 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2007Over-prescription by -2 diopters?
OverPre2.txt Subject: Over-prescription by -2 diopters. The natural eye proves to be dynamic, (blue-tint concept) on this site. http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html i.e., the natural eye will change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters (in six months) if you place a -3 diopter lens on it. This is absolute science and not medicine. I would be wise to discuss the prevention of a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye by use of a plus lens -- and by avoiding an over prescription by -2 diopters. A parent should have the right of an informed, competent choice in this matter -- as suggested by Steve Leung at: www.chinayopia.org I am posting this to clarify some of these scientific points. There is a tendency to over-prescribe a minus lens for a young child. I think this "practice" should be avoided. In this example, the child has been over-prescribed by between -2.0 diopters to -2.75 diopters based on her PERSONAL reading of the Snellen at 20/60. In general, a -2.75 diopter prescription indicated a Snellen of -2.75 x 70 = 20/190 vision. The definition for "distance" legal blindness is 20/200. So that is the implication of that measurement. I have changed the names to protect the person involved. Otis ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Hellen, Subject: The importance of YOUR reading and your Child's reading of the Snellen. You will be told many things by and OD or MD. But the only thing you can believe is what your daughter actually sees on the Snellen. 20/60 if functional vision. Not great, but unless she complains she can work with no minus lens (for now). The -2.75 and -2.5 are profoundly over-prescribed FOR THAT REASON (in my opinion). A -0.75 diopter to -1 diopter would clear the 20/30 line for her, which would meet virtually all her requirements. For that reason I SUGGEST that she is over-prescribed by -2 diopters. You can obtain a low-power minus lens from: Zennioptical.com for about $15. If she has a school requirement, she can use them for that purpose. If she is less than 16 there is no legal requirement for glasses. Only convenience. If you wish a plus, you can obtain that from Zenniopical also. I know you might be over whelmed by these issues -- so take your time. At 20/60 there is no reason to rush. Also, check your child's habitual reading distance. Some children (myself as I remember it) had this bad habit of leaning forward so their nose is almost on the book. Far more important than a "plus" or ANYTHING ELSE is the goal of convincing her to NOT DO THIS. No child should ever get her eyes closer than 13 inches as a minimum (in my opinion). So keep on reading. TALK TO YOUR DAUGHTER about these issues. If she is hostile to these ideas (young as she is), then you may have to give it up. She is at a critical point on these issues. Best, Otis +++++++++++ Dear Mr. Brown, I am determined to help my daughter fight for the nearsightedness. Thank you for all the information you provided. I just had her read the Snellen chart on your site and she could read all the letters for 20/60 clearly. I will have her try on the plus glasses as soon as I get one (it's not easy to get a kid's reading glass). Best Regards, Hellen ++++++++++++++ Dear Hellen, It is difficult to "understand" plus-prevention. I agree with that issue. But some of the arrogance of the minus-lens "doctors" is excessive. I truly do not know how you will resolve this issue. But this might help you understand the majority-opinion "position". Best, Otis +++++++++ From: "Otis Brown" <otisbrown@pa.net> Subject: Majority-Opinion Judy Judy explains why she can not even discuss your right to an informed choice on plus-prevention as the second-opinion. Otis> Subject: The RESPONSIBILITY of the parent and child to consider the preventive alternative BEFORE THE MINUS. Otis> 6. I would like for Judy to just DISCUSS an alternative OTHER than a minus lens, or send you to an informative web site if she does not have the time to discuss plus-prevention. From Judy: I, and other eye doctors would welcome alternatives for myopia correction. [Comment: I said PREVENTION! I did not say "correction". Judy never gets this concept straight! OSB] We would be overjoyed to tell parents and children how to prevent myopia. [Comment: But, she is going to over-prescribe EVERY CHILD WHO ENTERS HER OFFICE BY -2 to -2.5 diopters -- with no discussion of risks or alternatives. That, is indeed the majority opinion. That is indeed profound arrogance. This is why I think you must be wise enough to "wake up" and just do it yourself. Hell will freeze over before Judy is going to help. OSB[ > Subject: Over-prescription by -2 diopters. > > The natural eye proves to be dynamic, (blue-tint concept) > on this site. Fraudulent misrepresentation of data and conclusions. > i.e., the natural eye will change its refractive STATE by > -2 diopters (in six months) if you place a -3 diopter lens > on it. This is absolute science and not medicine. Fraudulent misrepresentation. -3 myopes do not become -5 myopes in six months. > I would be wise to discuss the prevention of > a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye by > use of a plus lens -- and by avoiding an over > prescription by -2 diopters. Fraudlent misrepresentation. Prevention