 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2006Harmful free advice
I pretty much stay out of the myopia prevention mess, but when they start talking hyperopia, I get mad because they are advocating something that can harm the child's cognitive development. Ace probably cannot be prosecuted as I think he is a minor. Once he turns old enough to be prosecuted, I hope they do so to avoid the child abuse he is advocating. Otis is certainly old enough and probably should be prosecuted even though most laypeople can probably see through his rambling fallacies of logic. I'm a believer in free speech, but I draw the line when people start shouting fire in a theater or when they advocate alternative therapies for conditions that conventional therapies have been scientifically proven to help (e.g. cancer, glaucoma, accommodative strabismus). w.stacy, o.d. As always, you do not wish to face scientific truth concerning the dynamic behavior of all fundamental eyes. You you wish to use the power of the state to supress both freedom of speech, and a person's right to an informed, competent second-opinion. Or perhaps we should state the problem this way: The formulation of a problem is often far more essential than its solution, which may be a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science. Albert Einstein Or: Science is the attempt to make the chaotic diversity of our sense-experience correspond to a logically uniform system of thought. Albert Einstein And: "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." Galileo Have a nice day, Otis ++++++++++++ > I pretty much stay out of the myopia prevention mess, but when they > start talking hyperopia, I get mad because they are advocating something [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. Usually I don't respond to your junk, but I will make this exception: >As always, you do not wish to face scientific truth concerning >the dynamic behavior of all fundamental eyes. > > As always, I have NEVER disputed the dynamic behavior of all eyes. Other than you, I have never seen or heard the word "fundamental" as a descriptive adjective to the word "eyes". Strikes me as some sort of fundamentalist terrorism. At least you're apparently not plagiarizing there... >You you wish to use the power of the state to >supress both freedom of speech, and a person's >right to an informed, competent second-opinion. > Only when that speech is or may be harmful to the general public. Just like if you preached palming to relieve prostate cancer. I'd use the power of the state to surpress that form of speech, for sure. >Or perhaps we should state the problem this way: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Albert Einstein > Al is rolling over in his grave. He would be adamantly against your incessant repititions on this or any forum. He always stated his position, then let others discuss it. You have not raised a new question, a new possibility here in over 7 years that I know of. >Or: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Albert Einstein > Al is still rolling. Physiological optics is a logically uniform system of thought. Your ramblings are repititious, illogical, and completely ignorant of the uniform system that describes vision, optics and eyes. >And: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Galileo > Boy was he right. When are you going to at least acknowledge the ophthalmic truths that are universally (almost, I do except you) accepted? Most conspiracy theories are blatantly false, including yours and Ace's. w.stacy, o.d. > As always, you do not wish to face scientific truth concerning > the dynamic behavior of all fundamental eyes. No, we wish for you to explain why Ong, Shotwell, Grosvenor and Parssinen found no staircase myopia. -MT As ALWAYS you deny all science and proof concerning the dynamic nature of the fundamenal eye -- and that IS SCIENCE and NOT optometry. Just place a -3 diopter lens on a population of eyes -- and verify what we already know. That the -3 diopter group will change their refractive by greater than -2 diopter in one year. But you choose to ignore all "unpleasant" scientific facts. Further, I have presented the results of the Oakley Young study that showed that the full minus group went DOWN at a rate of -2 dopter in four years -- while the "plus" group did not go down. But you choose to ignore that also. I would suggest that you "majority-opinion" is profoundly biased, and suggest that we learn true-prevention from second-opinion ODs like Steve Leung at: www.chinamyopia.org Have a nice day, Otis > > As always, you do not wish to face scientific truth concerning > > the dynamic behavior of all fundamental eyes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -MT William, Subject: Harmful Free Advice??? Apparently ANY advice you DO NOT LIKE -- is harmful -- when provided by TWO ophthalmologists!!! So ophthalmologists will HARM Pat's twins when they recommed that the kids NOT be put into a +1.74 dipoter lens??? Please explain why you contradict the advice of an ophthamologist. Do you have more training than a medical doctor -- that you can contradict them?? Further, a professor of optometry (which you are NOT) recommended that the use of the plus BE AVOIDED if at all possible, because it interfers with the natural process of "emmetropization". Please explain why you contradict the words of a full professor of optometry. Are you saying HE IS GIVING HARMFUL ADVICE??? I simply reported these facts as the