Dear Churie,

You will have to forgive our resident troll, Neil Brooks.

He has no medical training or experience.

Yet he feels "empowered" with no medical
ability to "attack" anyone at random
if he feels in his agust none knowledge
that you are doing something "wrong" -- by
his perverted standard.

Try to ignore his posts, they and NOTHING
of worth to this parent's concern for
a child's use of a contact lens.

Otis

On Jun 25, 10:19 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

LOL

Actually, Otis, I seek to understand.

Would you mind answering a few questions for me, please?

1.      There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
widely differing visual systems.  How is it that you feel so secure in
saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard?

2.      In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
minus lens, the myopia was prevented?

3.      If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results?  If so, how?

4.      You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
you call "stair-case myopia."  Presuming that you mean that it does
this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this
claim?

5.      You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
"proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time.  It
doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this.  Please explain your
position.

6.      Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia.  Are you
aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
esophoria?"  This is a convergence disorder.  Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
convergence disorder?

7.      You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades.  I
presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition.  In it, Mr. Rehm
states:

" if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount,
or if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount,
problems can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye
fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is,
the two images can no longer be fused together without discomfort.
Normal binocular vision is interfered with."

Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?

8.      You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success
story.  Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr.  Deakins
is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and
that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?

9.      Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?

10.     You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is,
I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address).  You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?"  If
so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy
was sold.  If not, please state how long it has been since you
received any money for this book.

11.     Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you
have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?

12.     Presuming that you understand the difference between
accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you
please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES
axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES
axial-length myopia

13.     You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views.  Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD?  Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make?  Would you
please provide it?

14.     Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book.  Do you have
any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung?  Do you think
it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that
he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his
website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as
inducements to sell both your and his  book?

15.     Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though
your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she
is, at this time, a myope with a restricted driver's license?
[http://www.chinamyopia.org/otis%20&joy.htm]

16.     I have posted, many times, links to the actual summaries of
the myopia progression studies that you lie about
[http://darwin.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/62.html].  Why do you
tell people that they WILL SHIFT MYOPIC BY 1.3 DIOPTERS during the
four years of college when the studies DO NOT SAY THAT AT ALL?  Please
explain your position and provide citations to the appropriate
studies.

17.    You enjoy citing the Francis Young 1969 Eskimo study, claiming
that it is "proof that near work causes myopia."  Are you aware of the
contemporary theory that states that, in fact, myopia in the Inuit
population was a result of the introduction of a "Western" diet high
in simple carbohydrates (junk food)?  
 http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/myopia.html
 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2120

18.    You enjoy using the term "closed-loop feedback system" to
describe
your concept of the "dynamic eye," yet (see question #3) the following
is
a much BETTER representation of a closed-loop feedback system:

 Think of your home's oven as an analogy.

 You set the thermostat for 350 degrees (F).

 If the oven is already at 275F, then the thermostat will signal an
INcrease in temperature.

 If the oven is already at 425F, then the thermostat will signal a
DEcrease in temperature.

 IF, however, the oven is already at 350F -- the desired temperature
--
then the thermostat will not signal any change.

Please explain why your position is at variance with this analogy.

19.    You seem to stop by sci.med.vision for the sole purpose of
"roiling
the waters--" adding posts designed only to harrass and annoy
optometrists
who, universally, do not agree with you.  

You then excerpt--often improperly and with incorrect attributions--
these conversations on other sites, adding your little 'comments'
WITHOUT the doctor having any ability to challenge what you say.

Do you think this is intellectually honest?  

If you are interested in debate, exchange, argument, or discussion,
wouldn't it be better to actually ANSWER questions directly?

20.    Presuming that your theories are based, at least in large
part, on the emmetropization process, at what age does this stop in
humans?  In other words: you are recommending a particular therapy to
halt myopia progression that--based on your arguments--should be
equally
effective at REVERSING it.  If so, then why are all of its advocates
(and
most of its known 'test subjects') myopic?

This seems to be a bit of a paradox, no?