 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2006A myopic parent helps his child clear his vision.
Dear Prevention-minded parents, As we know from reading: www.chinamyopia.org plus-prevention is the second-opinion. I have received this today from a parent. I have changed the names of the these people to protect them from the rather arrogant abuse of people like Catman. As always, plus-prevention is a "hot" topic. And yes, some are successful as described by this parent, and no doubt some are not. But this child can have a good future, of working hard in school, and keeping his refractive STATE zero or positive (pass the DMV) through the high school and college years -- were his fellow students develop stair-case myopia from the minus, to the "tune" of 88 percent myopic in Hong Kong. ================================== From: Ron Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:23 AM Subject: Mike's vision 20/70 to 20/30 Dear Otis, I am Ron and my son is Mike. Mike is eight years old now and can read most of the 20/30 line of i-see random Snellen chart. He has been using plus for three months. In 2004 when he was 6. My wife and I took him to see the optometrist in a university. We were told that Mike's vision was farsighted +0.75D both eyes and the eyes were healthy. In 2005 he was 7. We went to the same optometrist. We were told that Mike's farsightedness was gone. We worried he would be myopic soon. But nothing we could do at the time. The optometrist said that they suggest some children to use the hard contact lens to slow down the myopia if myopia grows fast. But he said Mike was not myopic yet and did not need at the time. My wife and I also think the hard contact lens is too dangerous for a young boy like Michael. We do not consider. What we could do was just keep an eye on his vision. At his regular body check early August this year. The doctor told us Mike needed to see an optometrist. My wife and I took him to see an optometrist on the same day. We were told that Mike was R-1.25 D and L-1.00 D nearsighted. That guy said Mike needed a pair of nearsightedness glasses. I told him Mike's refractive state was 0 diopter last year. That guy said ..you know.. he has grown. he has grown taller. his eyes have grown longer. and heredity. so myopia. I thought only the heredity made sense (not any more now). I think the NBA players are much taller. Are they all myopic? We rejected to let Michael wear glasses the guy wanted to sell. We went to two more different optometrists at different places in the week (because I don't really trust some of them ). One said Michael was R-1.25 D and L-1.50 D. Another said he was -1.50 D both eyes. Sure enough he was nearsighted. We did not go to the university because it takes months for an appointment. We needed to know earlier. My wife and I were very sad. We have been doing everything we can to protect his vision since he was a baby, no close reading at home (in school we don't know and can not control), 12 feet away from the TV and only two or three hours a week, no TV game and no computer etc. Unfortunately, he can not stay away from myopia. In that week. My wife and I searched on the net. We wanted to find some methods to slow down Mike's myopia progress. We found O.K lens then we found plus method on Steve's site and your site. We read as much as possible in a week. Though we read a lot. We could not let Mike try the plus. Because we didn't know too much about this. We worried. So we decided to try the plus lenses by myself first. After a few days using plus lenses. I felt good and my vision improved little. It was no harmful at all. Then we got a pair of +1.50 D lenses for Michael starting. Mike started using plus in the end of August 2006. Mike's vision improved a little bit in a month. I always check his vision at home with the eye charts on the net. I have read a lot about plus prevention on the net. Too bad Steve doesn't update his website any more for some reason. Some people accused him. I have read a lot on your site, your forum, the Yabb vision improvement forum, sci.med.vision and i-see etc. I realize the +1.50 D lenses are not strong enough for Michael when he reaches 20/50 or better. So I gave him a pair of +2.50D lenses on 26 September 2006. He uses plus at home and his class room. He now can read most of the 20/30. Sometimes 4 of 6 sometimes 5 of 6. His vision was about 20/60 - 20/70 three months ago. He has improved a lot through three months. Last week Mike had a vision assessment in the department of health. The optometrist put the -0.50D lenses on Mike's face. Michael could read the smallest line each eye separately with those lenses. The optometrist said Mike was -0.50 D nearsighted both eyes. I asked him if the smallest line was 20/20. He told me that was 20/15. He said Mike didn't need glasses. Otis, is that kind of over-prescription you always say? Anyway, we are so happy about that Michael is just -0.50D nearsighted (may be) confirmed by a professional optometrist though I know his vision level on the eye chart at home, though I don't trust some of them too much. Mike improves his vision by using plus. So do I. But my vision is too bad can not be restored. One thing is certain. Plus prevention works. Mike doesn't do any eye exercise like zooming, sunning and palming etc. He doesn't even know it. I have given him some blue berry extract with DHA since October 2006. I don't know if it helps. Who knows? One more thing is certain. God has been helping us. Thank God. Otis, you are doing great. You are helping a lot of people. Some people overcome