 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2006FACE FACTS: How and Why the PUBLIC rejects plus-prevention
Dear second-opinion (preventive) friends, Subject: How and Why the PUBLIC rejects plus-prevention The minus is quick-and-obvious. The plus is not. Therefore the "minus" always "sells" and the plus does not. This explains why it must be the PARENTS who "wake up" to plus-prevention. If not, we only create stair-case myopia for ourselves -- buy rejecting the plus a the threshold -- when it MUST BE USED to be truly effective in keeping your distant vision clear for life. It is necessary to understand this issue clearly. You must figure out how to do this "preventive" work youself -- or become victim of that over-prescribed minus. No M.O. OD can help you with plus-prevention. And it is a waste of time to even argue about it. Never forget this story -- it is the truth of this tragic situation. You can not transfer "responsibility" to anyone other than youself -- if you desire effective prevention with the plus. Best, Otis ++++++++ WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED? With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you would think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and effective method of solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly that in the following example -- with the following result: THE PRINTER'S SON "It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting. She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave her my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles. "She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was a printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for the next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she should bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them when her husband returned home. "She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her husband came back home. "In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the glasses. He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes. In fact, she said, the boy could see even better without the glasses than with them. "I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better. "I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks? "My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself nearsighted. "On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly, did not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the medical profession. "To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter and nothing more. Second, I charged a reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I just did it as a matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity. "Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept it up, and will continue to do this work as long as I continue to have the incentive and capability. "Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to the naked eye could be restored to children whose eyes have a negative focal state? This was true in 1904, and it is also true now, in this decade of 1950." (It continues to be true in this decade of 1990 -- Otis Brown) SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a profound and adverse effect, you would think that it should be possible to develop scientific verification for this characteristic of the normal eye. You would be correct. The testing and verification is impeccable -- if we restrict our attention to the normal eye's behavior. ++++++++++++++ Remember this: If the PARENTS had put their son in a "plus" and verified his vision-clearing from 20/50 to 20/20 -- they MIGHT have been convinced. But since the PARENTS did not make the measurements -- they were CONVINCED that Jake was "cheating" them -- by clearing their kid's vision back to 20/20. This why no OD can help with true-prevention. DO NOT EXPECT ANYTHING OF THEM. The effect of Raphaelson's staement -- was the recognition that if any "preventing" was to be done, then: 1. I must recognize that if I "want" true-prevention -- I MUST DO IT MYSELF -- UNDER MY OWN CONTROL. 2. The M.O. Optometrist satisfies MOST PEOPLE becase MOST PEOPLE have no interest in their distant vision AT ALL! If you EVER attempt to help them UNDERSTAND plus-prevention -- they get VERY ANGRY at you -- for attempting to help them with PREVENTION. 3. Some issues like this MUST BE DECIDED BY THE PERSON HIMSELF. +++++++++++++++ If the above is UNDERSTOOD, and the person is not "too deep", (i.e., not yet BELOW 20/70 on the Snellen, and not DEPENDENT on that minus) then a certain degree of vision-clearing is possible. >From 20/70 to PASS the DMV. But he must understand the issue of self-motiviation, and have a rather intense desire to clear his vision under HIS CONTROL. There is no "easy" way about this. Just knowledge and common sense -- and a realization of the fact that these M.O. OD are destructive of you long-term vision. No intentionally, as the above will SUGGEST, but destructive none the less. The real question is what you PERSONALLY are going to do about it. AceMan -- this issues will be for your own children. As you know, some engineer-parents WISELY put their own children into a preventive plus (with refractive state close to zero). But it was the PARENT and NOT THE OD who had the wisdom and good sense to help his own children with true-prevention. It the long run, the discussions on sci.med.vision will not matter excessively. What WILL MATTER, is the type of preventive support you choose to use for your own children. Success favors the PREPARED MIND. Best, Otis > Subject: How and Why the PUBLIC rejects plus-prevention > > The minus is quick-and-obvious. The plus is not. > > Therefore the "minus" always "sells" and the plus does not. The minus works because it neutralizes the ametropia and restores normal visual acuity. Plus lenses have not been shown to work as promoted by the leader of the Fringe Group, Otis-engineer. He knows he cannot provide any statistically-validated proof, and when prodded, lashes out with strawman arguments and quickly changes the subject. He will never confront the issues straight-on. He is as evasive and slippery as an eel, having carefully crafted his arguments over DECADES. This also means that the kernel of his ideas are DECADES OLD. He refuses to join the 21st century. He is a 19th century man. He also wastes an inordinate amount of band-width with his ridiculously long-winded diatribes and allergories. On second thought, maybe it's his therapy. DrG Dear AceMan, Subject: Pure science of the eye's dynamic behavior. It is very clear from Raphaelson's statement that the "problem" of prevention must consider the public's REJECTION OF PREVENTION. This statement says to me that no OD (how ever dedicated) can EVER help the public with true-prevention. It will take a person of considerable INSIGHT and self-motivation to BEGIN the use of the plus, BEFORE that person's Snellen goes below the 20/50 to 20/60 line. There is every reason why you must understand it that way. If you wish to avoid nearsighedness (a negative refractive STATE of the natural eye), you quite frankly are going to have to AVOID the M.O. ODs like "L". How do you do this? By learning more than most people are willing to learn about the natural eye's proven behavior (in pure-science, not the distorted "vision" of the box-camera paradigm). By recognizing that you, as a parent, will NOT repeat the "error" of the pareint -- in "The Printer's Son". By recognizing that, for some issues in you child's life, you must take a much larger degree of resonsibility -- by exerting "control" over that child's "bad habits". By checking the child's refractive STATE (with a trial lens kit) and determining how close to "zero" that refractive state actually is. By being prepared to do what that engineer-parent did -- which was to insist that the child us a plus -- before the child got too deep into it. I would take the "Printer's Son" as a warning. That you must understand and work WITH a plus-prevention OD, such as Steve Leung, but also must NOT REJECT the use of the plus at the threshold -- as the Father did in this instance. Success favors a prepared mind. Plus-prevention is the second-opinion, but must be invoked before that minus lens is applied. A M.O. OD will NEVER help you with prevention -- as described by Raphaelons -- because the minus is immediate and obvious. The "plus" is subtle -- and takes a wise parent to understand and ACCEPT it for use by his child. Live an learn. Best, Otis > > Subject: How and Why the PUBLIC rejects plus-prevention > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > DrG the reason no OD recommends plus prevention is that is has been proven to be ineffective. no prevention therapy has been shown to be effective. make up all the excuses you want, and quote all the romantic prose of your hero Raphaelson but the facts are the facts, none of it works. if it did, we would recommend it. its our job. or is it a conspiracy? =================== > Dear AceMan, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > This statement says to me that no OD (how ever dedicated) can > EVER help the public with true-prevention. Dear M.O. PClark, Don't you understand ANYTHING???? This issue developed because the PARENT judged that his child should have very sharp vision from a minus. Had Raphaelson done that -- he would have the "respect" of the FATHER of the son who was myopic. But Raphaelson used the plus -- which had the effect of changing the refractive STATE of the child's eyes in a positive direction, i.e., his Snellen cleared to 20/20. But since the FATHER understood NONE OF THESE ISSUES, and felt the ONLY JOB OF THE OD WAS TO CREATE VERY-SHARP VISION WITH A STRONG MINUS -- THE FATHER SHUT DOWN THE PREVENTIVE METHOD. PERIOD. The responsibility for doing that, and the long-term consequences had to rest with the parent, and NOT WITH RAPHAELSON. The long-term result for the child would be stair-case adaptation of his eyes to BOTH his "near" environment, made "nearer" by a strong minus lens. But you just do not understand any of this. Some PARENTS are not like "The FATHER". They are willing to accept the fact that the natural eye is proven to be a dynamic system, and the use of the PREVENTIVE plus must START and be used at the threshold. If the engineer-parent UNDERSTANDS this issue -- then he can help his own children with the preventive plus. But that depends on the WISDOM of the parent -- and not on you. It is very clear that you can never prescribe "prevention" and that the person must figure out this issue for himself -- and help his children if he can. Best, Otis > the reason no OD recommends plus prevention is that is has been proven > to be ineffective. no prevention therapy has been shown to be [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > This statement says to me that no OD (how ever dedicated) can > > EVER help the public with true-prevention. > Don't you understand ANYTHING???? > > This issue developed because the PARENT judged that his > child should have very sharp vision from a minus. Like his parents and their parents and their parents and their parents... It's clear who really doesn't understand anything. DrG > If the engineer-parent UNDERSTANDS this issue -- then > he can help his own children with the preventive plus. Uh oh... only the ingenues will survive. Otis is trying to create a world in his likeness by only saving the ingenues. Small step to the nazis. Did that end the thread? -Quick you are the densest person i have ever seen. prevention of myopia, by ANY means, has not been demonstrated (except for some drugs therapies currently under investigation). plus lenses simply don't work. it doesn't matter what the parents think, or whose responsibility it is, there is no preventative therapy that is know to work so your whole argument is total bullshit. do you care that the scientific literature proves you are totally wrong? do you care that you look like a babbling fool to everyone who reads this newsgroup? doesn't it seem strange to you that the only "second-opinion" eye doctors that you can cite are either dead, retired, live in China, or are being sued for fraud (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/ia_vision_improvement.html). you are a hopeless old fool. but it looks like you are succesfully grooming aceman to take over your role as head troll for the fringe group of "second opinion" followers after your Alzhemiers totally takes over. PS-- how are the actions against you by the State of Pennsylvania coming along? http://nbeener.com/OTIS_INVESTIGATION.pdf hasn't your lawyer told you that you should quit posting this crap on the internet? =============== > Dear M.O. PClark, > > Don't you understand ANYTHING???? retinula grunted and snarled: > prevention of myopia, by ANY means, has not been demonstrated (except > for some drugs therapies currently under investigation). plus lenses > simply don't work. it doesn't matter what the parents think, or whose > responsibility it is, there is no preventative therapy that is know to > work so your whole argument is total bullshit. Yes it has. Otis knows dozens of successful stories. I have a prime example here: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schw0709/stories/VisionTherapy.html > do you care that the scientific literature proves you are totally > wrong? They can say what they want. For every literature you find, I can find one opposing yours. > doesn't it seem strange to you that the only "second-opinion" eye > doctors that you can cite are either dead, retired, live in China, or > are being sued for fraud > (http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/ia_vision_improvement.html). Who cares about them, Otis has said ultimately it is *your* responsability to take care of your eyes. No one can do it for you, only *you* can help yourself! > They can say what they want. For every literature you find, I can find > one opposing yours. We're still waiting for you to show us a study where minus made myopia worse. Y'know, controls, statistics, groups.. that stuff. Otis believes wearing shoes makes your feet grow bigger. -MT > the reason no OD recommends plus prevention is that is has been proven > to be ineffective. no prevention therapy has been shown to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > or is it a conspiracy? The second opinion ODs *do* prescribe the plus. It works almost all the time when correctly and consistly used. There is *nothing* to lose by trying the plus lens experment, if for some reason it doesnt work, then you gave it your best shot. If it works like it almost always does, you have reduced or even prevented myopia! Otis, I was going to make a post like that but we think alike! Thanks! Let me comment why majority opinion ODs prescribe the minus: Child: My vision is blurry and I can not see some things in the distance, I have trouble reading the lecture board unless I sit in the front of the class. Parent: Ok we are taking you to an eye doctor. Doctor: Your child is slightly myopic, I will prescribe glasses and this will immediately solve your problem and give your child very sharp 20/20 vision Parent: yay! Now my child can see! Child: *grumble* but I dont want glasses! Doctor and parent: You need them now, sorry. So the child is forced to wear glasses and the parents are happy