second-opinion. It is up to Pat to evaluate the choice she has for her twins. Please explain why a second-opinion is "harmful"? Otis > I pretty much stay out of the myopia prevention mess, but when they > start talking hyperopia, I get mad because they are advocating something [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > w.stacy, o.d. >Apparently ANY advice you DO NOT LIKE -- is harmful -- when >provided by TWO ophthalmologists!!! > If you'll reread that entire thread, you'll plainly see that I did not disagree with them, as I realize there are plenty of o.d.s and o.m.ds who view +1.75 as small enough to not correct safely, but it is near the borderline. I'll bet the same 2 would not say the same about 3 or 4 D. of hyperopia, as I pointed out. >Please explain why you contradict the advice of an ophthamologist. >Do you have more training than a medical doctor -- that you can >contradict them?? > Actually, I do have more training in binocular vision and physiological optics than most o.m.d.s and feel quite comfortable contradicting them in this area. And I have FAR more training than you have had in all areas of eyes, vision and medicine. >Further, a professor of optometry (which you are NOT) recommended >that the use of the plus BE AVOIDED if at all possible, because >it interfers with the natural process of "emmetropization". > > I love the "a professor" part. You can always find one or 2 experts to agree with any position. Remember Drs. Baden and Lee in the OJ trial? Remember Linus Pauling's vitamin C debacle? How about Rumsfield's belief that Iraq was behind 911? The credentials only go so far. They can't cover charlatanism any more than they can cover paranoia. >Please explain why you contradict the words of a full professor >of optometry. Are you saying HE IS GIVING HARMFUL ADVICE??? > > Absolutely, if you have quoted him correctly. Either you didn't, or he is a nut case too. I do acknowledge that all fields have an occasional nut case. All those poor creatures have in the world is their credentials, and it is always sad to watch them deteriorate. >Please explain why a second-opinion is "harmful"? > Because that's not what you're giving. You're giving advice born of ignorance that can result in damage to children. That possibility is well established and documented in the literature, and fortunately the vast majority of omds, ods, professors and scientists know it. Since you are fond of using the testamonial, I'm going to give you one that I have that I will never forget that is sort of apropos to the previously mentioned thread. I saw a young boy (age 2 or 3) about 20 years ago who was +6.00 in both eyes. I told the dad he needed glasses full time or he could develop strabismus and amblyopia, and might never get normal binocular function. The dad was a Dane who was raised to believe that glasses were a sign of a defect, and that the child's eyes would weaken if he got them. I argued with the dad, but lost. His son went on to develop esotropia and did poorly in school until the school forced the father to relent partly because of learning problems and partly because of the nearly constant and very obvious esotropia. He finally got his glasses at around age 8, which instantly straightened his eyes, and he resumed normal development, although I don't think he ever quite caught up with his peers. Of course he is still + 6.00 O.U., still esotropic ("cross-eyed") without his glasses (now contacts) and orthophoric with full correction of either type. This is an example of the kind of ignorance based abuse that you are advocating/causing. w.stacy, o.d. >> Apparently ANY advice you DO NOT LIKE -- is harmful -- when >> provided by TWO ophthalmologists!!! [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > borderline. I'll bet the same 2 would not say the same about 3 or 4 D. > of hyperopia, as I pointed out. Indeed, these two opthalmologists, were seen two or three years ago weren't they? These two "different opinions" are not actually current. I think if the mother is concerned she should go and see them again. >> Please explain why you contradict the advice of an ophthamologist. >> Do you have more training than a medical doctor -- that you can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in this area. And I have FAR more training than you have had in all > areas of eyes, vision and medicine. It's a laugh, when someone who hasn't got any medical qualifactions in anyway shape or form argues that you're wrong and see nothing wrong with contradicting everyone else. >> Further, a professor of optometry (which you are NOT) recommended >> that the use of the plus BE AVOIDED if at all possible, because [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > belief that Iraq was behind 911? The credentials only go so far. They > can't cover charlatanism any more than they can cover paranoia. You know the joke of the matter? Otis, with his apparently superior brain and knowledge than everyone here combined, disagreed with the guy a few years ago. Wait a second? Didn't you actually disagree with his works a few years back? "I obviously do not agree with the results. His control group did not show the standaward "downward" movement of all eyes of -1/4 and -1/3 diopter per year demonstrated at both West Point and the U.S. Naval Academy. Something is wrong with the method, the statistics. Obviously, no explanation or discussion was offered." If you then actually dig around a bit further, you'll actually find that this guy