 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2005*-*-* OTIS BROWN WARNING *-*-*
Dear Reader, Otis Brown is in no way qualified to give medical advice. Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown (otisbrown@pa.net) writes, I urge 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 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/i7k2 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.  SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live In his defense, using plus lenses for close work at the very least will greatly reduce eyestrain. if you dont want to use plus lenses and you can see well enough to read from xxx distance, do so. Someone whos -3 can see perfectly well from 13 inches, no glasses needed! Ace belched out the following statement: "in his defense, using plus lenses for close work at the very least will greatly reduce eyestrain." how about saying it this way. using plus lenses for close work, AT THE VERY MOST, will reduce eyestrain. its also good for resolving and preventing pseudomyopia that comes with close work. I have been undercorrecting myself around the house and computer and ive noticed alot less eyestrain and a reduction of the pseudomyopia part. Dear Acema, While you hear ONLY the "majority opinion" ODs, the real nature of the "second opinion" is what a wise OD -- who is completely conversant with the objective facts -- will provide for their own children. So while you might receive "warnings" from the scientifically stunted Neil Brooks, the real truth is that while difficult, true prevention is possible at the threshold. In that limited statement, (i.e., clearing from 20/50 or 20/60) I believe that a higly motivated person could "clear" without any "involvement" of an OD. After all, what would you need them for? [Obviously AFTER all true medical issues have been resolved. I don't consider an undesired refractive state of the natural eye (pseudo-myopia) to be a medical issue -- only a scientific issue.] Enjoy! Otis >So while you might receive "warnings" from the scientifically >stunted Neil Brooks, the real truth is that while difficult, >true prevention is possible at the threshold. C'mon, Otis. My 'macaque' remark was an order of magnitude more clever than that. I'll give you another try. Go. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states. I suggest that there is a profound difference concerning "pure science" and "pure medicine". And I suggest the difference is this: Medicine: Must deal with a great mass of people walking in off the street. There might be some "intelligent" people but that can never be the assumption of the medical doctor. The result is that we get "canned" procedures that "work" instantly. I consider that people in this profession have no choice but to conduct that kind of work -- and I would do the same thing IN THEIR PROFESSION. That would not make it "right" but I do understand them -- and what they are doing. Science: Must "step back" from that situation, and thinks about the behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system. Engineers and scientists simply do not deal with children, nor with others that do not understand the need to work on prevention with the plus. But when you ask very fundament questions about whether a population of eyes (primates) are dynamic, you get the "second-opinion" answer, that POTENTIALLY a negative refractive status could be prevented -- before the minus lens is applied. I believe that pure science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not medical -- experiments proves that point.) But that is the nature of our arguments. Many concepts in science simply can never be reduced to "medicine" and we should understand that truth. I enjoyed your write-up about pure science, and the "habit" of tossing science out the window when a concept (like the dynamic eye) can never produce a quick-fix in 15 minutes. But that is how I separate "medical issues" from scientific concepts and experimental and objective testing. But that is why it took a scientist like Dr. Stirling Colgate to do the "work" correctly and clear his vision from 20/70 to 20/20. His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the primate eye, again on a pure-scientific (not medical) level. Use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can have positive and negative refractive status (as a dynamic device) and this situation becomes much clearer. Best, Otis > Dear Prevention minded friends, Dear prevention minded friends. Otis is not in the medical profession to give medical advice. Please disregard his postings. Thank you! Allen wrong otis. you are an engineer. engineers develop a model of a system that functions the way they want and then they build it. the model precedes the end-product and defines it. medical scientists (meaning scientists who work on the functioning of the human body) do not have a model. they probe how the system works via experimentation and then develop a model that explains the data. you are confused because you have made up a model that does not explain the data, but for some reason you like it and you ignor the fact that it doesn't really explain how the eye actually works. not very scientific or objective now