 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2006Otis? What ABOUT those side effects?
I don't remember Otis Brown warrning about the KNOWN side-effects associated with the use of the plus lens, do you? Here's what his only friend in the world (Sorry, Ace. I'm sure it hurts), Donald Rehm, told the FDA: "A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation and convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of years, the brain has learned that this is the normal situation. Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa. Thus, if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with. For this reason, the book or other close object should a/ways be held as far as possible from the eyes to f-educe the amount of convergence needed." Does any of that sound familiar to you? I've never really heard Otis Brown warn people that they might get "eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problem." That must be one really nice advantage to not having to worry about your medical license, huh? You really don't have to take responsibility for the ill effects of your actions. Also, as of 7/24/04, here's the truth about whether of not Otis Brown has an economic interest in the garbage that he spouts. Quoting Otis Brown here: "Nearsightedness prevention (and restoration) from 20/50 to 20/20 is possible. I wanted to make certain that pilots with intense motivation were successful in this effort. The book I prepared documents both their success, and the amount of effort it took to pass the 20/20 (0.9 cm/6 meters) test. Since this is a "commercial" I must state that I plan to sell the book in the future. For the present time about 50 percent of the book in on my site:" That "site," by the way, still links to the "Send $24.95 to...." Lying scumbag, Otis Brown ... lying scumbag. You're lower than any of the doctors that you've so long accused. I got Donald's book too. You should check out the reviews on that book. It is all about advertising that myopter thingy. That kids would willingly put that on their faces... You have got to be kidding me. >I don't remember Otis Brown warrning about the KNOWN side-effects >associated with the use of the plus lens, do you? Neil: I fear that the problem with what you cite here is that it _makes sense_. I mean even my layman brain was able to understand what was being said. It is not cluttered with obfuscating terms like 'dynamic behavior' and 'proven natural scientific primates'... Therefore, I do not believe that Otis will understand it. You may want to consider a rewording, and turn it into the kind of word soup that ShortBus generally posts. I have become all but convinced that his pathology involves a fundamental inability to communicate with people in the real world - so what he says is gibberish to most everyone else, and as well, what most people say is nonsense to him. But seriously - either he's damaged and truly deluded (as I think many believe), or he's the most absurdly arrogant son of a b' in existence. Likely both. BD. For thousands of years, eyes were focusing on a distance almost exclusivately. Its education, technology and computers that now make humans use their eyes for near so myopia has been on the rise. I would rather NOT be myopic and need the plus lens occasionally. Myopia is good for presbyopes who spend much of their lives reading or on the computer. However children and young adults dont need myopia. The very least someone can do is take their distance glasses off to read, hold reading materials away from face and take breaks. You dont need the plus lens, although itll help like Otis said. Just avoid the minus lens for close-up. My brother never used the plus lens, but because he also never used the minus lens, his -1.25 myopia stayed the same. Since he spends hours on the computer or reading, his myopia will keep him out of reading glasses. His distance vision isnt bad so he only needs glasses to drive have you noticed that no one cares what you think? have you noticed that no one cares what you think? Otis? Can you please give us an update as to: 1) Why you haven't cautioned people about the risks of binocular dysfunction associated with plus lens use; 2) The status of you charging for your book; 3) The nature or your economic relationship, if any, with Mr. Fred Deakins and the www.eyezercise.com website? Some of these things are rather shocking. They merit your input, don't you think? Is there an issue with adults wearing reading glasses then? Or is this strictly a problem for kids? > I don't remember Otis Brown warrning about the KNOWN side-effects > associated with the use of the plus lens, do you? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > Lying scumbag, Otis Brown ... lying scumbag. You're lower than any of > the doctors that you've so long accused. > Is there an issue with adults wearing reading glasses then? Or is this > strictly a problem for kids? While I can't say that I know that answer with certainty, here are my initial thoughts: 1) The fusional mechanism IS formed fairly early in life. Later in life, it seems to take a head trauma, neurological problem, or something equally traumatic to seriously interrupt it; 2) When you're giving a presbyope reading glasses, you're giving them something to compensate for an area in which they're deficient. From studies that I've seen, the *effort* in a presbyope to focus (change the shape of the lens) does not stop just because they are unsuccessful. In other words, there is still ennervation of the ciliary muscles. Relieving that type of accommodation likely restores balance, IMO, to a system that--because of presbyopia--was imbalanced. That may or may not be worth anything more than you just paid for it, but ... that's how I'm thinking about it. I'm selfishly interested in this because I recently got "computer glasses". Strictly speaking, I don't need them, since I can accomodate, but it was suggested to help prevent eye strain and other undesired effects from hours of computer use per day. Another intesting thing about this is that vision therapy for convergence problems seems to be completely ignoring this (potential) issue. Most of the exercises use red/green or prisms or whatever to force convergence or divergence inconsistent with the focus distance. Some exercises seem to be specifically intended to break this linkage (and they are the ones I had the hardest time with). > > Is there an issue with adults wearing reading glasses then? Or is > > this strictly a problem for kids? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That may or may not be worth anything more than you just paid for it, > but ... that's how I'm thinking about it. > I'm selfishly interested in this because I recently got "computer > glasses". Aren't those just weak plus lenses like +1.00 or +1.50? > > I'm selfishly interested in this because I recently got "computer > > glasses". > > Aren't those just weak plus lenses like +1.00 or +1.50? Yeah, I got 1.25. Otis? Can we count on your response here?? Thanks. > I don't remember Otis Brown warrning about the KNOWN side-effects > associated with the use of the plus lens, do you? [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Lying scumbag, Otis Brown ... lying scumbag. You're lower than any of > the doctors that you've so long accused. Otis? I'm just trying to keep this "top of mind" so you have the opportunity to provide a comprehensive reply. Looking forward to it. Thanks. > Otis? Can we count on your response here?? > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Lying scumbag, Otis Brown ... lying scumbag. You're lower than any of > > the doctors that you've so long accused. >Looking forward to it. Best o' luck in getting a response on this - I think you stand about the same chance as I do. Maybe that's the way to keep him out - keep reminding him of the legit answers he owes people. I'd re-post my question about accomodation every week, but I'd be KFd in no time. Might be worth it, though. BD >Maybe that's the way to keep him out - keep reminding him of the legit >answers he owes people. bug spray. >bug spray. Well, if you're going that far, I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy (no names) - who, if you pay for travel and buy him a case of beer.... Otis? In case you overlooked it ... here it is again. > I don't remember Otis Brown warrning about the KNOWN side-effects > associated with the use of the plus lens, do you? [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Lying scumbag, Otis Brown ... lying scumbag. You're lower than any of > the doctors that you've so long accused. Here it is again, Otis. Just in case you missed it.... > I don't remember Otis Brown warrning about the KNOWN side-effects > associated with the use of the plus lens, do you? [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Lying scumbag, Otis Brown ... lying scumbag. You're lower than any of > the doctors that you've so long accused. |
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.