has been shown NOT to work in real populations. > A parent should have the right of an informed, > competent choice in this matter -- as suggested > by Steve Leung at: Fraudulent misrepresentation. Promising benefits where none occur is fraud. > There is a tendency to over-prescribe a minus lens for a > young child. Fraudulent misrepresentation of neutralizing correction. > I think this "practice" should be avoided. Fraudulent conclusion based on false assumption. > In this example, the child has been over-prescribed by > between -2.0 diopters to -2.75 diopters based on her PERSONAL > reading of the Snellen at 20/60. Fraudulent assumption of facts not in evidence. > In general, a -2.75 diopter prescription indicated a Snellen > of -2.75 x 70 = 20/190 vision. The definition for "distance" > legal blindness is 20/200. So that is the implication of that > measurement. Fraudulent conclusion based on false assumption. On Mar 10, 8:23 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > The -2.75 and -2.5 are profoundly over-prescribed FOR THAT > REASON (in my opinion). > > A -0.75 diopter to -1 diopter would clear the 20/30 line for > her, which would meet virtually all her requirements. For that > reason I SUGGEST that she is over-prescribed by -2 diopters. Two studies now confirm that undercorrection causes myopia to increase. The first study, by Chung, et. al. was published in the October 2002 issue of vision research. The second study was by Adler and Milledot and published in the September 2006 issue of Clinical and Experimental Optometry. Therefore, the advice of Otis to undercorrect this child's myopia is inconsistent with the most recent clinical studies. I sincerely hope that Otis will pass this important information along to this unfortunate mother. DrG Dear "L", As you stated, you put your own 5 year-old into a minus lens (at about 20/50). I can not "fault" you for that, although I think you could have helped him with the preventive plus at that point. But I respect you for your majority-opinion. It is equally clear that other optometrists have become skeptical of that minus lens, and put their own child into a plus when the child is at 20/50. I support this man as the "second-opinion" and suggest that the public be aware of this difference in opinion, and the fact that a man will seek to protect his own child with wise use of the plus. I will indeed inform this mother of your majority opinion, and would hope that she can find an plus-prevention optometrist who will guide her child in the correct use of the plus, and follow the advice he provides. Best, Otis > On Mar 10, 8:23 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > DrG > As you stated, you put your own 5 year-old into > a minus lens (at about 20/50). And you usually state (fraudulently) that -0.50 is "strong minus." > I can not "fault" you for that, although I think you > could have helped him with the preventive plus at > that point. But I respect you for your majority-opinion. Fraudulent reference to ineffective treatment. > It is equally clear that other optometrists have become > skeptical of that minus lens, and put their > own child into a plus when the child is at 20/50. Fraudulent misrepresentation. The number of optometrists using "plus prevention" is miniscule. > I support > this man as the "second-opinion" and suggest that > the public be aware of this difference in opinion, and > the fact that a man will seek to protect his own > child with wise use of the plus. Fraudulent representation of standard of care, fraudulent emotional appeal. > I will indeed inform this mother of your majority opinion, > and would hope that she can find an plus-prevention > optometrist who will guide her child in the correct > use of the plus, and follow the advice he > provides. Fraudulent reference to disproven treatment. The number of "plus-prevention" optometrists is small and growing smaller. On Mar 10, 9:16 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > As you stated, you put your own 5 year-old into > a minus lens (at about 20/50). Here are the facts: At age 3 years, my son was OD: plano OS: plano-0.75 x 90. Visual acuities were 20/20 OD and 20/25 OS. At age 4 years, my son was OD: plano OS: plano-0.50 x 90. Visual acuities were 20/20 OD and 20/25 OS. At age 7 years, my son was OD: -1.50 sphere OS: -0.75-0.75 x 155 (cycloplegic). Visual acuities were 20/70 OD and 20/80 OS. At this point, my son was having trouble hitting the baseball. His playing improved with his new eyeglasses. > I can not "fault" you for that, although I think you > could have helped him with the preventive plus at > that point. But I respect you for your majority-opinion. Of course you cannot fault me for that, but I certainly can fault you. > It is equally clear that other optometrists have become > skeptical of that minus lens, and put their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the fact that a man will seek to protect his own > child with wise use of the plus. Scientific evidence leads most to believe otherwise. > I will indeed inform this mother of your majority opinion, > and would hope that she can find an plus-prevention > optometrist who will guide her child in the correct > use of the plus, and follow the advice he > provides. That would be very prudent on your part. As well, you should re- examine your beliefs, as they may