 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2006*/*- OTIS BROWN WARNING */*-
Dear Reader, Otis Brown is in no way qualified to give medical advice. He is currently under investigation by the State of Pennsylvania for practicing medicine without a license. (see: http://nbeener.com/OTIS_INVESTIGATION.pdf) Don't waste your time with Otis Brown. Don't waste your money with Otis Brown. Take your children to a qualified optometrist or ophthalmologist.  SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live If I understand right, he says he does not practice medicine and whatever he says is his opinion from an engineer's perspective. He does not pescribe glasses or medicines. Dear Aceman, You are absolutly correct. Further I do not "sell" anything -- my book is not my site FOR FREE! I used to wonder why an OD or MD would not discuss true-prevention with me -- when I was at about -1 diopter (20/50) and still "functional". Hell, I would have paid him, and learned from him. But now Niel Books has PROVEN why you will NEVER get that kind of assistance (long over-due). He will sue the bejesus out of any OD who would attempt ot respect you and your desire to PRESERVE your distant vision through the school years. Let us hope that we can get "wiser" and smarter about this issue in the comming years. But I guess I am just a "dreamer". The Neil-Brooks effect lets all these "majority opinion" ODs off the "hook" as far as I am concerned. I do think that any prevention-minded OD like Steve Leung should have the parents sign a legal contract, indicating the nature of the "preventive method", and the role of the parents in supporting their child in the proper-use of the plus (at the THRESHOLD before it gets totally out-of-hand.) That would be a start. Best, Otis > Dear Aceman, > > You are absolutly correct. And you are absolutely WRONG Otis. When you stop providing medical advice, you will not hear from me. Suggesting plus lenses on eyes that need correction is medical advice. Maybe you better ask Steve Leung what the definition of medical advice is. You keep quoting him, so maybe he can get you on track. Allen >If I understand right, he says he does not practice medicine and >whatever he says is his opinion from an engineer's perspective. He does >not pescribe glasses or medicines. People who violate laws profess their innocence all the time, ShroomManVx. That's why we have judicial and investigatory bodies to look into these things ... as they're doing now. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live > If I understand right, he says he does not practice medicine and > whatever he says is his opinion from an engineer's perspective. He does > not pescribe glasses or medicines. Of course he doesn't. He just tells people what glasses or medicines to use. No way does he "pescribe" anything. No one does. The word doesn't even exist. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Perhaps you should be investigated as well. You have gone on the public record by posting on an internet site that you have taken illegal schedule 1 controlled substances. What you wrote can be clearly traced back to you. Smooth move dumbass. ========== > If I understand right, he says he does not practice medicine and > whatever he says is his opinion from an engineer's perspective. He does > not pescribe glasses or medicines. The internet (including this group) is full of both fact and fiction. Even among "qualified professionals" any advice offered here is just "another opinion". Expression of opinion and free speech is a right guarenteed by the first amendment. Its up to the reader to determine if any advice given by anyone should be followed. After my post to this group I challenged my OD about his recommendation for my son to have constant use of minus lenses, even for close up work. I know as a child I was told to constantly wear minus lenses and my nearsightedness progressed rapidly. I have no way of knowing that if I hadn't worn glasses, if it would have progressed as rapidly. I do have evidence that I quickly became more nearsighted even under the advice of a medical professional. Based on my own personal experience, opinions expressed in this group, and a discussion with my OD, I did get glasses for my son, but I do tell him not to wear them unless he needs them to see something far away. It is a given that any posts are an expression of "opinion" and NOT "medical advice". > Dear Reader, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Otis Brown. Take your children to a qualified optometrist or > ophthalmologist. >It is a given that any posts are an expression of "opinion" and NOT "medical >advice". to you. You can't say that, with certainty, for others who come to this forum, desperately seeking help. SignatureLive simply so that others may simply live Dear Eye_Question, Subject: When ideas conflict in "medicine". Re: What does an OD do with his own child? There was a "plus" study conducted by Francis Young and Kenneth Oakley (Medical Doctor). This study involvolved 250+ kids. 1/2 the kids were given a single-minus, and 1/2 received a "plus" bi-focal. The plus group "down" rate was almots zero, while the single-minus group whent down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. (Oakley-Young study). Do you believe this report? No? The second-opinion ODs believe it, while the majority-opinion ODs refuse to believe it. How do you resolve this conflict in understanding the dynamic behavior of the natural eye? You just say that the second-opinion agrees to very restricted use of the plus, while the majority opnion insists that a minus has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of the primate eye. There is no way that you can resolve this issue, and Neil Brooks attacks anyone who suggests that you have an informed, competent second-opinion for your child. I