We're still waiting on your efficacy data.

Please come back when you have some.

-MT

LOL!  It's for certain that you cannot.

On the other hand, I could start dispensing the atropine and reading
glasses tomorrow, and there does exist lots of efficacy data on that.

DrG

Dear Reader,

Otis Brown is in no way qualified to give medical advice.

Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
(otisbr...@pa.net) writes, I urge you to review all of his previous
posts.

Otis's motives are purely financial.  His book--derided by the medical
community--is what he's trying to sell you, for either $17.00 or
$24.95, depending on the website you find.  The doctors who
participate on this forum have your, or your child's, best interests
in mind.

Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy,
but there IS plenty that proves him wrong.  There is not a single MD
or OD who has ever acknowledged agreeing with Otis Brown's theories.

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.

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.

Most people in this group contends that no one can naturally prevent or
reduce myopia.    From a statistical standpoint even if one person improves
their eyesight,  then even anecdotal evidence does disprove the consensus of
this group.

Look at it from a different point: ( the reason the defination for anecdotal
evidence is being disputed on wikipedia )

The only time a sample size of 1 is statistically valid is when you're
disproving a conclusion that claims to be correct for 100% of the population
in question (which really only happens in logical arguments, not statistical
arguments). So, if you're trying to make the argument that cigarettes don't
cause cancer, the argument is flawed because the statistical evidence you're
arguing from is too weak to support the conclusion. However, the exact same
anecdotal evidence could be used to support a very strong argument that
cigarettes don't always cause cancer, so to say that an argument is
fallacious just because the evidence it's based on is anecdotal is clearly
wrong.

I was formerly very nearsighted person who had a very successful lasik
surgery.   I had always felt that every time I went to the eye doctor
growing up, my eyes were aways .25 worse than the last time.  It didn't
matter if I went 2 times a year or every few years it was always a .25
increase in perscription.   At age 14 my parents didn't have money to get my
glasses replaced so I kept the same glasses until 18.  I learned the less
often I get the perscription changed,  the slower my myopia progressed.
During my late childhood and early teens, I had a bad habit of playing a
pocket football game at close range ( with negative lenses). It was during
this period that my myopia
increased.

My dad never was myopic until he was in his mid-twenties.  At this time, he
was a radar operator on a sub and was constantly viewing a radar screen at
12" for 8 hours a day.  He always blamed his nearsightedness on this use of
his eyes.  His famous saying "You develop what you use".   It makes sense,
if you use your eyes for close work, your eyes will become very good at
close up viewing.  Ihave found this true for virtually every aspect of human
development, even more-so in the
younger years.

I have a younger son,  who was identified by a school screening program as
having vision problems.  The district kept sending letters home basically
stating we "had" to take him to an eye doctor and get a professional exam.
I told the "ex" to ignore it because he could see 20/40 on my chart hanging
in the basement.  She took him anyway. I seen the report from the doctor, it
recommended
eyeglasses for constant use, even for reading.  I made a list of questions
for the doctor, one was why constant use.  He stated several reasons:

1.  He will want to wear them ( the wow factor ),
2. He woudn't lose them if he always had them on
3. A difference in his perscription would cause him to have lazy eye if he
didn't use them all the time.

I asked him for the written perscripion, he said I didn't need it.  I asked
in a more theatening tone and he wrote it out for me.  I don't think he was
to pleased,  when I told him if I get him glasses it would be from walmart,
not his overpriced designer frames.

I asked this group about the possible lazy eye and even the medical
professionals here didn't think it was a risk.  Looking at my own history,
and the posts here I did get a second opinion who recommended only wearing
them when needed for distance.  I did get glasses for him.  About the only
time he chooses to wear them is eating supper and the tv is 30 feet away.

Thanks to Otis,  I got a second opinion with a doctor that emphasizes
proper reading habits and only wants him to wear glasses if he needs them to
see something.  From personal experience,  I had always felt constant use of
negative lenses caused my myopia to increase.  I do not feel that a child at
20/40 should be using negative lenses ( my opinion, NOT medical advice ).

With any perscription there are possible side effects for some people.  For
a child that is slightly myopic,  I feel the perceived risk of negative
lenses outweights the benefit of making my child wear negative lenses.  I
have been involved with enough clinical trials for FDA approvals of
perscriptions to know that many studies are skewed to be in benefit of the
sponsors.  A side effect that causes a reaction in 5% of the people only
shows up in .5% in the trial.

Dear Second-opinion friends,

I am getting tired of harssment by
Neil Brooks.

Below is his latest email.  My wife
fears him -- and I must respect
that.

So, I will apoint "Central" to
be your true intellectual leader,
with support from Neil.

Enjoy,

Otis

___________

Email to me from Neil Brooks:

Felt a little ignored again?

Felt like the rest of us were bereft of your insanity,
so you were compelled to force yourself upon the rest
of us again??

More Thorazine, Dear Boy.  STAT!