be incorrect, and may produce unintended results if followed. DrG Dear "L", I have in fact posted your remarks to Hellen. But I suggested that she take a broad perspective, and realize that while you love the minus because it impresses the superficial -- it may not be a great idea. "L"> As well, you should re-examine your beliefs, as they may be incorrect, and may produce unintended results if followed. Otis> And I would suggest you re-examine your beliefs, that a -3 diopter lens has no effect on the refractive STATE of all natural eyes -- on a scientific level. Clearly, as a matter of pure science, the natural eye does change by -2 diopters in six months, when the experiment is conducted correctly. This suggests that great care (i.e., no over-prescription) should be considered, with the parent reviewing the relavant scientific facts. The "un-intended" results of an over-prescribed minus lens will most probably be stair-case myopia -- which can not then be "reversed" by a plus lens. Otis> Just one man's opinion. > On Mar 10, 9:16 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > DrG On Mar 10, 9:28 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> And I would suggest you re-examine your beliefs, that > a -3 diopter lens has no effect on the refractive STATE of all [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > will most probably be stair-case myopia -- which can not > then be "reversed" by a plus lens. Once again you have confused cause and effect. People get eyeglasses because they are myopic, not vice-versa. Now, let's put an end to this silly debate. DrG Dear Prevention-minded friends, Subject: What science says about the eye's behavior, and what ODs do for their own children. For me, virtually everyting I say depends on an expert helping his own children with preventive-plus. No man wishes to see his children's vision go "down", and the child become permanently myopic. Yet some optometrists truly believe in that minus lens. But just remember, there are others optometrists who finally realize that while the minus is quick, and effective, it truly has a serious and bad secondary effect. The issue for you (and I hope you are not to deep into myopia yet) is to know this, and at least consider the second-opinion as presented here. 1. Majority-opinion ODs put their own kids in a strong minus -- and no problem is solved. Their own kids vision goes DOWN from that point onward. The rate is -1/2 diopters/year. 2. Second-opinion ODs, seeing their child's vision at 20/40, (about -3/4 diopters) insist that they begin wearing a +2.5 diopter lens for all close work. Their vision clears on the Snellen, and their refractive STATE moves positive. 3. Pilots value their distant vision, and will put in the STRONG effort with a +2.5 diopter lens to clear their vision, and equally important will continue this process. I do not consider the goal of keeping my distant vision clear for life, nor the science that supports is a "silly debate". This is an issue that you must decide for your self. Here is the discussion: =========================================================== Otis> And I would suggest you re-examine your beliefs, that a -3 diopter lens has no effect on the refractive STATE of all natural eyes -- on a scientific level. Clearly, as a matter of pure science, the natural eye does change by -2 diopters in six months, when the experiment is conducted correctly. This suggests that great care (i.e., no over-prescription) should be considered, with the parent reviewing the relevant scientific facts. The "un-intended" results of an over-prescribed minus lens will most probably be stair-case myopia -- which can not then be "reversed" by a plus lens. ++++++++++++ DrG > Once again you have confused cause and effect. People get eyeglasses because they are myopic, not vice-versa. DrG > Now, let's put an end to this silly debate. +++++++ DrG is confused. What I stated is that the natural eye's refractive STATE FOLLOWS the applied minus. There is no "cause". Keep the natural eye in the "open" and the refractive STATE is positive and distant vision is clear. Place that SAME EYE, in a -3 diopter lens, or a long-term NEAR environment, and the NATURAL EYE will simply change its refractive STATE from plus-to-minus, and you will have blur at distance. Thus the second-opinion OD gets is "right" for his own children. But that is the true nature of a preventive second-opinion. > On Mar 10, 9:28 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > DrG On Mar 12, 9:15 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > 3. Pilots value their distant vision, and will put in the STRONG > effort with a +2.5 diopter lens to clear their vision, and > equally important will continue this process. Dear prevention minded friends. Please disregard Otis's postings. He does not know the FAA requirements regarding vision and pilots. The above statement is WRONG, has no scientific or medical value. Thanks! Allen Dear Prevention-minded friends, Subject: What science says about the eye's behavior, and what ODs do for their own children. I am reposting this statement. For me, virtually everyting I say depends on an expert helping his own children with the preventive-plus. No man wishes to see his children's vision go "down", and the child become permanently myopic. Yet some optometrists truly "believe" in that minus lens. But just remember, there are others optometrists who finally realize that while the minus is quick, and effective, it truly has a serious and bad secondary effect. The issue for you (and I hope you are not to deep into myopia yet) is to know this, and at least consider the second-opinion as presented here. 1. Majority-opinion ODs put their own kids in a strong minus -- and no problem is solved. Their own kids vision goes DOWN from that point onward. The rate is -1/2 diopters/year. 2. Second-opinion ODs, seeing their child's vision at 20/40, (about -3/4 diopters) insist that they begin wearing a +2.5 diopter lens for all close work. Their vision clears on the Snellen, and their refractive STATE moves positive. 