that the problem is "solved" till stair-case myopia occurs then its back to the doctor every 12, 9 or even 6 months for stronger and stronger glasses. The problem is the parents get worried their child isnt seeing well and they look to the minus lens as an instant gratification solution to the child. Most children are reluctant to wear glasses till they get used to it and their eyes get so bad they havent a choice. The plus lens takes months or even years to clear the child's vision and most people are too impatient and lazy to make the effort. They want an instant solution and the parent and even child wants better vision. Otis says even if they met a second opinion doctor that explained they had a choice of minus or plus, most people would chose the easy and instant solution of the minus. I would have chosen the plus had I been given a second opinion. If I chose the minus, it would have been my choice alone, but I was never given a choice. There is lasik and other refractive surguries to "cure" myopia but its risky and does nothing to change your oval eyeball or prevent your eyes from becomming more myopic, it just lets you see much better without glasses. Even if someone wanted lasik, they would have to wait 10-15 years in glasses till they are old enough and their prescription is more or less stable. LOL! DrG > > the reason no OD recommends plus prevention is that is has been proven > > to be ineffective. no prevention therapy has been shown to be [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > years in glasses till they are old enough and their prescription is > more or less stable. Dear AceMan, DrL> LOL The Majority-opinion considers you protecting your child's distant vision (as the engineer did it) a BIG JOKE. The Second-opinion OD takes plus-prevention VERY SERIOUSLY, as per Steve Leung OD at: www.chinamyopia.org So, before you do anything (with your child reading the 20/50 line), determine if you OD considers your right to an informed, second-opinion a BIG JOKE. Because a strong minus at 20/50 leads to stair-case myopia and PERMANENT consequences which then, can not be reversed. That is truly a choice that has life-time consequences for you -- what ever decision. I would NEVER allow a person to make that type of decision or choice for me -- when some "third-party" considers my desire to keep my distant vision -- a joke. Make you choice for your children accordingly. Best, Otis +++++++++++++++++++ > > the reason no OD recommends plus prevention is that is has been proven > > to be ineffective. no prevention therapy has been shown to be [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > years in glasses till they are old enough and their prescription is > more or less stable. > Dear AceMan, > > DrL> LOL > > The Majority-opinion considers you protecting your > child's distant vision (as the engineer did it) a BIG JOKE. HECK NO! I consider what Otis and the FG tell people to be the BIG JOKE. DrG It is rather obvious that you think that the judgment of other second-opinion optometrists a big joke also. See: www.chinamyopia.org I only WISH I had been offered the PREVENTIVE second-opinion when I was on the threshold. I wish I knew that you consider my right to be informed effectively of the second-opinion a BIG JOKE -- becaus I would have got for support an help to a second-opinion optometrist for the type of help I truly needed. Best, Otis > > Dear AceMan, > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DrG > It is rather obvious that you think that the judgment > of other second-opinion optometrists a big joke > also. See: > > www.chinamyopia.org That one? Yes, of course. > I only WISH I had been offered the PREVENTIVE > second-opinion when I was on the threshold. Why? It wouldn't have helped you. Your myopia was genetic. But, of course, you couldn't accept that. You needed a scapegoat instead of taking responsibility for your own genes. > I wish I knew that you consider my right to be > informed effectively of the second-opinion a > BIG JOKE -- becaus I would have got for > support an help to a second-opinion optometrist > for the type of help I truly needed. Ace doesn't think it's too late for him. Maybe he can help you. DrG > It is rather obvious that you think that the judgment > of other second-opinion optometrists a big joke > also. No, sir. You are the joke. -MT otisbrown@pa.net smiled: > Dear AceMan, > > DrL> LOL > > The Majority-opinion considers you protecting your > child's distant vision (as the engineer did it) a BIG JOKE. They just dont believe in it. Ultimately, only you can take care of your eyes. No one can take your responsability, you have to do it yourself. > The Second-opinion OD takes plus-prevention VERY SERIOUSLY, > as per Steve Leung OD at: > > www.chinamyopia.org Great guy! > So, before you do anything (with your child reading the 20/50 line), > determine if you OD considers your right to an informed, > second-opinion a BIG JOKE. Dont worry if he doesnt believe in vision improvement, just do it yourself and if done correctly and consistly, results are rewarding. > Because a strong minus at 20/50 leads to stair-case myopia > and PERMANENT consequences which then, can not > be reversed. I know, it happened to me and everyone else who went with the wretched minus. > That is truly a choice that has life-time consequences for > you -- what ever decision. I would have made the choice myself if only I knew about the plus lens! > I would NEVER allow a person to make that type > of decision or choice for me -- when some > "third-party" considers my desire to keep > my distant vision -- a joke. Forget what they say, just learn how to use a plus lens and you are set! > I know, it happened to me and everyone else who went with the wretched > minus. I just examined a young woman of 19 who had never worn glasses. Her refraction was -675 in the right eye and -375 in the left. How did she get that way without wearing glasses? -MT On 7/27/06 11:07 AM, in article 0r-dneoNybtGnVTZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@giganews.com, "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote: >> I know, it happened to me and everyone else who went with the wretched >> minus. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT I presume that part of the optometry jargon is to leave out the decimal point. I can live with that. Nevertheless, the numbers you list, well under 1D in absolute value do not strike me any big deal. How did that get to be negative at all? I have one possible reason. When I and my cousin were kids, we spent many hours reading comic books in bad light. To read easily, we brought the page close to our eyes. Certainly, most people will agree that doing so will make it easier to read. The closer, the better. With our young eyes, our accommodation allowed us to get those pages to what memory at my now advanced age recalls as 150mm. That is, we were able to do, without negative lenses, what was made easier with negative lenses. Has such behavior been factored into the various experiments? The way kids, with or without glasses, are not observed during a refraction session. There is more to good visual hygiene than merely telling a kid to use glasses only for seeing the blackboard. Moreover, is a kid going to remove his/her glasses when going from reading the blackboard to writing into a notebook. If you think so, you do not know kids and have forgotten your own childhood. Bill -- Ferme le Bush > I presume that part of the optometry jargon is to leave out the decimal > point. I can live with that. Nevertheless, the numbers you list, well > under > 1D in absolute value do not strike me any big deal. No, we don't prescribe -0.675 