyone who wishes to check the scientifc facts could verify the fact that the natural eye behaves as I stated -- using NEUTRAL (not biased) words to describe what is actually measured (i.e., refractive state). 7. I did make my sister's kids aware of the "preventive" second-opinion, and specifically the Oakley-Young study, and stated that they should be VERY CAREFUL with that minus lens. Indeed a number of ophthalmologists have suggested the same thing. 8. Thus, they (under their own control) used the plus and always made certain they passed all legal visual acuity standards required of them. I suggest that I was honest with them -- and accurate concerning the Oakley-Young study, and the "second opinion" that develops from that understanding. There are no "perfect" answers, and I do acknowledge the difficulties of prevention. But I believe that "new" optometrists will support it with there own children, and the general public if they wish that kind of support. Best, Otis > 5. The difference between my "suggestions" and the "majority opinion" > is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to "disparage" the optometrist -- but rather to "open up" to new > concepts and preventive approaches. The difference between you and the "majority opinion" is that you absolutely ignore the facts, and cling to old, outdated, and disproven theories. Furthermore, your protests notwithstanding, you continually disparage optometrist. You are doing so at this moment. DrG > but too little information about the participants can still render even > the most well-controlled study useless in terms of clinical > applicability." > > Buuuut, I imagine you'll still quote the study. They wore the UC spectacles. They didn't get better. They got worse. What other information do you want? Do you believe undercorrection cures myopia? -MT >> but too little information about the participants can still render even >> the most well-controlled study useless in terms of clinical [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >What other information do you want? Do you believe undercorrection cures >myopia? The Central Scrutinizer is in our camp here, Mike (I think you knew that, but couldn't tell from the wording of your post). > The Central Scrutinizer is in our camp here, Mike (I think you knew > that, but couldn't tell from the wording of your post). No, I was unclear on that but I still think the Wildsoet reference unfairly trashes the Chung study. I don't care that the kids' bedtimes weren't reported. -MT > RM> In fact there is scientific evidence > that undercorrecting myopia can cause the myopia to worsen ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > minus on a child was that their refractive state when "down" at a rate > of -1/2 diopter per year. The Chung study may be "small" in your unlearned opinion but it nevertheless IS statistically valid. Go back to your 1940 statistics book (if you even took any statistics) and you will find that the determination of statistically-significant differences inherently includes an evaluation of the sample size. Wrong again Otis! Why do I have to be the fifteenth billion person to point out to you the well-known shortcomings of the Young study. You just won't accept it. Go play shuffleboard you troll. How statistically-significant are your one-off pilot engineer case reports that you like to give us? How statistically-significant is your fond rememberances of "The Printers Son" and the other BS you like to talk about. You've been cited study after study that PROVES that your tired old 1970's theory is dead just like it was proven to be years ago. All we need is for you to go away you tottering old fool. You mislead and hurt people. Just leave. --- 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. as you say, apparently Otis is unaware that statistics takes into account sample size and sample variability. the real problem with statistical analysis occurs when the sample population does not accurately reflect the true population. that is what the problem was with his beloved Young study. young's sample was biased toward containing persons with accommodative dysfunction. otis will never admit to the truth no matter how completely it is proven. >Why don't you and Steve Leung ever post your failures ... you know: >the cases where you either don't help, or possibly HURT people. Too >many to list?? Here's yet another one. We'll call him Peter (English is not his first language): My question to Peter: Can you tell me whether you wound up using plus lenses for your son? If so, how did things turn out? Anwer: [QUOTE] it was awful experience for me and my son, did not work and I felt like a stupid to believe him. After one year (I mean, I really followed every step as you see from the website), but the result is bad, finally my son has to wear glasses and the vision is worse than year ago, so do not try that, go to see the Dr. as soon as you can. [/QUOTE] At the very least, Our Silly Boy isn't helping anybody. At the very most, he's hurting them. Desperate people, trying to help their kids, mistakenly putting their faith in a person totally unqualified to help. I will attempt to contact the eye docs who are now handling the patients who have been 'treated' based on advice given by our friend here. If appropriate, I'll forward the information to the relevant legal authorities. Quick: this one doesn't count. I'm not _responding_ :-) >Quick: this one doesn't count. I'm not _responding_ :-) Well, for what it's worth, I think he's thrown in the towel - as evidenced by another thread from him today. I remember when the KOOK of KOOKs started raising trouble in a local buy/sell newsgroup in my town; started being obnixious, rude, and annoying - and then he started posting people's home addresses in the groups once they took him to task (including my own) - calling them at home, lurking in front of residences, approaching children of posters in the groups, bla bla bla (scary stuff). Turns out he had a weapons charge in his history. I googled him, and he'd apparently been raising a ruckus for years, in all sorts of 'legal' -oriented newsgroups. Certifiable, this one. Anyway - he started scaring people. That's when I decided it was in my best interest to remain completely anonymous in all Usenet posting, no matter how benign. Point being - I'd recommend being very aware if you elect to 'follow him' into other forums and try to undo the damage he's doing/done. You can't be too sure of how much of a kook one really can be. Could well be just dis-illusioned and otherwise harmless, but nowadays, you just never know. You may well feel morally obliged to take on a mission like that, and I can empathize with the satisfaction it would give - but do consider just letting it all go, now that he _appears_ to have pulled up and moved on. |
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.