myopia with your help. I have learnt much about plus-prevention on your site. Mike can avoid the stair-case myopia. His vision doesn't need to be sacrificed. I can't tell you how excited I am that he doesn't need the nearsightedness glasses in his life even he is just 20/30 now. You are making things better. I have seen some people bash you unreasonably. So I just want to write this letter to say thank you and encourage you. It is not easy for me to type an English letter like this. But I have to. I don't know if Mike will reach 20/20. I believe he will. I will let you know on the day. Thank you very much again Otis. Best regards, Ron > Dear Prevention-minded parents, I didn't bother reading this. I recommend that others pass, too. Third-hand, unverifiable anecdotal stories coming from you--a man with a proven proclivity to unabashed dishonesty, no understanding of the scientific method, and a painfully poor grasp of logic--merit no attention or credibility. Please put some science into sci.med.vision, Otis. Otherwise, leave this crap to the alternative sites. Please. > I didn't bother reading this. > > I recommend that others pass, too. In this case it's a third-hand, unverifiable anecdote describing something that also happens to people wearing full minus correction. Otis has told us that plus lenses cannot "cure" myopia, but in this case the myopia disappeared. I do believe, I do believe, I do I do I do. -MT Dear Mike, Thanks for putting cure in quotes -- because I NEVER said cure. What I said was that the refractive STATE of the natural eye changes with the applied environment and lens. This is what Christine presented in her blue-tinted eyes concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. So you do not believe in scientific facts and analysis -- let us just call your belief that the natural eye is not dynamic the "majority-opinion". ============ Otis has told us that plus lenses cannot "cure" myopia, but in this case the myopia disappeared. I do believe, I do believe, I do I do I do. -MT Well, Mike, click you heels three times, and tomorrow you will wake up in front of your phoropter where you can again apply that minus lens and create very, very sharp vision in 5 minutes. Best, Otis > > I didn't bother reading this. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -MT > Well, Mike, click you heels three times, and > tomorrow you will wake up in front of your > phoropter where you can again apply that > minus lens and create very, very sharp vision > in 5 minutes. ... and you'll be sitting by the garden, rocking in your chair--the way that MANY schizophrenics do--awash in your own excrement, and causing some people to see double ... while helping NOBODY. How myopic is your niece these days, anyway? Just curious. Dear Vision-clearing friends, Subject: Update -- Ron's son is now reading 20/25 Here is a further report on Ron's helping clear his child's vision from 20/70 to 20/30. It does take a parent with a logical mind and scientific common sense to do it. But the parent makes the objective measurements himself, by having the child read the IVAC random Snellen. Further, his work will be monitored by the correct authority. But real responsibility rests with the parent to understand this second-opinion preventive method, and to conduct is successfully. ================== Dear Otis, Thank you for your message. I read those pages of Wildsoet Lab and Good Vision. I understand the effect of the minus lens. When I was teen. I needed stronger minus lenses every one or two years. I don't want my child to do the same thing that I did. I value his vision. I test Mike's vision once a week. Yesterday I tested his vision again. He could read 4 of 5 letters of IVAC 20/25 line. It amazed me. Last week he could just read 5 of 6 letters of I-SEE Snellen 20/30 line. He is getting better and better. I think kid's vision can be restored much easier than adult. As you know. There are so many people nearsighted in Hong Kong. I am one of them. Michael is in a grade 3 class with 20 classmates. Unfortunately there are already five students wearing minus glasses in his class. My wife has talked about plus prevention to a parent whose child is -1.50 D nearsighted. But she didn't really believe it. People prefer the minus lens the optometrists suggest. You are right. The Lord helps the people who help themselves. I will get Mike proper medical checks certainly and we will go to the Polytechnic university to see the optometrist again when his vision gets better. Thank you very much for your attention. Best regards, Ron > Dear Prevention-minded parents, > [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > > Ron But, of course these results are expected based on the scientific fact that the natural eye is dynamic as demonstrated by direct test. See: http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html But confirming that your son's refractive state moves in a positive direction by "seeing results yourself" is the best way to do it. Those blue-tinted dynamic eyes of Christine are very accurate science indeed. Best, Otis > Dear Vision-clearing friends, > [quoted text clipped - 201 lines] > > > > Ron I believe the appropriate syntax for this sort of story is to preface it with "Once upon a time...." Thanks. > Subject: Update -- Ron's son is now reading 20/25 So your therapy made that ol' myopia go away. Sure sounds like a cure to me. You should write a book. You could explain why Grosvenor, Ong, Shotwell, Parnnisen, and all those others couldn't make it work. You could explain how accommodative spasm and axial myopia