or -0.375 very often. In this case it was -6.25 and -3.25, after cycloplegia. > How did that get to be negative at all? I have one possible reason. When I > and my cousin were kids, we spent many hours reading comic books in bad > light. To read easily, we brought the page close to our eyes. That isn't news. We know that close working distances and much time spent in close work contributes to myopia. But not 80%, more like 20%. The rest is genes. > That is, > we were able to do, without negative lenses, what was made easier with > negative lenses. You lost me there. If you think negative lenses make a difference, you haven't been listening. > Has such behavior been factored into the various experiments? The way > kids, > with or without glasses, are not observed during a refraction session. I do refractions 15 or 20 times a day and in general my patients are closely observed during the process. > There > is more to good visual hygiene than merely telling a kid to use glasses > only > for seeing the blackboard. Moreover, is a kid going to remove his/her > glasses when going from reading the blackboard to writing into a notebook. Ah so you still think glasses matter. What-ev. > If you think so, you do not know kids and have forgotten your own > childhood. I caution kids and parents about close working distances and long spells of close work without visual breaks. But if you think it matters whether they wear glasses or not, you haven't been absorbing what you read. -MT On 7/27/06 11:42 PM, in article _-GdnQJXZeRWLFTZnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews.com, "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote: > You lost me there. If you think negative lenses make a difference, you > haven't been listening. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > close work without visual breaks. But if you think it matters whether they > wear glasses or not, you haven't been absorbing what you read. Medical people seem extremely skeptical with respect to relating cause and effect without extensive proof. Double blind experiments are preferred. Such caution seems to go out the window with respect to progressive myopia. I am trying to point out some inconsistencies in the logic. One such inconsistency is regarding the effect of near work. If near work does indeed engender myopia but negative lenses do not exacerbate myopia, how does the eye "know" not to get more myopic when working with an image at infinity. The negative lens moves the image to infinity as you well know. Bill -- Ferme le Bush Leukoma said: "Why? It wouldn't have helped you. Your myopia was genetic. But, of course, you couldn't accept that. You needed a scapegoat instead of taking responsibility for your own genes." Like I said, genes arent the be it all. My brother is -1 and I am -4 while our mother is more than -7. We all have a slight astigmastim which proves the genetic compound but the myopia compound can be controlled by avoiding excessive use of the minus like my brother did. I wish I could go back in time and use the plus then I too would be around a -1. > Leukoma said: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I wish I could go back in time and use the plus then I too would be > around a -1 You can't all have the same genes because you don't all look exactly alike. I see. DrG > > Leukoma said: > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > DrG Nice pun but explain why my brother is so much less myopic. My only explanation I can come up with is he seldom wears glasses other than for driving. I wore glasses way too much and developed stair-case myopia > Nice pun but explain why my brother is so much less myopic. My only > explanation I can come up with is he seldom wears glasses other than > for driving. I wore glasses way too much and developed stair-case myopia Explain why your mother is more myopic than either of you. Explain why you are all nearsighted. High myopia is almost always genetic. It says so in the library. Go there and find it. DrG > > Nice pun but explain why my brother is so much less myopic. My only > > explanation I can come up with is he seldom wears glasses other than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > DrG my mom wore the wretched minus lens at a young age so for many years stair-case myopia took place. Then in college with all the studying, her myopia jumped another 2 diopters. Her environment caused most of her myopia progression. None of my grandparents were myopic and none of my ancesors. Therefore genes did not play a strong dormant role, if at all. She induced her own stair-case myopia. Me, my brother and sister are all nearsighted in part due to genes, but mostly because of near work. My brother is barely myopic because he avoided the wretched minus lens to a large extent. As a result, he does not depend on glasses 95% of the time. > my mom wore the wretched minus lens at a young age so for many years > stair-case myopia took place. Then in college with all the studying, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lens to a large extent. As a result, he does not depend on glasses 95% > of the time. Nearly all of the experts agree that myopia is genetic first and environmental second. Your brother didn't wear his glasses much because he didn't need to, whereas you did. We have been around this race course before. I doubt you know enough about your ancestry to comment intelligibly. DrG > Nearly all of the experts agree that myopia is genetic first and > environmental second. Your brother didn't wear his glasses much [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > DrG And you know nothing about my ancestry. If I wore glasses as little as my brother, I would have not become very nearsighted. I did not need glasses till I developed stair-case myopia. Nothing I can do about the past, but Otis, I and all the second opinion people can educate willing future generations to save them from myopia. I got nothing against you but realise you just dont believe in myopia prevention, but I do :) On another note, from all the vision testings youve done, you may have established a good correlation between diopters and 20/something. I have an idea on that, but would be interested in hearing yours for -.5, -1, -1.5, -2, etc You 2 clowns still don't get it. 1) There is no scientifically validated proof for what you say. 2) You constantly refer to people who have been shown to be charlatans and frauds 3) You provide hearsay as proof 4) The referee's you recommend don't exist, don't speak for themselves or dabble on the verge of the profession close to deregistration for their acts. Show us a randomised double blind trial to support your position. dr grant > And you know nothing about my ancestry. If I wore glasses as little as > my brother, I would have not become very nearsighted. I did not need [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have an idea on that, but would be interested in hearing yours for -.5, > -1, -1.5, -2, etc I think I'm done with this nonsense. I don't think you believe in anything. DrG You're right Greg, he doesn't know crap about myopia, genetics, dealing with patients, getting the balance between vision and performance etc. Like you, I regularly spend 10 minutes with a patient - usually when they come in for 1 minute. Everyone else gets at least 1/2 hour and I am constantly behind schedule as I am trying to cram as much into thje consultation as I can. > On another note, from all the vision testings youve done, you may have > established a good correlation between diopters and 20/something. I > have an idea on that, but would be interested in hearing yours for -.5, > -1, -1.5, -2, etc I'd be