is it. discard your model. it is wrong. it doesn't explain why hyperopes don't resolve their refractive state when they don't wear glasses. it doesn't explain why myopes who don't wear the glasses get worse at the same rate as those that do (or even wear a corrections with excessive minus). you cling to one or two studies that you like, and then throw in some chicken development data. if your idea was true then it would explain all the experimental results. the king has no clothes otis. go away and stay away. you are no scientist-- just a stubborn old coot who can't admit he's wrong. Actually, it is the "Emperor has no cloths on", and that applies to you my friend. (H.C.A.) PClar> the king has no clothes otis. go away and stay away. you are no scientist-- just a stubborn old coot who can't admit he's wrong. But the better analogy is as in the "Wizard of Oz", when the "screen" is pulled back by Toto, and the Wizard say, "...I am not a bad man, I'm just a bad Wizard". Best, Otis > wrong otis. > > you are an engineer. engineers develop a model of a system that But he is an "optical engineer". I read it on the internet, and it doesn't lie. You just send them US$40.00 and you get some pieces of paper that tell you how to fix your eyes. Wouldn't you too like to pay big money for some pieces of paper? SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Dear Dan, Some corrections: Dan> But he is an "optical engineer". Otis> I am a electrical engineer. I read it on the internet, and it doesn't lie. You just send them US$40.00 and you get some pieces of paper that tell you how to fix your eyes. Otis> Be clear about "them". Them is not me. My site is free. I do list some people who sell products, like optometrists, pilots, an others. You can buy their product -- or not. Or you can figure it out yourself, and "clear" by using a plus under your control. This does not cost $40. Wouldn't you too like to pay big money for some pieces of paper? Otis> I don't know. A prescription minus lens costs from $200 to $400 for two pair. And you object to doing "clearing" work from 20/60 to 20/30 for free. Otis> You have an interesting "value" system. www.myopiafree.com Best, Otis SignatureDan Abel > Dear Dan, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Otis> I am a electrical engineer. This isn't rocket science. I go to your site, listed below by you. I click on the USAF Pilot link. I do a quick Google, based on the information shown there. I get: "Even trusted professionals recommend my book. During my years of study, I made friends with one of the most respected optical engineers at NASA, Mr. Otis Brown" Wait a minute, it *is* rocket science! http://www.eyezercise.com/ I called you on this a few weeks ago. It's still there. Be sure that you will see this again on this group, over and over, until it is gone, or you provide an explanation. > I read it on the internet, and it > doesn't lie. You just send them US$40.00 and you get some pieces of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > a plus under your control. This > does not cost $40. We are judged by our friends and associates. You have quoted this guy big time on this group. You quote him on your site. > Wouldn't you too like to pay > big money for some pieces of paper? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > doing "clearing" work from 20/60 to > 20/30 for free. I'm told that "clearing" doesn't work. I won't waste my time. Glasses work. They give value for the money. My last pair was US$3.00 and work well. Of course, my insurance company had to pay also. > Otis> You have an interesting > "value" system. Pretty ordinary, really. > www.myopiafree.com SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA >> Dear Dan, >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >you will see this again on this group, over and over, until it is gone, >or you provide an explanation. Wow, Uncle Otie. He's right! That's almost like something akin to a(nother) fraudulent claim, no? I'd change that if I were you. You don't want to hold yourself out as something you're not, would you? SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live The guy is right, Otis is not gaining any monitary compenstation for his advice to improve vision. Hes also being relistic that if your worse than 20/70 you probably wont clear 20/20 and if your 20/200 or worse you may not even clear 20/40. Reguardless, almost everyone can improve their vision more or less. Ive read around and the average amount of improvement seems to be a diopter and a half. I dont think I have much more room for improvement. I started in the -5.5 to -6 diopter range now im like a -5 I could probably get down to a -4 but im not expecting any better or if ill even hit -4 but hey ill take any improvement I can get! ace blurted out: "Hes also being relistic that if your worse than 20/70 you probably wont clear 20/20 and if your 20/200 or worse you may not even clear 20/40." how do you know this is realistic? "Reguardless, almost everyone can improve their vision more or less. Ive read around and the average amount of improvement seems to be a diopter and a half." wrong. and how do you feel like you can give this kind of advice Dr. Ace? because you "read