3. Pilots value their distant vision, and will put in the STRONG effort with a +2.5 diopter lens to clear their vision, and equally important will continue this process. I do not consider the goal of keeping my distant vision clear for life, nor the science that supports is a "silly debate". This is an issue that you must decide for your self. Here is the discussion: =========================================================== Otis> And I would suggest you re-examine your beliefs, that a -3 diopter lens has no effect on the refractive STATE of all natural eyes -- on a scientific level. Clearly, as a matter of pure science, the natural eye does change by -2 diopters in six months, when the experiment is conducted correctly. This suggests that great care (i.e., no over-prescription) should be considered, with the parent reviewing the relevant scientific facts. The "un-intended" results of an over-prescribed minus lens will most probably be stair-case myopia -- which can not then be "reversed" by a plus lens. ++++++++++++ DrG > Once again you have confused cause and effect. People get eyeglasses because they are myopic, not vice-versa. DrG > Now, let's put an end to this silly debate. +++++++ DrG is confused. What I stated is that the natural eye's refractive STATE FOLLOWS the applied minus. There is no "cause". Keep the natural eye in the "open" and the refractive STATE is positive and distant vision is clear. Place that SAME EYE, in a -3 diopter lens, or a long-term NEAR environment, and the NATURAL EYE will simply change its refractive STATE from plus-to-minus, and you will have blur at distance. Thus the second-opinion OD gets is "right" for his own children. But that is the true nature of a preventive second-opinion. Be wise about this. > On Mar 10, 9:28 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > DrG Grant: But don't you realise that Wildsoet did not say anything of the sort. She states, "However, the picture is by no means clear-cut in terms of causality". She has no evidence of the cause of myopia. She is postulating current theory, that is all. Cletis: But myopia is evil and Wildsoet proved it. Reading is evil, I will blow up all schools to stop people reading. I will shoot all parents for forcing their children to read. I will blow up covernments that provide schools. I will execute the pope for providing schools to poor people and making them get evilly myopic also. No-one will be safe from my wrath. Grant: Settle down Cletis. There is nothing wrong with school, remember you went to school, did it turn you evil? Are you myopic? Cletis: I fight evil. I will kill everyone, especially optometrists. Only second opinion optometrists will be saved as they save people from evil myopia. Steven Leung will be safe from me. You too shall die dr grant. Grant: But I am a second opinion optometrist Cletis. I am board certified as a childrens vision and behavioural specialist. I spend all my time helping prevent myopia in children On Mar 12, 8:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Prevention-minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > - Show quoted text - More spam from Mr. Myopia. DrG > I am reposting this statement. For me, virtually everyting I > say depends on an expert helping his own children with the > preventive-plus. Fraudulent reference to discarded idea. > No man wishes to see his children's vision go "down", and the > child become permanently myopic. Yet some optometrists truly > "believe" in that minus lens. Fraudulent emotional appeal. > But just remember, there are others optometrists who finally > realize that while the minus is quick, and effective, it truly has > a serious and bad secondary effect. Fraudulent misrepresentation of medical standards. > The issue for you (and I hope you are not to deep into myopia > yet) is to know this, and at least consider the second-opinion as > presented here. Fraudulently presented here. > 1. Majority-opinion ODs put their own kids in a strong minus -- > and no problem is solved. Their own kids vision goes DOWN > from that point onward. The rate is -1/2 diopters/year. Fraudulent implication that neutralizing correction worsens myopia. > 2. Second-opinion ODs, seeing their child's vision at 20/40, > (about -3/4 diopters) insist that they begin wearing a +2.5 > diopter lens for all close work. Their vision clears on the > Snellen, and their refractive STATE moves positive. Fraudulent misrepresentation of discarded therapy. > 3. Pilots value their distant vision, and will put in the STRONG > effort with a +2.5 diopter lens to clear their vision, and > equally important will continue this process. Fraudulent reference to ineffective