interested in hearing your explanation why statistical studies can't find different rates of myopia between those who wear glasses, those who don't wear them, and those who wear bifocals. -MT > work. My brother is barely myopic because he avoided the wretched minus > lens to a large extent. As a result, he does not depend on glasses 95% > of the time. Just like my 19-year-old patient whose first glasses were -625 and -325. She avoided the wretched minus too. -MT > > work. My brother is barely myopic because he avoided the wretched minus > > lens to a large extent. As a result, he does not depend on glasses 95% [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > -MT Too much near work! "I'd be interested in hearing your explanation why statistical studies can't find different rates of myopia between those who wear glasses, those who don't wear them, and those who wear bifocals." Otis has shown you many times, you chose not to believe those, dear. "wrong answer. your god otis believes that giving the patient excess minus lenses causes them to convert to true myopia to that overprescribed level and then causes them to progress even further. thats called staircase myopia. thats what you yourself says happen. so you are saying that staircase myopia didn't occur in the patient I described but otherwise usually does apply? interesting. you aren't being consistent in the application of your theory. I understand why-- its bullshit." Otis isnt a god, just an engineer here to save childrens vision and slow the myopia epidemic. Near work causes myopia, minus simulates more near work so myopia increases faster. "Otis believe something even more fantabulous. He believes that it you simply neutralize the patient's myopic refractive error such that the patient is functionally emmetropic, and you do it with a minus lens, then staircase myopia will ensue." Because of excessive demand at the near point. Its an evolutionary response for the eye to enlongate with excess stimulus. "Have you considered the possibility that you and your brother had a different father?" Have you considered how silly you are? > Too much near work! Yes. Reading is evil. Don't let your kids read. -MT > > Too much near work! > > Yes. Reading is evil. Don't let your kids read. > > -MT With plus lens you can or better yet use a projector. Myopia is 20% environmental, I believe its more but being less myopic is good. "Do you know the basics of inheritance? Unless you and your brother are identical twins, you do not have the same genes from your mother. Myopia results from the interaction of a number of genes. Your mother has two versions of each of those genes, as does your father. You have one version of each pair, your brother also has one version of each pair but you and your brother will not have the same combination of versions, so the interactions are different." Well optometrists claim myopia is 80% genetic, 20% environmental. My brother used glasses much less than I did so there goes the environment factor. "Unless you share the belief of some people that convergence also has a role to play in myopia. If myopes take off their minus to read, they will need to use their converging muscles much more than a myope who leaves glasses on to read or a non myope. According to Bates, the resulting strain on the extraocular muscles would cause axial enlongation." Accroding to Bates, glasses are a crutch and make eyes weaker. My eyes are alot more relaxed and see much better from near without glasses. Glasses(minus) are worse than useless for near. "Aceman himself stated that he only wore his glasses 20% of the time when they were -1 diopter." And my brother didnt even get glasses till he learned to drive. Dear AceMan, Subject: People who tell ME what I "Believe". Tyner> "Otis believe something even more fantabulous. He believes that it you simply neutralize the patient's myopic refractive error such that the patient is functionally emmetropic, and you do it with a minus lens, then staircase myopia will ensue." Otis> No, Mike, I believe that the fundamemtal eye is a sophisticated "system" and must NECESSARILY change its refractive STATE if you place a -3 diopter lens on it. Otis> You believe that the natural eye is NOT A DYNAMIC SYSTEM, and therefore will NOT change is refractive STATE when you place a -3 diopter lens on it. You REFUSE to submit your BELIEF in the "passive eye" to objective, repeatable, scientific testing. Otis> Thus I suggest that we TEST your M.O. BELIEF -- just to be scientifically HONEST. Otis> So we place a -3 diopter lens on the eye, and what happens to the refractive STATE -- in about 12 months. The refractive STATE changes by greater-than -2 diopters and a natural, and fundamental process. Otis> So what happens. You revert into this "denial" process where you deny all objective science and FACT because you dislike the consequences of scientific truth -- based on the BELIEFS they taught you in OD school. Otis> But I do believe in scientific truth -- and objective testing of YOUR M.O. BELIEFS. That is indeed a matter of RESPECTING the fundamental eye as a PROVEN dynamic system. Best, Otis > > > work. My brother is barely myopic because he avoided the wretched minus > > > lens to a large extent. As a result, he does not depend on glasses 95% [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Have you considered how silly you are? > Tyner> "Otis believe something even more fantabulous. He believes that > it you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > "system" and must NECESSARILY change its refractive STATE if > you place a -3 diopter lens on it. You keep saying that but we can't find any -300 myopes who get worse simply because they wear -3.00. > Otis> You believe that the natural eye is NOT A DYNAMIC SYSTEM, No you're frankly lying here, to build a strawman. I never said eyes don't change. I said you can't MAKE them change the way you want to. You've never shown us any evidence that you can. > a -3 diopter lens on it. You REFUSE to submit your BELIEF in > the "passive eye" to objective, repeatable, scientific testing. What-ev. -MT > > Tyner> "Otis believe something even more fantabulous. He believes that > > it you [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > -MT ' Actually there is a small group of people who *want* to be more myopic on purpose. They overminus themselves by 2 to 3 diopters and develop stair-case myopia. One guy's myopia was stable for many years then he induced more myopia at about a diopter every 2.5 years. It stopped working once he reached 40 and became presbyopic then he couldnt accept an overminus and his eyes became too rigid to enlongate further. There are young people in their teens with elastic eyes who can induce a diopter and a half a year with an overcorrection of 3 to 5 diopters. They end up with -10 to -15 diopters and are happy with their coke bottle glasses fetish and how it makes a total blur snap into razor sharpness! what kind of mushrooms were you eating when you wrote this? you simply CAN'T make yourself more myopic by overminusing yourself or by any other means that I know of (perhaps you could induce corneal edema, or raise your blood sugar to diabetic levels) and MAKE yourself myopic. tell us more about this "small group of people" who you are talking about. did you talk to them when you were high on mushrooms. did they take you to their leader? =============== > Actually there is a small group of people who *want* to be more myopic > on purpose. They overminus themselves by 2 to 3 diopters and develop [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > bottle glasses fetish and how it makes a total blur snap into razor > sharpness! > Leukoma