neil0502_SPAMTRAP_@yahoo.com wrote in message
> Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy,
> but there IS plenty that proves him wrong
If you claim there is NO evidence to support that prevention is possible,
then your not looking very hard.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=10416928&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
"Progressive lenses reduce the progression of myopia. It may be that the
interaction of the progressive lenses with the accommodation system is the
cause of this reduction in myopia progression because the +2.00 D addition
appeared more effective than the +1.50 D addition in slowing the
progression."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=6859212&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum
"Placebo-treated patients were more than twice [rate ratio (RR) = 2.2, 1.5]
as likely as the monofocal group, and more than three times (RR = 3.2, 1.7)
as likely as the bifocal patients, to suffer myopic progression during the
period of follow-up"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=10806444&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
"retard or eliminate retinal defocus-induced myopic progression"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=9286316&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
"Bifocals seemed to slow myopia progression in these children"
True prevention?!?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=11511288&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=6514306&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=10960233&query_hl=8&itool=pubmed_DocSum
otisbrown@pa.net - 05 Apr 2006 04:50 GMT
Dear Jack,
You are correct. Neil Brooks is totally blind towards the fact -- and
the fact that even the ophthalmolgists do not "like" to use
the minus -- and will try to limit the strength if possible.
Here are some further supporting statments -- that the
minus lens is "risky" at best.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subject: The Effects of "Corrective" Lenses: Insight and
Comment From Eye Doctors
No clinical or statistical studies have ever demonstrated the
long-term safety of a (minus) "corrective" lens.
In fact, a certain percentage of doctors believe that -- as the
second-opinion -- "corrective" lenses (also known as
"compensatory" negative lenses) usually create dependency and
make the eyes move more rapidly in a negative refractive direction.
These concerns have been voiced in the professional
literature by concerned doctors who support the concept
the "second opinion" to do work for the prevention of nearsightedness
with a plus lens.
Here are sample excerpts from the professional literature voicing
concerns about the safety of "corrective" lenses:
"The use of compensatory lenses to treat or neutralize the
symptoms does not correct the problem. The current education and
training of eye care practitioners discourages preventive and
remedial treatment." R.L. Gottlieb, Journal of Optometry and
Visual Development, 13(1):3-27, 1982.
"The emphasis on compensatory lenses has posed a problem for
many years in our examinations. These lenses do not correct
anything and may not serve the patient in his best interests over
a period of time." CJ. Forkiortis, OEP Curriculum, 53:1, 1980
"There are frequently ignored patterns of addiction to minus
lenses. The typical prescription tends to overpower and fatigue
the visual system and what is often a transitory condition becomes
a lifelong situation which is likely to deteriorate with time." S.
Gallop, Journal of Behavioral Optometry, 5(5):115-120, 1994
"Single-vision minus lenses for full-time use produce
accommodative insufficiency associated with additional symptoms
until the patient gets used to the lens. This is usually
accompanied by a further increase in myopia and the cycle begins
anew." M.H. Birnbaum, Review of Optometry, 110(21): 23-29, 1973.
"Minus lenses are the most common approach, yet the least
likely to prevent further myopic progression. Unfortunately, they
increase the near-point stress that is associated with
progression." B. May, OEP Publications, A- 112, 1984.
Further, even second-opinion OD parents are insisting that
their OWN CHILDREN begin wearing the plus as soon
as their refractive status comes down to zero or SLIGHLY
minus.
Read Steve Leung's second-opnion at:
www.chinamyopia.org
Best,
Otis
Mike Tyner - 05 Apr 2006 05:42 GMT
> You are correct. Neil Brooks is totally blind towards the fact -- and
> the fact that even the ophthalmolgists do not "like" to use
> the minus -- and will try to limit the strength if possible.
Otis it's obvious you don't know many ophthalmologists.
-MT
The Central Scrutinizer - 05 Apr 2006 06:10 GMT
>Read Steve Leung's second-opnion at:
>www.chinamyopia.org
Oh, for f*ck's sake. ;-)
otisbrown@pa.net - 05 Apr 2006 15:46 GMT
Dear Central,
John Yassar does not like you to
use profanity.
Otis
Dr. Leukoma - 05 Apr 2006 16:07 GMT
I like your bibliography: 1973, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1994. It figures.
You're a relic from the past, still tilting at windmills.
DrG
The Central Scrutinizer - 05 Apr 2006 21:02 GMT
>I like your bibliography: 1973, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1994.
But at least he is citing another source of information, currency and
credibility notwithstanding. ShortBus Otis could take some lessons from
him.
The Central Scrutinizer - 05 Apr 2006 16:28 GMT
>John Yassar does not like you to use profanity.
Yeah okay, ShortBus; whatever you say... (*freak*)
Neil Brooks - 05 Apr 2006 06:13 GMT
> neil0502_SPAMTRAP_@yahoo.com wrote in message
> > Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy,
> > but there IS plenty that proves him wrong
>
> If you claim there is NO evidence to support that prevention is possible,
> then your not looking very hard.
YOUR version of Otis's fantasy, Jack ... not mine ... and not Otis's
... year after year after year.