is dead, died in 2003, and was retired for many years prior to this, and secondly, his work is not endorsed by the university? "Do you continue the work of Merrill Allen, PhD? "Dr. Allen was a former faculty member who had been retired for many years prior to his death in December 2003. The IU School of Optometry did not endorse and was not involved in his research with the TENS units. No one at the school is working with any of his units, and we do not know of any source for the units. To our knowledge, there have been no controlled clinical trials that indicate the effectiveness of the techniques." --Gerald E. Lowther, OD, PhD (Dean, IU School of Optometry)" from http://www.opt.indiana.edu/bcor/faqs.htm Make of that what you will. Seems to me Otis is still quoting "Quacks" and ancient "theories" as fact, in support of his argument. I think he's a danger and a menace to society and should be locked up. Cya Simon Why are you blaming us? Its those two doctors that didnt feel her +1.75 twins needed glasses because their UCVA was perfect and they had no esotropia, exotropia, exophoria, esophoria, amblyopia or any other learning eye coordination problems. However that father of the +6 son should have listened to you. Did you explain why he needed glasses or just said he needs glasses, period? He was concerned about glasses making his son's eyes even weaker. The second opinion optometrist would have *still* given him glasses, but +1 to +1.5 less plus than his cycloplegic hyperopia. This slight undercorrection wouldnt interfer with proper eye development and emmetropization then 6 months later, even less plus can be given as he emmetropizates. You are right, anyone over +2 might need partial correction to avoid any disorders and the constant strain when accomodating to read. Do encourage lots of near work to promote emmetropization and reduce all that hyperopia. > Why are you blaming us? Its those two doctors that didnt feel her +1.75 > twins needed glasses because their UCVA was perfect and they had no > esotropia, exotropia, exophoria, esophoria, amblyopia or any other > learning eye coordination problems. That's a lot more information than was in the post. I assume you are filling in the blanks to suit your argument. Ever take a course in logic, ethics or the scientific method? You should. > However that father of the +6 son should have listened to you. Did you > explain why he needed glasses or just said he needs glasses, period? He [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > emmetropization then 6 months later, even less plus can be given as he > emmetropizates. As I have said, I disagree with such undercorrection, as do the majority of experts in the field. But a small minority do agree with it. Calling this minority viewpoint a "2nd opinion" is Otis' invention and his alone, just like his invention of the term "fundamental eye". Not even the minority view holders would distort language in this way. > You are right, anyone over +2 might need partial correction to avoid > any disorders and the constant strain when accomodating to read. Your drawing a line at +2 is arbitrary and does not consider all the other personal variables from patient to patient, but I am glad to see that even you see a potential problem over +2. Otis does not, which makes him dangerous. w.stacy, o.d. William Stacy: > That's a lot more information than was in the post. I assume you are > filling in the blanks to suit your argument. Ever take a course in > logic, ethics or the scientific method? You should. I took debate class and am also good in logic. > As I have said, I disagree with such undercorrection, as do the majority > of experts in the field. But a small minority do agree with it. > Calling this minority viewpoint a "2nd opinion" is Otis' invention and > his alone, just like his invention of the term "fundamental eye". Not > even the minority view holders would distort language in this way. Some correction was better than none at all for that +6 son. With this much hyperopia, he would be using every bit of accomodation for distance and would see blurry from near and exhabit eyestrain or worse. I would have this +6 son in +4.5 to +5 glasses and have him come back in 6 months to see how much emmetropization has taken place and how much less hyperopic is and prescribe weaker glasses. Repeat till he gets down to +1.5 then no more glasses will be needed. Why would you disagree with undercorrecting him if a small +1 to +1.5 undercorrection wont cause problems and just result in emmetropization? >Your drawing a line at +2 is arbitrary and does not consider all the > other personal variables from patient to patient, but I am glad to see > that even you see a potential problem over +2. Otis does not, which > makes him dangerous. You stand correct it depends on patients, but normal young children shouldnt have any problems being +2 and emmetropization will soon take care of that. You *do* know that almost all babies and young children start with a positive refractive state or hyperopia and there is something called emmetropization that "burns off" the excess hyperopia. High hyperopes had their emmetropization interrupted at a young age, usually due to full power plus glasses and lack of near work. On the other hand, myopes were over simulated with minus glasses and emmetropization went way too far. Otis belief and theory on the eye being dynamic holds weight because plus or minus lens can influence the refractive state of the eye. Its been