said: > >> "Why? It wouldn't have helped you. Your myopia was >> genetic. But, of course, you couldn't accept that. You >> needed a scapegoat instead of taking responsibility for >> your own genes." > Like I said, genes arent the be it all. My brother is -1 > and I am -4 while our mother is more than -7. We all have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > could go back in time and use the plus then I too would > be around a -1. Have you considered the possibility that you and your brother had a different father? -Quick > Leukoma said: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I wish I could go back in time and use the plus then I too would be > around a -1. It would be just as correct to consider that your brother doesn't wear his glasses much because he is only -1D and so can see relatively well without them. In other words, saying his low myopia "caused" him not to wear his glasses much would be just as valid as saying not wearing his glasses "caused" his myopia to stop at -1. My mother is 4'10, her sister is 5' 6 and her brother is 6'. My father was 5' 8". He had a brother who was over 6ft. I'm 5' 1, one sister is 5' 4 and the other sister is 5' 7". According to your logic, our height differences prove that height is 100% environmental. I guess my mom and I are short because we spent a lot of time standing on stools to reach stuff, so we didn't get any stimulus to grow taller. Dr Judy > It would be just as correct to consider that your brother doesn't wear > his glasses much because he is only -1D and so can see relatively well > without them. In other words, saying his low myopia "caused" him not > to wear his glasses much would be just as valid as saying not wearing > his glasses "caused" his myopia to stop at -1. Aceman himself stated that he only wore his glasses 20% of the time when they were -1 diopter. DrG >> Leukoma said: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >mom and I are short because we spent a lot of time standing on stools >to reach stuff, so we didn't get any stimulus to grow taller. ROFL! >>mom and I are short because we spent a lot of time standing on stools >>to reach stuff, so we didn't get any stimulus to grow taller. > > ROFL! I think it's because they're the last ones to get watered when it rains. -MT Dear Bill, Some remarks: 1. Optometry REACTS people -- with a minus lens. 2. The minus lens is EASY to apply. You just sit a person in a chair, put up a Snellen, and show that a minus lens "sharpens" the Snellen. 3. There is some check for "medical" issues (like RP and glaucoma) but the minus is indeed impressive, and if you only have 10 minutes with a person, and the person EXPECTS the minus lens -- what else can you do? The minus requires no discussion, no review, no decision or choice by the person. Just the obvious fact that the minus "works" -- and that is it. ++++++++++ I think that is a fair argument FOR THE MINUS. The ODs can and SHOULD make that argument -- that they are LIMITED by what the public expects, and indeed what works INSTANTLY -- and that is the only thing that the public will understand and ACCEPT. But the larger issue is this -- how did the FUNDAMENTAL EYE change its refractive STATE from a positive value to a negative value. This is were these ODs go into a profound DENIAL state. I RESPECT a population of fundamental eyes -- to be dynamic systems. (i.e., control systems, or automatic-control systems.) So I test the entire population of eyes, to find out if the refractive STATE of these eyes will CHANGE their refractive STATE when a -3 diopter lens is applied. >From a review of that type of "direct-science", you can pose the following test, of the OD's "majority-opinion", and call it the "null" hypotiesis -- which is that the fundamental eye is NOT DYANMIC (in the above sense) and THEREFORE MUST NOT CHANGE ITS REFRECTIVE STATE -- WHEN YOU PLACE A -3 DIOPTER LENS ON IT. Retinula has insisted MANY TIMES that the natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC, and that there will be NO CHANGE in refractive state of the -3 diotper test group. >From long review of this type of scientific testing of the natural eye -- it is virtually certain that the -3 diopter group will change its refractive STATE by greater-than -2 diopters in one year. If you are a scientist -- you should take the results of this OBJECTIVE, TESTING SERIOUSLY. The only request I have is this -- use the term refractive STATE, where the test is to determine IF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE IS DYNAMIC -- OR NOT. Retinula does not like the IMPLICATIONS of this test -- so he denys the science of it. As far as I am concered -- that resolves the issues -- and answers the question of "The Printer's Son". There is a profound difference between dealing with the public (off the street) where ONLY A MINUS LENS "WORKS", and dealing with the scientific issue of determining if the fudamental eye IS, and PERFORMS as a dynamic system. The words descriptive words we use to describe the SCIENTIFIC experiment are critical. DO not use the word ORGANIC DEFECT to describe what is characteristic and natural behavior for the fundamental eye. Maybe this is too abstract for the M.O. ODs on sci.med.vision. They obviously do not understand the concept at all. Some more commentary: Bill> Has such behavior been factored into the various experiments? Otis> No, the M.O. ODs ignore both the question, and the scientific testing -- and results. Bill> The way kids, with or without glasses, are not observed during a refraction session. Otis> NO OD PAYS ANY ATTENTION TO HOW THE KIDS USE THEIR EYES. I preceive that issue is critical. The NATURAL EYE will in fact change its refracitve STATE to REFLECT its average visual environment. Because they do not wish to get involved in that type of SCIENTIFIC REVIEW of the objective facts -- proving they type of typical behavior for the natural eye. That is why we are having this impasse. Bill> There is more to good visual hygiene than merely telling a kid to use glasses only for seeing the blackboard. Otis> You bet there is. But the real issue is this. Who is going to dicipline the kids, to follow the instructions? The ODs are not going to do it -- it's not their job. The "control" would be the responsibility of the parents to INSTRUCT the kids in these preventive methods -- to include the "plus" when necessary. Bill> Moreover, is a kid going to remove his/her glasses when going from reading the blackboard to writing into a notebook. Otis> Assuming the kid still has 20/40 to 20/50, the real quesiton is this -- will the kid put on a +2.5 diopter for all reading -- and WAIT for his Snellen to clear to better than 20/40 -- as parent of a visual hygiene process. Obviously some engineer-parents have INSISTED their kids do EXACTLY THAT -- and the kids refractive STATE does not go from plus to minus. i.e., they avoid entry into myopia.; Bill> If you think so, you do not know kids and have forgotten your own childhood. Otis> I certainly remember doing it as kid. But I was told that "enviroment" had not connection with the refractive STATE of the eye. So I kept on doing it. Otis> Only as an engineer did I find out that it was established that the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye FOLLOWS that applied minus lens. So for PREVENTION to develop -- we must fisrt RESPECT the fact that the fundamental eye is proven to be dynamic, and that a slight negative refractive state -- can be prevented if a plus is agressivly used at the critcial 20/50 to 20/60 level. Just on man's opinion. Otis Bill -- Ferme le Bush > On 7/27/06 11:07 AM, in article > 0r-dneoNybtGnVTZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@giganews.com, "Mike