would suggest reading the site of a second-opinion optometrists, Steve Leung OD for further "preventive" information. www.chinamyopia.org Best, Otis > This study involvolved 250+ kids. 1/2 the kids > were given a single-minus, and 1/2 received > a "plus" bi-focal. The plus group "down" rate > was almots zero, while the single-minus group > whent down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. Are you aware of any similar studies that attempted to duplicate these results? -MT Yes, Mike, studies run by the "majority opinion", which of course certify your "circular" thinking about the idea that the natural eye is not a dynamic system. But for Eye-Question -- that is the "majority/second" opnion issue. Mikes desire to maintain his myth -- despite the facts from the primate studies -- does not "over-throw" the second-opinion. Be wise about this issue. Even the majority-opinion ophthalmologists recommend minimum use of the minus -- unless absolutly necessary. Make your recommendations to your child accordingly. We are never going to know what you choose to do -- will we? Best, Otis > Yes, Mike, studies run by the "majority opinion", > which of course certify your "circular" thinking about the idea that > the natural eye is not a dynamic system. I asked a simple question and you obfuscate. How many subsequent studies have confirmed the results? How many refuted? > Be wise about this issue. Even the majority-opinion ophthalmologists > recommend minimum use of the minus -- unless absolutly necessary. So the majority of optometrists insist on full-time wear? I doubt you've done any systematic poll of either specialty. Another simple question - do you know what a "straw-man" argument is? -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Eye-Question and HER assessment of her choice. We can argue until hell freezes over -- and I think Eye-question knows that. I am certain YOU would put you child into an over-prescribed minus and think that is WONDERFUL. But there are optometrists and ophthalmologists who have become very skeptical of that policy. In fact, some realize that "myopia" is like scurvy, in that it is a slow development of our "civilized" world, and simply proves the fact that the natural eye adaptes its refractive state to its average visual-enviroment. But of course you deny anything and everything of this nature. But some ODs realize, that while they can have no effect on the public that "walks in off the street" -- think better of their own children. An for them, the START THEM IN A PLUS, when there refractive state moves from plus-to-minus. The eyes of these children of these second-opinion optometrists will simply not develop stair-case myopia for that minus. You don't believe that -- well, that is your right as a majority-opinion optometrist. I have never argued against that idea -- have I. Best, Otis > I am certain YOU would put you child into an over-prescribed minus Only if they wanted to see. > But there are optometrists and ophthalmologists who have become > very skeptical of that policy. There are a few. Not so many as there used to be. > development of our "civilized" world, and simply proves the > fact that the natural eye adaptes its refractive state to its > average visual-enviroment. But of course you deny anything > and everything of this nature. Nope, you're wrong about what I said. Myopia is influenced by working distance and time spent in near work. > But some ODs realize, that while they can have no effect on > the public that "walks in off the street" -- think better of their > own children. An for them, the START THEM IN A PLUS, > when there refractive state moves from plus-to-minus. It would probably work at age 1 or 2. When I find a 1-or-2 year old with myopia, I might try it. Contact lenses would probably be the most effective way. > The eyes of these children of these second-opinion optometrists will > simply not develop stair-case myopia for that minus. I have no experience as a clairvoyant, so I have to rely on statistics. Can we see yours? -MT "Mike Tyner" says to "Otis Brown": > I asked a simple question and you obfuscate. I don't think it is obfuscation. Obfuscation is a higher-level ploy, and is a purposeful device. > Another simple question - do you know what a "straw-man" > argument is? It could be readily be assumed that Otis Brown himself is a straw man, and one created by newsgroup's dominant culture. Thusly, the inquiry could be considered reentrant, in a sense. Like the fabled bird flying an inward spiral, finally up its own a.shole. -- Dicky Dear Dicky, Subject: The "second-opnion" is always "trashed" by the majority opinion -- until a few people "wake up" to the consequences of an over-prescribed minus lens. Since you are a philosopher of science, I think this will explain Mike's majority-opinion "position". +++++++++++++++++++++++ THE HISTORY OF EXISTING PRACTICE The use of a lens to deal with any and all problems of the eye began in the 14th century. The practice of using a negative lens for nearsightedness has continued, almost unchanged, for the last 300 years. The compelling reason for this practice is the public's demand for an instant solution, and a corresponding refusal to consider the use of an alternative approach. A REVIEW OF THE PAST APPROACH We should all thoughtfully evaluate the unfortunate effect of using an immediate and easy fix for the problem of nearsightedness. This situation of a self-perpetuating mistake (produced by public need and attitude) is sometimes recognized by the students of medicine. Dr. Perri Klass said it this way in VITAL SIGNS: "... Sometimes the awesome weight of medical knowledge is totally off the beam. You have to practice medicine with that in mind, with the knowledge that a hundred years or so along the road, they'll be telling stories about the medical theories of