proven in animals and humans. All those millions of myopes did not need to be myopic or at least much less myopic. I can see myopia/hyperopia prevention as the ultimate solution, making lasik and glasses useless. Once again you show your total ignorance Nancy. You are totally bereft of any understanding of how the eye works and the stresses upon it. Go back to your play doh. dr grant Real live board certified second opinion specialist Why would you > disagree with undercorrecting him if a small +1 to +1.5 undercorrection > wont cause problems and just result in emmetropization? Because the process of emmetropization is already stopped by age 3 in adults. Moderate to high hyperopes just don't get less hyperopic after that age, at least I've never seen it, whether or not they wear corrections. The reason we favor full correction is that often the full extent of the hyperopia does not become manifest until after they adapt to the full Rx, so it turns out to have been actually an undercorrection already. I rarely fully cycloplege a child, so my "full correction" is in reality often a slight undercorrection in a first pair of glasses. My second Rx is usually the full amount and I do not see any significant changes in Rx after that one, unlike the myopes, emmetropes and those low hyperopes who become myopes. > You stand correct it depends on patients, but normal young children > shouldnt have any problems being +2 and emmetropization will soon take > care of that. See above. You *do* know that almost all babies and young children > start with a positive refractive state or hyperopia and there is > something called emmetropization that "burns off" the excess hyperopia. I'm well aware of that process, and as I said, it is over by about age 3. > High hyperopes had their emmetropization interrupted at a young age, > usually due to full power plus glasses and lack of near work. On the > other hand, myopes were over simulated with minus glasses and > emmetropization went way too far. The is totally speculative and wishful thinking. I've seen way too many hyperopes, mild, to moderate, to high hyperopes, who are avid readers from an early age. Most of the mild to moderate hyperopes never got glasses before age 6, well after emmetropization is complete. > Otis belief and theory on the eye being dynamic holds weight because > plus or minus lens can influence the refractive state of the eye. Its > been proven in animals and humans. All those millions of myopes did not > need to be myopic or at least much less myopic. I can see > myopia/hyperopia prevention as the ultimate solution, making lasik and > glasses useless. That's just more wishful thinking. It's been tried over and over again, and the myopes keep coming. But now I'm starting to violate my own rule against discussing myopia prevention in this forum due to the time waste factor. Otis and you believe that emmetropization continues long after eye growth stops in early human childhood. It doesn't. Myopiagenesis is something other than just emmetropization gone wild. > I took debate class and am also good in logic. Statement against evidence. You swallow Otis' fallacies without objection. > gets down to +1.5 then no more glasses will be needed. Why would you > disagree with undercorrecting him if a small +1 to +1.5 undercorrection > wont cause problems and just result in emmetropization? Because emmetropization stops before age 2 or 3. > You stand correct it depends on patients, but normal young children > shouldnt have any problems being +2 and emmetropization will soon take > care of that. The standard deviation of refractive errors decreases for the first year of life. Then it increases. Where is emmetropization? > You *do* know that almost all babies and young children > start with a positive refractive state or hyperopia and there is > something called emmetropization that "burns off" the excess hyperopia. It does not persist past age 2 or 3. > High hyperopes had their emmetropization interrupted at a young age, > usually due to full power plus glasses and lack of near work. If you were "good at logic" you wouldn't make up your own facts. > On the > other hand, myopes were over simulated with minus glasses and "Good at logic" means the cart pulls the horse? > Otis belief and theory on the eye being dynamic holds weight because > plus or minus lens can influence the refractive state of the eye. Too bad nobody's ever measured the effect of wearing lenses. You'd think one day they'd get 'round to that. > It's been proven in animals and humans. I'd like to see this proof. One day Otis will show it to us. You can take his word for it. I don't. > All those millions of myopes did not > need to be myopic or at least much less myopic. Yeah, nobody gets nearsighted until they wear glasses. > I can see > myopia/hyperopia prevention as the ultimate solution, making lasik and > glasses useless. When you figure out how to do that, do let us know, won't you? -MT William believes that all eyes with refractive STATES greater than 2 diopters SHOULD HAVE A PLUS ON THEM. I do not. That is the difference between an engineering assessment of the natural eye's dynamic behavior and William's box-camera "passive" notion of the eye's natural behavior. The primate eye at birth will have refractive STATE running from zero to +9 diopters. Does William propose to put a +8 diopter lens on new-born children? That seems to be his logic. If Pat put her twins into a +1.75 diopters -- the expected result it that