Tyner" [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Bill > -- Ferme le Bush > 1. Optometry REACTS people -- with a minus lens. You do have an interesting perspective. By the way, MDs also refract and prescribe minus lenses. In fact, prescribing minus lenses for myopia is the standard of care. > 2. The minus lens is EASY to apply. You just sit a person in > a chair, put up a Snellen, and show that a minus lens "sharpens" > the Snellen. The only thing easier is to go down to the drug store and buy a pair of readers. You don't need a Snellen, don't need a chair, and you won't get sharp vision. > 3. There is some check for "medical" issues (like RP and glaucoma) > but the minus is indeed impressive, and if you only have 10 minutes > with a person, and the person EXPECTS the minus lens -- what else > can you do? The minus requires no discussion, no review, no > decision or choice by the person. Just the obvious fact that > the minus "works" -- and that is it. "Choice" involves deciding between two viable alternatives. When one of them is nonviable, such as plus lenses for myopia, there is no true choice. For the same reason, there is no point in discussion. And, yes, the minus lens does indeed work. > I think that is a fair argument FOR THE MINUS. The ODs can and > SHOULD make that argument -- that they are LIMITED by what > the public expects, and indeed what works INSTANTLY -- and > that is the only thing that the public will understand and ACCEPT. Ignoring for a moment that some of your premises are wrong, let's accept this statement at face value. You are implying that minus lenses are injurious and do more harm than good. You have no evidence that this is the case. > But the larger issue is this -- how did the FUNDAMENTAL EYE > change its refractive STATE from a positive value to a negative > value. That is indeed the larger issue, and is quite separate from the rest of your drivel. > This is were these ODs go into a profound DENIAL state. This is where OTIS goes into denial, and creates his STRAWMAN argument -- the windmill of his mind -- against which he can tilt, like Don Quixote. > I RESPECT a population of fundamental eyes -- to be dynamic > systems. (i.e., control systems, or automatic-control systems.) Oh, my. Aren't we observant. Your problem is that you lack the concepts to explain mechanisms, and instead promote a mechanism that has already been disputed and lacks any scientific validation. > So I test the entire population of eyes, to find out if the > refractive STATE of these eyes will CHANGE their refractive > STATE when a -3 diopter lens is applied. I love the way you take a very specific case that has no clinical application whatsoever > >From a review of that type of "direct-science", you can pose > the following test, of the OD's "majority-opinion", and call [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > DYNAMIC, and that there will be NO CHANGE in > refractive state of the -3 diotper test group. The OTIS theory breaks down because it cannot bridge the reality gap. > >From long review of this type of scientific testing of the > natural eye -- it is virtually certain that the -3 diopter > group will change its refractive STATE by greater-than -2 diopters > in one year. Let's qualify that. This is true for young chickens and certain species of young primates in the laboratory. In the real world, this type of experiment on humans would be considered inhumane and has not been done. Putting a -3 diopter lens on an emmetropic infant eye would be malpractice. Anyhow, enough with your nonsense. DrG interesting question. and I just examined a woman who was wearing -4.25 and -3.50 in her three year old glasses. when i refracted her today she was -3.50 and -2.50. her eyes had become less myopic even though she had been wearing excessive minus lenses! i thought staircase myopia predicts she would be worse? Otis or Ace-- doesn't it trouble you that your simple-minded theory can't explain such cases? wouldn't it suggest that your theory is incomplete or possibly wrong altogether? == > > I know, it happened to me and everyone else who went with the wretched > > minus. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT > > I know, it happened to me and everyone else who went with the wretched > > minus. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT She may be lying about not wearing glasses. How do you get around with such blurry vision? Even if she wasnt lying, she probably does nothing but read all day, inducing a negetive refractive state as Otis says. retinula wrote: > interesting question. and I just examined a woman who was wearing > -4.25 and -3.50 in her three year old glasses. when i refracted her [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can't explain such cases? wouldn't it suggest that your theory is > incomplete or possibly wrong altogether? She was overprescribed in the first place and could accomodate the excess minus. I still have my -5.5 glasses even though I see fine with my -4.5 glasses. I wasnt technically overprescribed back then, I had lots of pseudomyopia but thanks to vision improvement, I have less of that. Leukoma said: "It can be prevented as I has been stated here on many occasions. It can be done with atropine. It just has not been demonstrated scientifically that plus lenses can help." Thats because it stops accomodation and makes the person forced to use a plus lens for any close work. Atropine just makes it so you can NOT forget to use the plus lens and also you can NOT accomodate and induce a negetive refractive state. Long term use of atropine is harmful to the eye, but using it for a month will help you get into the habit of using a plus consistly. "But, Otis will still be stuck in a time warp of failed and discarded ideas on the junk heap of history, ca. 1980. He will never cast a critical eye on his own beliefs, preferring to go down with his leaky boat of plus lens prevention." False! I like Otis! Read the link below of this -1 guy who used a plus lens and is now 20/20! http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schw0709/stories/VisionTherapy.html Mike said: "That isn't news. We know that close working distances and much time spent in close work contributes to myopia. But not 80%, more like 20%. The rest is genes." No matter, with a plus lens and reducing the amount of near work, you can laugh at your genes as you keep your vision clear. Explain how my brother and I both have the same genes from my -7.5 myopic mother, yet my brother is -1 and I am -4? "I caution kids and parents about close working distances and long spells of close work without visual breaks. But if you think it matters whether they wear glasses or not, you haven't been absorbing what you read." Have you been telling them to take their minus glasses OFF for near work? Myopes do NOT need minus for near! > She may be lying about not wearing glasses. What a sensible explanation. Do you assume her mother lied too? > How do you get around with > such blurry vision? Even if she wasnt lying, she probably does nothing > but read all day, inducing a negetive refractive state as Otis says. Yeah, we oughta stop letting them read. > She was overprescribed in the first place and could accomodate the > excess minus. I still have my -5.5 glasses even though I see fine with > my -4.5 glasses. I wasnt technically overprescribed back then, I had > lots of pseudomyopia but thanks to vision improvement, I have less of > that. So why didn't the -5.50 make your axial myopia worse? > Thats because it stops accomodation and makes the person forced to use > a plus lens for any close work. Myopes have their plus