are one and the same thing. You could explain how a "cure" is not a "cure" if you change the vocabulary. -MT You really make me laugh at your stories Cletis. How long do you work on them before publishing them on the net? I mean really, this is more ridiculous than your Francis Young story, or the shoemaker and the elves. Do you really think anyone takes notice of this drivel? Why don't you do one on a real person for once? dr grant Dear Don Rehm (Author of "The Mypia Myth), There are SOME ODs who are compasionate and supportive of plus-prevention. They are true-professionals. They will offer the public a CHOICE in this matter, unlike other ODs with excess hubris who do not respect the publics right-of-choice. Others are like "Dr" Grant. When they ask for PROOF, and when it is supplied, they THEN IGNORE IT -- because they think they are Gods. THEN I have a problem with them because they are disconnected from objective, scientific reality. Best, Otis ++++++++++++ Your FDA Response letter -- where the FDA says the minus is "safe" ...In summary, common sense and science seem to count for nothing in your world. You seem to think that the eye doctors will police themselves and do nothing wrong. Does the tobacco industry police itself, or does it do everything in its power to make our children addicted to tobacco products? The same thing is happening in the optical business. Children are being victimized and made into lifelong, addicted customers. Your letter is obviously a political decision that is designed to protect the multi-billion dollar profits of the eye doctors and the optical industry. In short, both the FDA and the NEI act as if your salaries are paid by the optical industry, rather than by the taxpayers you are supposed to serve. Donald Rehm President -- International Myopia Prevention Association. ++++++++++++++++++ If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him. Mark Twain "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." Galileo +++++++++++++++++++ >From Dr. Grant Speaking seriously, and as a professional, there are a few points I wish to make. 1) In my consulting room, as you correctly stated, I am god. 2) I earned that right through study, hard work and developing a reputation for quality work, excellent results and caring for my patients and their welfare. 3) You have not earned that right. You are a pathetic little pissant that insults the very fibre of prevention of myopia. You do not deal with 20 patients a day wanting to see clearly, you do not have to ensure that a kid can see the board in class, as well as read and function outside the classroom. 4) You have no concept of the issues, I and every other OD must face on a daily basis for the best welfare of each and every one of our patients. You prefer to pontificate about evil minus and second opinion crap, whose supporters are less credible than yourself. 5) You keep talking about second opinion doctors, but never name any other than Steven Leung. Why is this? I do know several OD's in Hong Kong and Singapore and Steven Leung is held in the esteem that I hold you and Nancy. He has no basis to his method, he just uses the fear of parents to sell his glasses for his own profit. His website is a fraud and most of the links don't work. There is no scientific validation, just fear-mongering. All in all, you are a pathetic, miserable sycophant that has nothing to provdie other than fear. No answers, no proof, nothing. Crawl back under your rock and fester away. dr grant (CatMan) ++++++++++++ Dear Friends, How can anyone learn anything new -- who does not find it a shock? John A. Wheeler "You cannot by reasoning correct a man of an ill opinion which by reasoning he never acquired. We can also say that neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts, can you convince some people that an opinion which they have accepted on authority is wrong." William Bates "The skeptic will say, 'It may well be true that this system of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint, but this does not prove that it corresponds to nature.' You are right, dear skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth. Albert Einstein Statement by Otis: When some one insists that a minus "...has no effect on the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye" -- I am inclined to run a test to prove his "passive eye" concept, or the "null hypothesis". This repeated testing DISPROVES the Donders-Helmholtz theory of the eye -- that it is a "frozen" or passive SYSTEM. When the FDA INSISTS that there is no scientific evidence that the eye is dynamic (i.e., that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of the eye) -- I get concerned. The reason is the whole concept of science and objective facts -- and how they are obtained and judged. Since working with Francis Young, (and reading the "Smith" experiment), it is clear what the result will always be about the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye -- when objectively tested. Here is the scientific experiment and "projected" results. The problem? The FDA takes NO SCIENTIFIC FACTS SERIOUSLY -- because they do not "like" the consequence if they take science seriously. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Statistics. Small "N" -- less than 30. Use student's "t" Test the proposition that a population of eyes are dynamic, rather than passive. 