therapy. > I do not consider the goal of keeping my distant vision clear > for life, nor the science that supports is a "silly debate". Fraudulent claim that your therapy works. -MT Dear Prevention-minded friends, Subject: What science says about the eye's behavior, and what ODs do for their own children. I am reposting this statement. For me, virtually everyting I say depends on an expert helping his own children with the preventive-plus. No man wishes to see his children's vision go "down", and the child become permanently myopic. Yet some optometrists truly "believe" in that minus lens. But just remember, there are others optometrists who finally realize that while the minus is quick, and effective, it truly has a serious and bad secondary effect. The issue for you (and I hope you are not to deep into myopia yet) is to know this, and at least consider the second-opinion as presented here. 1. Majority-opinion ODs put their own kids in a strong minus -- and no problem is solved. Their own kids vision goes DOWN from that point onward. The rate is -1/2 diopters/year. 2. Second-opinion ODs, seeing their child's vision at 20/40, (about -3/4 diopters) insist that they begin wearing a +2.5 diopter lens for all close work. Their vision clears on the Snellen, and their refractive STATE moves positive. 3. Pilots value their distant vision, and will put in the STRONG effort with a +2.5 diopter lens to clear their vision, and equally important will continue this process. I do not consider the goal of keeping my distant vision clear for life, nor the science that supports is a "silly debate". This is an issue that you must decide for your self. Here is the discussion: =========================================================== Otis> And I would suggest you re-examine your beliefs, that a -3 diopter lens has no effect on the refractive STATE of all natural eyes -- on a scientific level. Clearly, as a matter of pure science, the natural eye does change by -2 diopters in six months, when the experiment is conducted correctly. This suggests that great care (i.e., no over-prescription) should be considered, with the parent reviewing the relevant scientific facts. The "un-intended" results of an over-prescribed minus lens will most probably be stair-case myopia -- which can not then be "reversed" by a plus lens. ++++++++++++ DrG > Once again you have confused cause and effect. People get eyeglasses because they are myopic, not vice-versa. DrG > Now, let's put an end to this silly debate. +++++++ DrG is confused. What I stated is that the natural eye's refractive STATE FOLLOWS the applied minus. There is no "cause". Keep the natural eye in the "open" and the refractive STATE is positive and distant vision is clear. Place that SAME EYE, in a -3 diopter lens, or a long-term NEAR environment, and the NATURAL EYE will simply change its refractive STATE from plus-to-minus, and you will have blur at distance. Thus the second-opinion OD gets is "right" for his own children. But that is the true nature of a preventive second-opinion. Be wise about this. > On Mar 10, 9:28 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > DrG Grant: Cletis: Grant: Hey Cletis, did you know you are a w.nker Cletis: Well, yes I did Grant, I have to compensate for my small penis. Grant: Well you really piss a lot of people off here discussing your lies about myopia. Cletis: I know, and I am sorry, but Myopia is evil and I have to warn everyone. Grant: But is myopia really evil, Cletis? Myopia simply is. It exists, it is part of the universe. Do you suggest that according to the yin/ yang theory that hypermetroipa is good by nature? You have a very shallow attitude about the universe. Cletis: But I have to save people from the evil myopia. The natural refractive state must be maintained. The fundamental eye should not be myopia. Wildsoet says blue rays are dangerous and I have to save people from blue rays. I am petitioning Sony to stop making blue-rat DVD recorders to stop evil blue rays. Grant: But don't you realise that Wildsoet did not say anything of the sort. She states, "However, the picture is by no means clear-cut in terms of causality". She has no evidence of the cause of myopia. She is postulating current theory, that is all. Cletis: But myopia is evil and Wildsoet proved it. Reading is evil, I will blow up all schools to stop people reading. I will shoot all parents for forcing their children to read. I will blow up covernments that provide schools. I will execute the pope for providing schools to poor people and making them get evilly myopic also. No-one will be safe from my wrath. Grant: Settle down Cletis. There is nothing wrong with school, remember you went to school, did it turn you evil? Are you myopic? Cletis: I fight evil. I will kill everyone, especially optometrists. Only second opinion optometrists will be saved as they save people from evil myopia. Steven Leung will be safe from me. You too shall die dr grant. Grant: But I am a second opinion optometrist Cletis. I am board certified as a childrens vision and behavioural specialist. I spend all my time helping prevent myopia in children. Cletis: Never-the-less, you will die too. You put me down and are evil. You will die with george bush. Grant: I didn't know he could read? Cletis: He can't but he is evil and wants nice americans to read. Grant: I see we are going no-where