built-in. As a result, they don't need reading glasses and they don't notice much disability reading with atropine. So, obviously, those who read WITH glasses get nearsighted three to six times faster than those who take off their glasses to read. It's just too damn bad that the science of statistics hasn't progressed far enough to distinguish a three-fold difference in rates of change between experimental and control groups. Maybe one day they will. Until then, only you and Otis know the real truth. Well, you and that vast army of "second-opinion optometrists." > Atropine just makes it so you can NOT > forget to use the plus lens and also you can > NOT accomodate and induce > a negetive refractive state. Since, as we know, ALL hyperopes who go without correction wind up nearsighted because they accommodate all the time. That's why nobody's farsighted any more. > Long term use of atropine is harmful to > the eye, I didn't know that. What are the long-term effects of atropine? > "But, Otis will still be stuck in a time warp of failed and discarded > ideas on the junk heap of history, ca. 1980. He will never cast a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > False! I like Otis! Read the link below of this -1 guy who used a plus > lens and is now 20/20! You went from -500 to -400 without using plus, didn't you? > No matter, with a plus lens and reducing the amount of near work, you > can laugh at your genes as you keep your vision clear. Explain how my > brother and I both have the same genes from my -7.5 myopic mother, yet > my brother is -1 and I am -4? Explain why both my sons wear size 12 shoes. Mine are size 10. > Have you been telling them to take their minus glasses OFF for near > work? Myopes do NOT need minus for near! As a matter of fact, I do. That part isn't controversial. When they have to read the blackboard too, I prescribe progressive bifocals so they will have plus for reading. As you know, this virtually stops their progression. Nobody gets nearsighted when they're wearing plus, right? -MT > retinula wrote: > > interesting question. and I just examined a woman who was wearing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > lots of pseudomyopia but thanks to vision improvement, I have less of > that. wrong answer. your god otis believes that giving the patient excess minus lenses causes them to convert to true myopia to that overprescribed level and then causes them to progress even further. thats called staircase myopia. thats what you yourself says happen. so you are saying that staircase myopia didn't occur in the patient I described but otherwise usually does apply? interesting. you aren't being consistent in the application of your theory. I understand why-- its bullshit. > wrong answer. your god otis believes that giving the patient excess > minus lenses causes them to convert to true myopia to that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > being consistent in the application of your theory. I understand why-- > its bullshit. Otis believe something even more fantabulous. He believes that it you simply neutralize the patient's myopic refractive error such that the patient is functionally emmetropic, and you do it with a minus lens, then staircase myopia will ensue. DrG snip >Explain how my brother and I both have the same genes from my -7.5 myopic mother, yet my brother is -1 and I am -4? Do you know the basics of inheritance? Unless you and your brother are identical twins, you do not have the same genes from your mother. Myopia results from the interaction of a number of genes. Your mother has two versions of each of those genes, as does your father. You have one version of each pair, your brother also has one version of each pair but you and your brother will not have the same combination of versions, so the interactions are different. snip > Myopes do NOT need minus for near! Unless you share the belief of some people that convergence also has a role to play in myopia. If myopes take off their minus to read, they will need to use their converging muscles much more than a myope who leaves glasses on to read or a non myope. According to Bates, the resulting strain on the extraocular muscles would cause axial enlongation. Dr Judy Dear AceMan, Raphaeson GOT IT RIGHT!!! But the father of "The Printer's Son" GOT IT WRONG. That is not a conspiricy -- that is just simple, and tragic ignorance. That father put the KeyBaush on effective plus-prevention for his child. As long as the "public" thinks and behaves that way -- plus prevention is indeed IMPOSSIBLE. But now you know. If you wish plus-prevention for your kids -- then you are going to have to take that kind of responsibility. And figure out how ot deal with the "Retinula" and other arrogant and ignorant M.O. ODs. Your knowledge of them and their "attitude" can make all the difference. In short -- you can not trust them (except for the "medical" part of a check.) Their belief that you can not PREVENT the development of a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye -- is false science. But as always -- this iissue will only develop 10 to 15 years from now -- with your own children. Just remember their ARE SOME EXCELLENT S.O. OD TO HELP. But you must make the crucial PREVENTIVE choice for your kids. Best, Otis > otisbrown@pa.net smiled: > > Dear AceMan, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > my distant vision -- a joke. > Forget what they say, just learn how to use a plus lens and you are set! > Dear AceMan, > > That is not a conspiricy -- that is just simple, and tragic > ignorance. No question about that. > If you wish plus-prevention for your kids -- then you > are going to have to take that kind of responsibility. > > And figure out how ot deal with the "Retinula" and > other arrogant and ignorant M.O. ODs. Because they don't agree with you. > Your knowledge of them and their "attitude" can > make all the difference. In short -- you can not > trust them (except for the "medical" part of a > check.) But they can trust you. I see. > Their belief that you can not PREVENT the development > of a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye -- is > false science. It can be prevented as I has been stated here on many occasions. It can be done with atropine. It just has not been demonstrated scientifically that plus lenses can help. > But as always -- this iissue will only develop > 10 to 15 years from now -- with your own > children. But, Otis will still be stuck in a time warp of failed and discarded ideas on the junk heap of history, ca. 1980. He will never cast a critical eye on his own beliefs, preferring to go down with his leaky boat of plus lens prevention. > Just remember their ARE SOME EXCELLENT S.O. OD > TO HELP. But you must make the crucial PREVENTIVE > choice for your kids. Why, thank you, Otis. DrG > Just remember their ARE SOME EXCELLENT S.O. OD > TO HELP. At least two or three of them. Used to be a lot more. Why is that? -MT > Dear AceMan, > ...you protecting your child's distant vision > ...with your child reading the 20/50 line Otis, OTIS! Snap out of it. Ace doesn't have a child. But I'm sure "he has friends" that have children so maybe you can recover that way. -Quick > Otis, I was going to make a post like that but we think > alike! They are whipping each other into a frenzy... Otis, now might be the time to pass out the Kool-aid. -Quick > > Otis, I was going to make a post like that but we think > > alike! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Quick Of course they think alike. That's what brainwashing does. DrG |
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
|
©2009 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.