the dynamic eye will respond by "moving positive", to about +2.5 diopters in about 8 months -- thus proving the point. And at +2.5 diopters, the twins would receive a +2.5 diopter lens, and the refracive state will move to +3 diopters in another 8 months. But that simply proves the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. If fact, it is that nature that can produce a "positive change" in a natural eye with a refractive STATE of zero to +1/2 diopter. In fact to avoid ENTRY into myopia -- that PROTECTIVE action would be a good idea. The spread of refracitve states for the NORMAL EYE in the wild was from measurements made by Francis Young on these primates. The average value was about +6/10 diopter, with a spread of from zero to +2 diopters. Best, Otis > William Stacy: > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > myopia/hyperopia prevention as the ultimate solution, making lasik and > glasses useless. > William believes that all eyes with refractive STATES > greater than 2 diopters SHOULD HAVE A PLUS ON THEM. > > I do not. Who cares in what you believe since YOU NEVER PROVIDE PROOF! Allen otisbrown@pa.net schreef: > William believes that all eyes with refractive STATES > greater than 2 diopters SHOULD HAVE A PLUS ON THEM. > > I do not. That's why you are not allowed to prescribe Otis BTW, where can I find a precise definition of "refractive STATES" and please a scientific one not a homemade. Real eye care professionals, even the second opinion one's, WORLDWIDE use terms like emmetropia, myopia or hyperopia. Little opening in this, If the total refracting power of the eye is MORE than needed (as supposed by Otis, see above) than just a minus correction is needed. > That is the difference between an engineering assessment of > the natural eye's dynamic behavior and William's box-camera > "passive" notion of the eye's natural behavior. Stop this Otis, you are the only one who is using this false statement. Definition's Otis, that what's all about. A box-camera is just what it said, a box with a unchangeable fixed lens. NONE of the eye care professionals here ever stated the human eye behaves in the same manner, NONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Free to Marcus Porcius Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "old plus lens junk recovered by Otis" should be destroyed. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > William believes that all eyes with refractive STATES > greater than 2 diopters SHOULD HAVE A PLUS ON THEM. > > I do not. Neither do I. I wouldn't prescribe for a 1 year old with +2.00. If that same baby came back at age 6 and was still +2.00, I would indeed prescribe it. I would prescribe for an infant of any age with +8.00 as soon as he/she exhibits more or less constant esotropia. > The primate eye at birth will have refractive STATE running > from zero to +9 diopters. That is completely incorrect. The human eye at birth has a fairly random distribution, a bell shaped curve in fact, and includes lots of myopia as well as emmetropia and hyperopia. This gaussian distribution is gone by age 3 which is when emmetropization stops. > Does William propose to put a +8 diopter lens on > new-born children? see the above, and quit putting words in my mouth, you optometrist wannabe. w.stacy, o.d. Dear Ace, The only issue is that a person be informed of a choice, when the natural eye has a refractive STATE of +1,75 dioters. It is the opinion of ONE OD, that the child should be put into a +1.75 diopters (reason not supplied) and that the natural eye will not "move positive" from that +1.75 diopters -- worn 16/7. But you find out from the study of the natural primate eye, that if you place a +2 diopter lens on an eye, the refractive STATE will move positive by about +1 diopter in one year. That is why the second-opinion ophthamologists recommended that no plus be applied. The issue still rests with the parent -- and the value of sci.med.vision is that this parent can understand that a "choice" is a trade-off. All the "emotion" expressed by these majority-opinion ODs -- is just that. They do not have a "case" for their "majority opinion", and the refuse to understand that their is a good scientific basis for the second-opinion -- in this case. Best, Otis > Why are you blaming us? Its those two doctors that didnt feel her +1.75 > twins needed glasses because their UCVA was perfect and they had no [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > encourage lots of near work to promote emmetropization and reduce all > that hyperopia. Once again the world has to put up with your crap Cletis. Stop pretending you have answers, when you have nothing. Forget the quotes, you are taking them out of context, but that is what fundamentalists and fanatics do. I can speak with a lot of authority here, as I have actually been shown to have some expertise in this field, having been through the study and examination process by expert bodies in both Oz and USA. The USA body is the COVD, whom you regularly tell people to use as second opinion doctors. YEP, I AM THE SECOND OPINION DOCTOR. You are wrong here, you are wrong with myopia and you are fortunately ignored by most people. Crawl back into your hole, you know nothing of what you talk about. You are not an expert on the dynamic fundamental eye, I AM, and as an expert, I can quite resolutely say you are totally wrong in your opinion. dr grant BScOptom MOptom FCOVD FACBO GCOT
|
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.