Dear Reader,
Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
(otisbr...@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.
By the way, Otis Brown is also under investigation by the State of
Pennsylvania for potentially practicing medicine without a license.
Neil Brooks - 06 Mar 2006 18:56 GMT
> Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up):
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
For those who take issue with the Wikipedia definition of 'anecdotal
evidence,'
http://www.santarosa.edu/~dpeterso/permanenthtml/propaganda/prop_anecdotal.htm
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/anecdotal.asp
http://skepdic.com/testimon.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/anecdotal-evidence
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=55090&page=2