here Cletis, I am going now. Cletis: You can't go. I am going to kill you and everyone else. I will kill cows for feeding people to become myopic, I will kill vegetables for helping people with failing sight see and read and become myopic, I will kill, kill, kill, kill................................................................................. Grant: I think it is time for your lithium Cletis, good night. Grant: p.s. you are still a w.nker Cletis. On Mar 12, 11:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Prevention-minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Mar 10, 7:16 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear "L", > > As you stated, you put your own 5 year-old into > a minus lens (at about 20/50). As she stated, you put your own little niece, Joy, into a plus lens. > I can not "fault" you for that, although I think you > could have helped him with the preventive plus at > that point. But I respect you for your majority-opinion. Many CAN fault you for that because--other than having your life ruined when your dreams of being a commercial pilot were dashed, creating a colossal chip on your shoulder--you have no authority to intervent in children's vision. ....and you've given nobody ANY reason to respect you or your opinion. Nobody. > It is equally clear that other optometrists have become > skeptical of that minus lens, and put their > own child into a plus when the child is at 20/50. Other optometrists? Oh, you mean Steve Leung. Didn't work for HIM. Any way to show whether or not it's working any better for his kids? Bet you a couple of shillings that they're all myopic by age 20. > I support > this man as the "second-opinion" Incidentally, does he "support you" through a cut of book sales? > and suggest that > the public be aware of this difference in opinion, and > the fact that a man will seek to protect his own > child with wise use of the plus. The public should be made aware that there's one eye doc somewhere in the world who /believes/ somethilng, but can provide no evidence that it's so? That's more like a religion than optometry. I'm sure you're a deeply religious man, Uncle Otie. Perhaps you should start with the children of your fellow parishioners. Perhaps they use a more "convenient" standard of evidence.... > I will indeed inform this mother of your majority opinion, Actually, you'll excerpt the bits of posts made here--the bits that you can twist to villify and pillory people who know more about eyes than you ever will. You will NOT tell her, though, about your niece, Joy. You remember Joy, right, Uncle Otie? You pushed the plus on her aggressively. Now, just as you expected (the DYNAMIC eye, Wildoet's blue-tint diagram, engineering, science, but not medicine), she's a MYOPE with a restricted driver's license. WILL YOU tell Hellen about your first, worst, most notable failure-- the one you hide in shame as you trumpet her brother as an (apocraphyl) success story?? > and would hope that she can find an plus-prevention > optometrist who will guide her child in the correct > use of the plus, and follow the advice he > provides. I am constantly amazed at how you continue to post invalid and uniformed information in your posts. anyone who reads what you write is getting false and misleading information. you write: "http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html i.e., the natural eye will change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters (in six months) if you place a -3 diopter lens on it. This is absolute science and not medicine. " this is DEFINITELY NOT medicine NOR is it science. this is NOT true for humans-- studies have clearly shown that intentionally overminusing children DOES NOT result in accelerated myopia development. do I need to list the references AGAIN? why do you extrapolate studies that were done on ANIMALS to humans when there is direct human data that speaks clearly on this issue? and why do you provide a link to a website that says nothing about the issue you are supporting? " There is a tendency to over-prescribe a minus lens for a young child." really? and how would you know that? this misstatement is just part of your straw argument so you make it to complete a story. and even if it were true, the scientific data shows that overminusing has no influence on myopia development. "The definition for "distance" legal blindness is 20/200. So that is the implication of that measurement." bullshit. the definition is best-corrected vision that is less than 20/200. your misunderstanding, or misrepresentation, of the truth is incredible. you are flat out lying and your internet service provider should ban you from access to newsgroups where innocent people might read your crap. So what is the status of the legal actions that were taken against you by the State of Pennsylvania for practicing medicine without a license? we are all curious about the outcome. obviously it hasn't stopped you from spouting your crap. do you have nothing else to do with your life than post the same old bullshit over and over again on this newsgroup? On Mar 10, 10:23 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > OverPre2.txt > [quoted text clipped - 168 lines] > be wise enough to "wake up" and just do it yourself. Hell will > freeze over before Judy is going to help. OSB[ |
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.