Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

OTIS BROWN WARNING (04/03/2006)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Neil Brooks - 03 Apr 2006 21:42 GMT
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.

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.  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 either

-    the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the
progression of myopia in humans, or
-    the notion that a minus lens accelerates the progression of
myopia

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.
Jack - 05 Apr 2006 04:25 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.

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.
 
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.