around"? I can tell that your statements are incorrect and inappropriate and i have an OD degree, a graduate degree in visual sciences, and decades of clinical experience. you have a tendency to overstate your opinions a little bit. just "reading around" doesn't cut it when giving people medical advise. what pisses everyone off around here about Otis is that he gives lay-people advise about things that he really doesn't understand and misleads them. he has actually done at least one person harm by inducing diplopia in an exotrope who was using a lot of accommodative convergence to maintain single vision until he started him on using plus lenses. don't be like otis. give advise to people commensurate with your real level of training and understanding. and be up front about it. if you don't mind me asking, how old are you? > if you don't mind me asking, how old are you? I can't tell if he is a 14 year old who hasn't yet found girls or a 99 year old o.d. who just escaped from the home... > Ive read around and the average > amount of improvement seems to be a diopter and a half. Please provide URLs. URL's from KNOWN medical websites, not Otis's. I bet you won't or can't. Thank you! Allen > The guy is right, Otis is not gaining any monitary compenstation for > his advice to improve vision. Hes also being relistic that if your > worse than 20/70 you probably wont clear 20/20 and if your 20/200 or > worse you may not even clear 20/40. Reguardless, almost everyone can > improve their vision more or less. Just put your glasses on. That'll clear it right up. What's the problem? You should get a spell checker also. Might improve your credibility. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: Steve -- who cleared from 20/200 to 20/30 in about four months, and his commentary. These "prevetive" efforts are intense -- no doubt about it -- and therefore depend on a person's judgment. So enjoy the discussions and this learning process. Best, Otis _______ >From Steve, Hi everyone, Just like to add my view. Initially when I first found out this forum, I was very excited...an opportunity to improve my vision. This has been a desire since my late teens, so you can imagine my excitement, then came the disappointment reading Otis's statement that people with 20/70 or more has slim chances of improving vision to 20/40 or better. Not exactly those words but something to that understanding. Naturally, I was very irritated of this "statement", wherelse I can find ppl with 20/200 or worse have improved to 20/20 vision. So I was thinking why Otis kept saying that & dampening people's spirit/motivation to improve their vision. So when I started, I was not so happy but persisted to use plus lens, thinking that I got nothing to lose.....and my vision started to improve As time went by I understood, why Otis made such statement(after much reading). IMHO, it is not to dampen a person's spirit or motivation but NOT TO OVER CLAIM the "cure/prevention" and secondly, if you read at this place : www.google.com then select Groups and type sci.med.vision You'll be astonished how a lot of people bash Otis. In my opinion Otis has nothing to gain out of this, he just want to spread the knowledge of the "second opinion" but unfortunately a lot people don't accept it. So later I realised and began to have a different view why Otis keeps saying that. A better view of course. IMHO,anybody who has no medical problem( eyes) has a very good chance to improve their vision.They can improve their vision with plus lens or with some exercises ( Brian is one of the best proof we have here ). You can do it with either one or with a combination of both. Which one works faster or better, I really don't know. To me it is purely an individual experience & effort. You have to do it yourself with persistence, testing & innovation. I hope people will stop bashing Otis(at sci.med.vision) and I hope people will try which "system" works the best for them. I feel all methods has its pro & cons. Its a persons choice to pick plus lens or the exercises to clear their vision. If a person don't believe these choices we have, then they must just move on in life. Search for the ultimate natural "thing" to improve their vision. Nobody can give guarantees & I'm sure there are disclaimers somewhere in the website. Everything I said was based on my opinion, so don't use it against me.I sincerely hope that I didn't offend anyone in what I said above. Oh yes, I also want to thank Robert & Patrick for their views, opinions & suggestions. Just my 2 cents. Chill out everybody Cheers, Steve Please see the initial post in this thread. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Dear Steve, Thanks for the write-up! Most parents -- if offered the plus -- will recoil in horror, that their child must put on a plus for reading. That is 99.9 percent of the population at this time. But AFTER a parent has cleared his vision from 20/200 to 20/30, he becomes sufficiently "expert" to understand the meaning and use of this "second opinion". Now your children have a "fighting chance" to keep their distant vision clear through the school years. That is all that I "fight" for. Good luck! 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.