today to get a laugh of the medical students of 2100..." And about medicines' confidence in its routines: "... Or something so basic, so taken for granted, that no one has gotten around to questioning it. Whatever it is, probably the medical profession is collectively doing something really dumb and really damaging, and doing it with complete good will and typical medical self-confidence." +++++++++++++++++++++++++ This applies to vision. The demand for negative lens use comes partly from the public's demand for an instant solution, (and corresponding reluctance to properly use a plus lens) and not from a scientific assessment of the behavior characteristic of the normal eye. Best, Otis > Since you are a philosopher of science ... So I am overeducated -- so what?!! I could not succeed to get my eyes right until some extraordinary dumb luck in my dimming years. > The practice of using a negative lens for nearsightedness has continued, > almost unchanged, for the last 300 years. Jeez, Otis! It's not *a* negative lens -- it's billions, may trillions of them negative suckers. There are/were many different varieties, to meet different needs, some with cylindrical aspect, some prismatic, some tinted, some compound, etc. > The demand for negative lens use comes partly from the public's demand > for an instant solution, (and corresponding reluctance to properly use a plus > lens) and not from a scientific assessment of the behavior characteristic of > the normal eye. Which *plus* lens, for Crissake? What kind, how used? Use how monitored? Etc., etc. What exactly is "the behavior characteristic of the normal eye"? What exactly are the anatomic, neurologic, and functional details of how eyeballs fail to develop normally (or otherwise)? The idea of fooling the eyes into believing that their close work is at visual infinity seems very reasonable, and it is hard to believe that it has not proved efficacious in spite of the considerable numbers of attempts which have been reported. I would still like to believe in it as a possibility for the future. Your valiant but vain effort to split the whole thing into Plus and Minus, like Heaven and Earth, Ying and Yang, God and Lucifer, etc. and etc., sadly undoes the cause you seek to espouse. You have firmly planted yourself as the "straw man" for what you label as the "second opinion". Of course, this post changes nothing. -- Dicky Dear Dicky, Subject: Science respecting the behavior of the natural eye as a "dynamic" system. Re: Versus quick-fixing the public -- off the street. Dicky> Of course, this post changes nothing. Otis> Of course -- except for those optometrists who recognize that they must help their own children keep their vision clear (with the plus) through the school years. Otis> Obviously this depends on the optometrist's judgment of scientific fact -- and the implementaion thereof. Otis> And of course, my nephew who realized the accuracy of the Oakley-Young study, and the recognition that if he wished to keep his distant vision clear for life (from age 13 to 40) he has little choice but to implement the "preventive" method himself -- because sure as hell he would get no help from the "majority opinion". Otis> But Mike has a POWERFUL STATEMENT to make, i.e., Neil Brooks psychotic filing statements against ANY OD WHO WOULD EVEN ATTEMPT TO HELP YOU WITH THE PLUS AT THE THRESHOLD. Otis> That statement truly and absolutely DEFINES THE LIMIT OF "MEDICINE" -- if that is what quick-fixing the plublic with a minus lens is all about. Otis> The further explains why my nephew has virtually no choice -- but to figure this out -- and "clear" his vision himself. Otis> That explanation seems to be the one the separates a scientific appreciation of the fundamental eye as a dynamic system, from the "habit" of dealing with the plublic that walks in off the street. Otis> The issue becomes "who is responsible"? You "own" your eyes. If you wish to "protect" them, then this second-opinion choice is open to you. But if you choose "neglect" at the threshold -- then eventually there is no choice but to use the minus lens. That is the one "argument" I can accept. Best, Otis Dicky "dynamic" "majority opinion" "MEDICINE" "clear" "habit" "who is responsible "own" "protect" "neglect" "argument" Quote count: 10, post size: Small -Quick > undoes the cause you seek to espouse. You have firmly planted yourself > as the "straw man" for what you label as the "second opinion". Precisely, the "straw man" argument applies when Otis decides what I believe and what I tell my patients, then mounts an argument against that imaginary point of view. Specifically, the contention that I "insist on full time wear of overprescribed minus" is false, twice over. -MT > > undoes the cause you seek to espouse. You have firmly planted yourself > > as the "straw man" for what you label as the "second opinion". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Specifically, the contention that I "insist on full time wear of > overprescribed minus" is false, twice over. Oh, *that* straw man?!!! Well, my contention would be that you guys created Otis before he created you. Well, if not that, nurtured him carefully. Particularly Neil Brooks, who sustains him like dead meat sustains maggots. But now me also, apparently. So move over Neil Brooks. He'll go on making us stupider than we make him, with every swipe and counterswipe. -- Dicky Dick wrot: > Which *plus* lens, for Crissake? What kind, how used? Use how monitored? > Etc., etc. What exactly is "the behavior characteristic of the normal eye"? > > -- > Dicky I have been reading this thread for quite a while and I am asking my self the same question. WHICH *PLUS* LENS, FOR CRISSAKE?!? etc. Chris "second-opnion" "trashed" "wake up" "position" count 4. Size of post small. -Quick
|
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.