24 monkeys are tested. They are divided into two groups of 12 each. The means of the two groups are established by measurement as well as the standard deviation. Test the hypothesis that the a -3 diopter lens has no effect (Ho) on the refractive STATE of the test group. The experiment will be run for four months or 120 days. It is expected that the refractive STATE of the test group will change by at least -1.5 diopters in four months. The monkeys will be adolescent and pre-adolescent. Their accommodation range is at least 6 diopters, "amplitude of accommodation" -- and is normal. Check for the 95 and 99 percent confidence level. Use small sampling statistical concept. Small or group standard deviation is "s" Nc = Number in control group Nt = Number in test group THE CALCULATION FOR THE STANDARD DEVIATION The "s" is 0.7 diopters for both the test and control groups. Large standard deviation is "Sigma" Sigma = Sqrt [ ( Nc * s^2 + Nt * s^2 ) / ( Nc + Nt - 2 ) ] Sigma = Sqrt [ ( 12 * .7^2 + 12 * .7^2 ) / ( 12 + 12 - 2 ) ] Sigma = 0.73 Degrees of freedom or "Nu" = 12 + 12 - 2 = 22 THE CALCULATION FOR "t" t = [Xc - Xt] / Sigma * Sqrt [ 1/ Nc + 1/Nt ] t = 0.7 - (-.8) / 0.73 * Sqrt [ 1/12 + 1/12 ] t = 5.03 Degrees of freedom = 22 >From a standard "t" distribution: For 99 percent confidence t = 2.51 For 99.5 percent confidence t = 2.82 Since 5.03 profoundly exceeds 2.82, we can conclude that the fundamental eye is dynamic and the refractive STATE always "follows" the applied -3 diopter lens. These numbers come from a number of primate studies. I have little doubt but that an actual SCIENTIFIC test would produce very high confidence levels consistent with these projected results. In other words, I would BET on this outcome against EQUAL MONEY with people who honestly want to know SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. +++++++++++++++++++ These are 24 monkeys. If each eye is considered SEPARATELY, then Nt = 24 and Nc = 24 The large-scale statistics are: z = [ Xc - Xt ] / Sqrt [ Sigma(c) ^2 / Nc + Sigma(t) ^2 / Nt ] z = [.7 - ( -.8 ) ] / Sqrt [ 0.7 ^2 / 24 + 0.7 ^2 / 24 ] z = 7.42 The "Z" value for 99.8 percent confidence is 2.88. This calculated value vastly exceeds this level of confidence. Anything above 3.9 is considered a virtual certain. Otis > You really make me laugh at your stories Cletis. How long do you work > on them before publishing them on the net? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > dr grant > Dear Don Rehm (Author of "The Mypia Myth), Never forget that--while I'm not sure his METHODS are any more SUCCESSFUL than yours-- at least Don Rehm has the stones to be honest with people about plus lenses interference with binocular vision and possibility of inducing DOUBLE VISION. YOU, on the other hand, have NEVER HELPED ANYBODY AND HAVE CAUSED DOUBLE VISION IN NUMEROUS CASES. Please leave and ask Don Rehm to take your place on s.m.v. Thanks. > Dear Don Rehm (Author of "The Mypia Myth), this guy is another idiot! what does the president of the "Earth is Flat" Society think about plus prevention? by the way Otis, whatever happened to the investigation against you by the State of Pennsylvania for practicing medicine without a license? Neil Brooks filed the statement to PA. It turns out that Neil is not a resident of California, and not if PA. I have been very clear that a person should understand that he should always research the SECOND-OPINION by reading: www.chinamyopia.org And considering plus-prevention when on the threshold. It is up to the person himself which of these two methods he might prefer: 1. An impressive quick-fix with the minus, and stair-case myopia to follow (witness 88 percent of Hong Kong College students myopic), or: 2. Plus prevention with the plus, with close monitoring of the Snellen controlled by the parent -- and supported by Steve Leung. Sci.med.vision is about providing information to the parent about this preventive alternative. Choose wisely! Because once you START with that minus -- that is the last time you will see clear distant vision for the rest of your life. Just one man's opinion. Best, Otis > > Dear Don Rehm (Author of "The Mypia Myth), > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > by the way Otis, whatever happened to the investigation against you by > the State of Pennsylvania for practicing medicine without a license? > Neil Brooks filed the statement to PA. > > It turns out that Neil is not a resident of California, and not > if PA. Don't let the facts (or typographical errors) stand in the way of a good story, Cletis (I LIKE that!) Incidentally, before I went globetrotting, the State of PA promised to try to contact the injured parties. I'll circle back with PA to see how that's coming, though ... some of the families I talked to were mortified at what they considered to be their own stupidity in listening to Otis and--likely as not--simply wanted to put it behind them. > Because once you START with that minus -- that > is the last time you will see clear distant vision for > the rest of your life. So if we take two groups of _human_ children who are just beginning to get nearsighted... And we make one group wear glasses full-time And we make the other group remove their glasses as much as practical Which group gets more nearsighted? Your answer, please? Hint - it's better if you actually look up studies like this and report their results. Imagining the answer doesn't cut it. > Just one man's opinion. You didn't know there are actual controlled studies that answer this question? -MT wow this is some kind of sh.t! I'm new to spectacles and lenses and whatnot, and I certainly wouldn't use lenses THAT high, or low, I don't know, but the point is I wouldn't deviate too much from my prescription (which admidetly was kinda shady in the first place). I am currently HATING my glasses because of the dizzyness and headaches while I adjust to graduated bifocals so... I wouldn't imagine something that deviates a lot. might die or crash the car or vomit I hate this new feeling... oh well. otis shouldn't try to fool us newbies, if indeed he has done so. I don't know sh.t about this and I would love for someone to tell me I'm going to be better and my vision will come back and would need no more glasses and whatever... I could be fooled easily by my own hopes, and that sucks! Otis, I forbid you! stop the nonsense if indeed it is! Even if I don't know the thought of the eye being dynamic excites me, but I think, like the one who posted above, that yoga or meditation or just thinking hard enough you could make it change (people bend spoons, no?)