20/20-Shawn Thanks You For Your Advice and Assistance

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Nov 10, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Prevention-Minded Friends,

    I am certain we are ALL pleased when a young man,
    using the second-opinion advice of Steve Leung,
    is able to clear his distant vision to 20/20 through
    intense use of a plus lens -- as described by
    Dr. Colgate, and advocated by Dr. T. Grosvenor (Professor,
    University of Houston.)

    While we have our differences, we all agree that
    a person should have the concept of a second-opinion
    or choice presented to him. After all, his eyes belong
    to him -- and NOT the OD.

    I has presented Shawn with the various discussions
    on sci.med.vision so he can understand the opposition
    to true-prevention with a plus lens.

    I am certain he is pleased with the result he achieved,
    and understands your opposition to his right to
    this second opinion.




    Dear Shawn

    Subject: Solving problems by your own intelligence and

    Re: Holding at 20/20.

    I am VERY PLEASED you have achieved 20/20. Given the amount
    of "denial" of that possibility on sci.med.vision, you have done
    the "impossible".

    I send you the remarks by Mike Tyner so that you might
    understand his "mind-set". Remember, he is using the minus-lens
    technique that was established 400 years ago, and has not changed
    at all in that time. That suggest that there is very little
    "science" behind the minus lens -- at all!

    I believe that ONLY when you accept that reality is it
    possible for you to develop the incisive intellect and personal
    persistence to make "prevention" possible and effective.

    In fact the "psychology" of "control" is very important! If
    I attempted to FORCE you to use the plus -- you would fight very
    hard against me, and against the use of the plus lens.

    When I trust YOU to think, to analyze, and to act strongly on
    your own as a very intelligent young man -- then the results are
    completely different!

    The "problem" in optometry is that you can not have a OD must
    both 1. "quick-fixing" the eye with a minus lens -- and then 2.
    admit that all natural eyes go "down" when you place a minus lens
    on them. The latter is true. But the "public" seems to only
    "want" the minus lens because of its obvious effect.

    When you are "in control" then recognizing factual scientific
    truth, item 2, then a logical process can develop to support

    That is why "arguments" with these ODs on sci.med.vision is
    impossible. It also explains why Jan-OD states that a scientific
    recognition of item #2 "must be destroyed".

    Further thoughts:

    Dear Shawn,

    Shawn> I checked my vision today and read 4/5 characters on the
    20/20 line!

    Otis > Most FAA examiners (if you previously had 20/20) will pass
    you if you read a few characters on the 20/20 line. Only if
    you can read NO characters on the 20/20 line will they fail
    you. You obviously have "professional pilot" quality

    Otis > You have vision that was required for entry into the U. S.
    Naval Academy. Your refractive status is zero. Again,
    students (who do not wear the plus lens) have vision that
    goes down by -1.3 diopters in four years. I think it is
    absolutely tragic that no one attempts to help them with
    that issue. Your success should be presented to them so
    that they could follow your lead -- in my opinion.

    Shawn> Steve would like me to write up something about my
    experience with the plus lens, I will get working soon!

    Otis > Please do so! He is a true leader. I wish there were more
    like him -- but he is the only one in the world doing this
    work as an optometrist. I emailed him the "conversations"
    we have had over the last four months. But a clear
    statement from you would be of considerable value to him.

    Shawn> I read about Mike Tyner. He didn't seem to "bash" that
    plus lens as much now that you presented him with the info
    that i reached 20/20. It was amusing.

    Otis > When scientific "control" is passed to you, then the
    situation changes completely. When YOU make all the
    measurements then no one can "persuade" you that you were
    not successful. Don't let anyone talk you out of it.
    Believe what you see when you read 20/20.

    Shawn> Mike tyner mentioned tonic accommodation in my case, what
    is that?

    Otis > Mike has "tonic accommodation" slightly wrong. When the
    retina can not detect micro-blur, it goes to a "stand-by"
    position that is about -1.0 diopters more negative than
    your zero diopters refractive state. So in total darkness,
    or in a "pure gray" condition your refractive status will
    be about -1 diopter. This is NOT AN FAULT OR ERROR
    CONDITION. It is completely normal. You might read, "A
    Cybernetic Model of Accommodation" on my site to discuss
    this issue. This issue does not affect anything you are
    doing, nor your obvious success. To measure
    tonic-accommodation accurately requires an infra-red
    optometer. This is a scientific piece of equipment, and
    is not available to optometrists in their shop. Too

    Shawn> Get mike to send me an email, I would like to chat with

    Otis > I sent you his email. Let me know what he has to say.
    Remember, he expresses the majority-opinion. No problem.
    But when he denies the necessity of a second-opinion, I do
    get concerned.

    Shawn> I must say that personally this has been a big
    accomplishment to restore my precious distance vision.

    Otis > It is a MAJOR scientific achievement for you.
    The only problem is that no one will believe you!
    But don't worry about that issue, just keep your distant
    vision clear by use of the plus when necessary.

    Otis > When your vision was "hanging" at 20/25 I was concerned. I
    knew that whatever level you achieved -- you could retain.
    Now that you are at 20/20 I am certain you can retain that

    Shawn> I see the results every day -- I need no convincing that the
    plus lens works, there is just no question, of course it

    Otis > That is probably the ONLY way a person can be convinced of
    the scientific basis for true-prevention. Your own
    PERSONAL visual welfare is the only thing that matters.

    Otis > My nephew Keith worked moderately with the plus, and always
    passed the 20/40 (DMV) line or better. He kept 20/30 or
    better I believe. But you have honestly worked with
    greater intensity -- and your success shows the results.
    The main thing I was worried about for Keith was that some
    thoughtless OD would put a strong minus lens on him (even
    when he passes the 20/40 line) and create stair-case myopia
    in him. A real tragedy. That is why "Mike's" attitude is
    so destructive. I know he does not believe it -- but he is
    intellectually blind to this sad truth.

    Shawn> When i went to the OD and he saw that my vision had
    improved by 3/4D he couldn't argue with me, because the
    proof was obvious. he told me "well it obviously works,
    but..." big surprise eh?

    Otis > That OD had no idea how hard true-prevention is for anyone
    to accomplish. Only when you put great "force" into it is
    prevention possible -- and you are the sole beneficiary of
    the effort. In my mind that separates "science" (what you
    do) from "medicine" (what the OD does). I will always
    maintain that point-of-vies.

    Shawn> I have my Rx written on a piece of paper with my OD's
    signature on it saying "was... is..." about my Rx.

    Otis > Good, keep it. But remember, you only must pass the eye
    chart. When you read 20/20, there is no requirement that
    any "diopter" measurement be made by the FAA. Test to ONLY
    your requirements -- is the way we do it in engineering.

    Shawn> I started doing my science fair project on the plus, I
    think i could go far with this because surely it has never
    been done.

    Shawn> Enjoying my work!

    Otis > As I enjoy working with you on this project! This is
    fundamental analytical science -- and not medicine.

    Otis > From my perspective I got many insights from studying the
    work of Galileo. Any fundamental change in scientific
    perspective always creates fierce opposition from the
    "standard" thinking of the past. Good luck with you
    science fair project!



    Otis Brown, Nov 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    RM Guest

    Get real. No one opposes anyone's "right to a second opinion". Don't put
    such a self-serving spin on the criticisms you get from the doctors in this
    forum Otis.

    Otis, there really is a form of myopia that is caused by a heightened tone
    in the ciliary muscle of the eye. When this occurs this can cause an
    apparent near-sightedness when in actuality muscle relaxation (using plus
    readers for example) would cure the cause rather than the symptom of
    distance blur. Otis, this is OBVIOUS to all of us who practice refractive
    eyecare. But here are the key issues you need to realize:

    - These types of patients, who are accurately classified as accommodative
    myopes, are NOT THE MAJORITY of myopes you find in the real world. Most
    myopes are axial myopes, or have too much refractive power in the curvature
    of their cornea. Plus lenses have no possibility of helping the majority of
    myopes. You seem to believe, as did many of the early generation
    optometrists whom you like to quote (Merrill Allen, Ted Grosvenor, etc) that
    all myopes might actually be treated with plus lenses. Doesn't work Otis!
    It's been investigated and proven wrong. Sure you can find a case reports
    of accommodative myopes like your buddy Shawn who can be helped this way but
    the majority aren't. All myopes are not the same Otis.