... but not with overblown lenses! no siree, poor child. > otis shouldn't try to fool us newbies, if indeed he has done so. I > don't know sh.t about this and I would love for someone to tell me I'm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Otis, I forbid you! stop the nonsense if indeed it is! His claims have failed in HUMAN scientific testing ... repeatedly; He tried his method on his OWN nephew and niece. His niece is myopic enough to have a restricted driver's license, so ... that didn't work; His logic is absolutely horrible. [1] His "science" ... just ain't; He doesn't answer ANY relevant direct questions that any "true" scientist would HAVE to answer IF what they were looking for was The Truth. Instead, Otis starts with a conclusion and tries to work his way backward toward his "case." He represents the worst kind of religious zealotry. He has induced DOUBLE-VISION in nearly a dozen people that I know of, prompting me to turn him over to his state's authorities for investigation. He knows nothing about the interaction of accommodation and convergence and can't be bothered figuring it out. And .... BOTH he AND the one guy in the world who (Otis claims) agrees with him are trying to sell books. In fact, ALL of Otis's "pals" are trying to sell books. Oh, sure: eye doctors sell goods and services, too, but ... that's pretty well understood. Otis lies about it ... repeatedly. Oh, yeah: did I mention he's a pathological liar? Start lobbying for him to answer my (and others') questions. You'll have all the information you need.... [1] Keep this as a scorecard when you look through his posts: http://mason.gmu.edu/~arichar6/logic.htm Dear "Yubast", Subject: The stated second-opinion by a professor of optometry. The man (and his child) simply helped his child "clear" his Snellen from 20/70 to normal by use of a plus. This is simply the IMPLEMENTATION of a suggestion of Professor Ted Grosvenor. Why do people get "upset" when a parent helps his own child clear his Snellen with a plus? He only did what Ted suggested. What is wrong with that -- as the second-opinion? "It is clear that the collective common sense of the profession has indicated the type of problem they face and the nature of the expected solution. In the article "Trying to Get Myopia into Focus", Dr. Theodore Grosvenor of the Houston College of Optometry, insists that persistent close work causes myopia. He also states that; "Once the eye has started to stretch, it may be too late to keep it from stretching. The ultimate study would be to put reading glasses on first-graders, before anyone has developed myopia." So it is important to get the facts straight as stated by Chris Wildsoet on her site, understand them and start the plus before your eyes "adapt" to that wretched minus. This is simply the process offered by Steve Leung at: www.chinamyopia.org Only be prepared to start the preventive process BEFORE you begin wearing that minus lens. Just one man's opinion. Best, Otis > wow this is some kind of sh.t! I'm new to spectacles and lenses and > whatnot, and I certainly wouldn't use lenses THAT high, or low, I don't [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > just thinking hard enough you could make it change (people bend spoons, > no?)... but not with overblown lenses! no siree, poor child. > Just one man's opinion. Operative phrases here: "one man" :opinion" How about answering my questions, Otis. It's hard to believe that nobody notices how long you've dodged them.... > How about answering my questions, Otis. It's hard to believe that > nobody notices how long you've dodged them.... Hey Neil, give it up. Most folks who have hung around this group for a while know that Otis cannot answer a question. So we've long since given up trying. You are quite right, however, that of late he has become dangerous to small children, particularly hyperopic ones. He WILL tread carefully in this area, or he WILL pay dearly. indeed he has dodged this question and I would like to know the answer... could you answer it please? anyone? > > Because once you START with that minus -- that > > is the last time you will see clear distant vision for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -MT Dear YouBast, Subject: To types of answers. YouBast> indeed he has dodged this question and I would like to know the answer... Otis> To confirm the effect on the eye's refractive STATE is is wise to FIRST test the concept on a population of fundamental eyes. There are majority-opinion ODs who INSIST, that the fundamental eye is not DYNAMIC, and THERFORE, a -3 diopter lens will not, and must not have any effect on a population of natural eyes. Otis> When this test is actually conducted, and the refractive STATES are measured using a retinoscope, the refractive STATE of the -3 diopter group changed by -2 diopters in less than six months. Otis> You can draw your own scientific conclusions. Best, Otis > indeed he has dodged this question and I would like to know the > answer... [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > > > -MT [sssnip] If you plug that reply into translate.google.com, the answer comes back as: "No. I'm not going to answer you." HTH, Neil > indeed he has dodged this question and I would like to know the > answer... ----------------------------- Br J Ophthalmol 1989 Jul;73(7):547-51 Related Articles, Links Effect of spectacle use and accommodation on myopic progression: final results of a three-year randomised clinical trial among schoolchildren. Parssinen O, Hemminki E, Klemetti A. Department of Ophthalmology, Central Hospital of Central Finland, Jyvaskyla. Two hundred and forty mildly myopic schoolchildren aged 9-11 years were randomly allocated to three treatment groups and the progression of myopia was followed-up for three years. The treatment groups were: (1) minus lenses with full correction for continuous use (the reference group), (2) minus lenses with full correction to be used for distant vision only, and (3) bifocal lenses with +1.75 D addition. Three-year refraction values were received from 237 children. The differences in the increases of the spherical equivalents were not statistically significant in the right eye, but in the left eye the change in the distant use group was significantly higher (-1.87 D) than in the continuous use group (-1.46 D) (p = 0.02, Student's t test). There were no differences between the groups in regard to school achievement, accidents, or satisfaction with glasses. In all three groups the more the daily close work done by the children the faster was the rate of myopic progression (right eye: r = 0.253, p = 0.0001, left eye: r = 0.267, p = 0.0001). Myopic progression did not correlate positively with accommodation, but the shorter the average reading distance [at] follow-up time the faster was the myopic progression (right eye: r = 0.222, p = 0.0001, left eye: r = 0.255, p = 0.001). It seems that myopic progression is connected with much use of the eyes in reading and close work and with short reading distance but that PROGRESSION CANNOT BE REDUCED BY DIMINISHING ACCOMMODATION WITH BIFOCALS OR BY READING WITHOUT SPECTACLES. -MT (caps mine.) . >> indeed he has dodged this question and I would like to know the >> answer... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > -MT > (caps mine.) Hmm. Gee, Otis: this goes a long way toward explaining why your niece, Joy--despite her never having worn minus lenses AND her regular use of plus lenses--is now myopic enough to require a restricted driver's license. Wouldn't you think? Yeah. Yeah. > could you answer it please? anyone? Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1981 May;58(5):349-54. PMID: 7258283 Related Articles, Links Plus lenses, prisms, and bifocal effects on myopia progression in military students. Shotwell AJ. Students of the Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS) class of 1978 to 1979 were randomly divided into three groups, one-third of the class receiving their correlation for distant vision with a no. 1 pink tint to be used for reading (the placebo group); one-third of the class receiving +1.25 D added to their distance correction with 2 delta base-in each eye, in glasses to be used for reading; and one-third of the class receiving bifocals, incorporating their distance correction with a +1.50 D near addition. The refractive error at distance for all 232 students was determined under cycloplegia. At the end of 5 months, a repeat cycloplegic refraction showed nonsignificant myopic shifts (Wilcoxon test) of -0.08 +/- 0.29 D in the placebo group, -0.07 +/- 0.25 D in the plus-with-prism group, and -0.06 +/- 0.18 D in the bifocal group. This research note is preliminary to a followup at academic graduation of these same students from the Naval Academy in 1983. > could you answer it please? anyone? Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1987 Jul;64(7):482-98. PMID: 3307440 Houston Myopia Control Study: a randomized clinical trial. Part II. Final report by the patient care team. Grosvenor T, Perrigin DM, Perrigin J, Maslovitz B. In a randomized clinical trial designed to test the efficacy of bifocal lenses for the control of juvenile myopia, each of 207 children between the ages of 6 and 15 years wore single vision lenses, +1.00 D add bifocals, or +2.00 D add bifocals for a period of 3 years. For the 124 subjects who completed the study, the mean changes in refraction were found to be -0.34 D per year for subjects wearing single vision lenses, -0.36 D per year for those wearing +1.00 D add bifocals, and -0.34 D per year for those wearing +2.00 D add bifocals. These differences were not statistically significant. Au Contraire my dear Mike. Firstly, these were academic quacks, not second opinion OD's like the world reknowned Steve Leung. Secondly, they were not testing fundmental eyes, or natural eyes and they were not testing the dynamic eye either, so all those results are worthless. Why don't you publish the work of respected authors like Oakley and Young who found that monkeys and chickens go myopic if you say "BOO"? Anyway, I wait for Cletis' response to all your phoney research. ROFLMAO dr grant Second Opinion Specialist > 1. An impressive quick-fix with the minus, and > stair-case myopia to follow (witness 88 percent > of Hong Kong College students myopic), or: Maybe they should move out of Hong Kong? Then they wouldn't get myopic? :-( 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 You are incredibly arrogant -- which perpetuates your ignorance of the second-opinion -- tragically. Ron "woke up" to the need to protect his child's vision with a proper-strengh plus, and avoid you. A wise choice indeed. Otis > You really make me laugh at your stories Cletis. How long do you work > on them before publishing them on the net? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > dr grant > Dear Prevention-minded parents, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > plus-prevention is the second-opinion. No, "we" don't know anything about plus-prevention being a second-opinion. it is "Otis' opinion" and that's all. except that it could also be called the "disproven opinion" since its been studied in controlled studies and found to be just as effective as wearing a full minus correction. Why do you continue to misrepresent the truth in this forum? > As always, plus-prevention is a "hot" topic. it is NOT a "hot topic". it is a dead issue. it was disproven decades ago. what rock have you been living under? > And yes, some are successful as described by this > parent, and no doubt some are not. indeed MANY are not successful using plus prevention. you might as well try using yoga and meditation. over-correction with excessive minus has just as good a success rate as plus. Why do you repeatedly keep popping-up and trying to mislead people? > Why do you repeatedly keep popping-up and trying to mislead people? because he ekes out a meager living doing it? > > Why do you repeatedly keep popping-up and trying to mislead people? > > > because he ekes out a meager living doing it? and Bingo was his name-o Mike> indeed MANY are not successful using plus prevention. Otis> No doubt true. Plus-prevention requires understanding and aboves all else MOTIVATION to be effective. This becomes a matter of personal choice for the parent or child concerned with this issue. It is clear that you can NEVER "prescribe" the type of personal insight and motivation necessary to successfully PREVENT entry into a negative refractive STATE. This is the problem that was solved by Ron, when he had his child read the Snellen, use a preventive plus, and verify that the child's vision cleared to 20/40 or better. you might as well try using yoga and meditation. over-correction with excessive minus has just as good a success rate as plus. Why do you repeatedly keep popping-up and trying to mislead people? > > Dear Prevention-minded parents, > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Why do you repeatedly keep popping-up and trying to mislead people? > I have seen some people bash you unreasonably. So I just > want to write this letter to say thank you and encourage you. It > is not easy for me to type an English letter like this. But I > have to. Naw. I haven't seen Otis being bashed unreasonably. What I have seen are reasonable scientists arguing with an unreasonable carmudgeon. > I don't know if Mike will reach 20/20. I believe he > will. I will let you know on the day. He won't. Will you let us know when your child's myopia increases despite your plus lenses? DrG > He won't. Will you let us know when your child's myopia increases > despite your plus lenses? As a corollary to that statement, will you please let us know when he gets tired of trying to function in +2.50 spectacles? After all, if there is any prevention, the treatment will have to be maintained all during childhood and adolescence...nobody knows, really. Have you tried looking through those lenses. The COMET study predicts that if plus lenses work, they work for about one year, after which time the myopia continues to accelerate as much as the controls. Also, your son's accommodative ability will atrophy, and he will absolutely need to wear the reading glasses to do any close work. So, you will be giving him another problem. DrG > Also, your son's accommodative ability will atrophy, and he will > absolutely need to wear the reading glasses to do any close work. So, > you will be giving him another problem. Not sure the double vision will be much of a picnic, either.... Imagination is more important that knowledge...knowledge is limited but imagination circles the world. To see with one's own eyes, to feel and judge without succumbing to the suggestive power of the fashion of the day, to be able to express what one has seen and felt in a trim sentence or even a cunningly wrought word...is that not glorious? When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come close to the conclusion that the gift of imagination has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing absolute knowledge. Albert Einstein It is pleasant to know that Ron has taken the first steps of myopia prevention himself. Thus his child will not join the rampent myopia of Hong Kong of 88 percent. A wise parent indeed. Perhaps he understood the type of imagination it took to make plus-prevention effective. Best, Otis > Dear Prevention-minded parents, > [quoted text clipped - 146 lines] > > Ron The "final authority" of course is the DIRECT experimental data itself. See: http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html This is very simple. To deterimine if the natural eye is dynamic -- you put a -3 diopter lens and SEE that is is dyanamic. Ron looked at this a determined that the minus was a "questionable" idea at best. And then he looked at the effect of a postive lens on the refractive STATE of the naural eye, and saw that the DIRECT objective FACTS confirmed that the eye's refractive STATE would change in a positive direction in about six months. So, when his child wore that plus, his refractive STATE moved in a positive direction (as predicted) and his Snellen cleared. Why does anyone get their knickers in a twist about objective scientific facts, and the a parents use of these scientific facts to help his child clear his Snellen to normal. I mean this is the natural eye that Christine Wildsoet presents on her site were the dynamic eye changes its refractive STATE (length) as a minus lens is applied to it. What? You don't believe in the science of the natural eye's behavior as presented by Christine in her blue-tined eye? Please explaine your rejection of accepted scientific facts as presented by C. Wildsoet. Best, Otis > Imagination is more important that knowledge...knowledge is > limited but imagination circles the world. To see with one's own [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] > > > > Ron > Please explaine your rejection of accepted > scientific facts as presented by C. Wildsoet. Please explain how Wildsoet's model is relevant after age 6. -MT Please explain your belief that: 1. The natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC, as represented by the C. Wildsoet paradigm, and 2. When a -3 diopter lens is placed on a young primate-eye, and the eye changes its refractive STATE by -2 diopers in six months -- why do you judge (and what explicit experimental data) tell us that the natural six year-old eye will not behave the same way? 3. The above will explain why Ron's child's eyes SLOWLY changed their refractive STATE in a positive direction (i.e., Snellen cleared to 20/25), in about three months. 4. Thus an 8 year-old child's eyes respond as per C. Wildsoet's paradigm. Since there is a difference of opinion, and we can not resolve it, let us just say that you have an un-verified majority opinion that the natural eye is NOT DYAMIC, and therefore you can do nothing to help a parent and child clear the child's eyes from -1.5 diopters (about 20/70) to -0.25 diopters (about 20/25), and that the parent will have to learn to accept Wildsoets dynamic-eye paradigm and work plus-prevention under the parent's control -- as Ron did it. After all, once the parent figures out how to do it successfully, he has no need for you -- except for medical checks (and I agree with the pure-medical checks). Best, Otis > > Please explaine your rejection of accepted > > scientific facts as presented by C. Wildsoet. > > Please explain how Wildsoet's model is relevant after age 6. > > -MT [snip] http://nbeener.com/Oda_May_Brown.html > Please explain your belief that: > > 1. The natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC, > as represented by the C. Wildsoet > paradigm, and A) Dr. Wildsoet's "paradigm" applies to putting lenses on eyes that are NOT myopic. B) The distribution of human refractive error becomes more kurtotic for about the first year after birth. From then on, it diverges. > 2. When a -3 diopter lens is placed on a young > primate-eye, and the eye changes its refractive STATE > by -2 diopers in six months -- why do you > judge (and what explicit experimental data) tell > us that the natural six year-old eye will not > behave the same way? Because six-year-olds who _don't_ wear glasses get just as nearsighted, and some of those who wear glasses get better. > 3. The above will explain why Ron's child's > eyes SLOWLY changed their refractive STATE > in a positive direction (i.e., Snellen cleared to 20/25), > in about three months. Ah.. so you believe myopia never decreases on its own. > 4. Thus an 8 year-old child's eyes respond as > per C. Wildsoet's paradigm. Ah. So you believe nobody's ever tested groups of children to answer this question. Again we rely on your imagination as our only authority. Otis said it so it must be so... -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Who is resonsible for inducing a negative refractive STATE in the natural eye? Do not take it too bad, Mike. Afer all YOU are not the person inducing a negative refractive state. It is in fact a 6 year-old child's "habit" as you see in this picture. http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/SaveEye.html And as BOTH of us know, it is hard to "break" a child of this particularly pernecious habit. But Christine's dynamic eye paradigm truly tells us the problem of children doing this sort of thing. It is then up to the parents to RECOGNIZE this type of problem -- and stop their children from doing it -- to include the use of a plus 2.5 diotper for all close work -- and home and at school. And for the same reason, a population of natural eyes kept in a "caged" or confined environment show the development of an AVERAGE negative refractive STATE of -1,6 diopters -- for primates kept that way for over seven years. Christine should be proud of that conceptual picture -- because it is so accurate with respect to OBJECTIVE measurements made with a retinoscope. Best, Otis > > Please explaine your rejection of accepted > > scientific facts as presented by C. Wildsoet. > > Please explain how Wildsoet's model is relevant after age 6. > > -MT [snip] http://nbeener.com/Oda_May_Brown.html And of course, as a scientist, you should examine the fact that the YOUNG NATURAL eye's refractive STATE always follows the applied plus and minus 3 diopter lenses. http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html Credit to Dr. C. Wildsoet. Best, Otis > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > > > -MT |
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.