    - Even when you do encounter an accommodative myope, and they come to you
    and complain that they have distance blur and can't see to drive, do you
    propose that we tell them to "suck-it-up and deal with it" and instead use
    plus lenses that make their vision worse than before they came to us in the
    first place? Otis, people want help with their problems. They want their
    distance blur to go away as soon as they put their glasses on. What an eye
    doctor does is give the accommodative myope a weakest effective minus lens
    and tell them to use it only when needed. You could try to also tell them
    to use separate plus lenses when reading but that's just not practical for
    your average citizen who is trying to get along with their life with the
    least possible hassle.

    Otis, your arguments are simple minded and "freshman-class" for those of us
    who are trained in physiological optics and in clinical vision care. YOU
    can go around with extra pairs of glasses stuck in your pocket along with
    the calculators, mechanical pencils, and slide rules that are probably there
    Besides, if the patient is a myope whose nearsightedness is not caused by
    increased resting ciliary muscle tone, like the majority of myopes, then
    plus lenses have no beneficial effect. Treating all myopes like you propose
    is at best quackery and at worst malpractice.

    Finally Otis, please realize that MINUS LENSES NEVER KILLED OR INJURED
    ANYBODY! Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you. Why don't you
    start a crusade against something that really matters like pollution of our
    environment, finding a cure for cancer, improving automobile safety, or
    reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

    I really can't believe that I've actually taken the time to write you this
    long message after I've seen the painstaking explanations and replies that
    others in this group have provided to you in the past. Why won't you try to
    understand. Quit cluttering up this newsgroup with quack notions and
    argument just for the sake of more argument.
    No Otis, it's very possible for the subgroup of myopes who are
    accommodative myopes BUT THAT ISN'T A LARGE GROUP.

    I suppose that your notion of using plus lenses and making all myope go
    around seeing blur in the distance is where the real cutting edge of science
    it. Pathetic! QUACK!

    I wouldn't say I've heard anything in your arguments that show "incisive
    intellect". I do agree however that you possess a lot of "personal

    Otis, this is called "addressing the patients chief complaint".
    The latter IS NOT true! Minus lenses don't hurt anybody.
    Yeh-- it's called helping them see better. It's called solving their
    problem. It's called making them happy. Oh-- but you would want them to
    see blurry in the distance and tell them there's nothing we can do to solve
    their problem (remember Otis-- most myopes are not accommodative myopes.
    Plus lenses won't help them)
    RM, Nov 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. One more interesting point-- I'm sure that the wearing of plain old
    corrective spectacles has probably saved an eye or two (or hundreds of
    thousands) preventing trauma. One ophth tells me that he used to routinely
    prescribe a blank lens to protect a patient with one remaining eye.

    Scott Seidman, Nov 11, 2004
  4. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear RM,

    Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

    Remember I did not say that a minus lens "hurt" anyone.

    I stated that if you take a population of fundamental
    eyed -- and place a minus lens of -3 diopters or
    so, the refractive status of the group wearing the
    minus lens will go "down" relative to the control

    This is basic scientific truth. If you choose
    not to believe it -- then that is YOUR PROBLEM,
    not mine.



    cc: Friends with an open mind about
    objective scientific testing of the
    behavior of the natural eye.

    Otis Brown, Nov 11, 2004
  5. Otis Brown

    RM Guest

    Otis, I suppose you mean that if you overminus someone by 3.00 diopters then
    when you refract them again after a period of adaptation to the stronger
    lens power you are likely to find that they appear more nearsighted. Well
    that's right! When you overminus someone you induce their ciliary muscle to
    contract even when they are looking in the distance so as to counteract the
    effect of the excessive lens power. After a prolonged period, that causes
    the ciliary resting muscle tone to be higher (provided that the person is
    not presbyopic or nearly so) and induces accommodative myopia. Got it!!
    Yes, you can induce someone to become more myopic if you give them more
    minus than they need BUT WE TRY NOT TO DO THAT! That's lesson number one
    when you learn to refract someone Otis. It's freshman class stuff Otis.
    We're way ahead of you pal.

    Now when someone comes in and they are truly a myope due to anatomic reasons
    such as an elongated axial length, do you suggest that we "spare the minus
    lens" and tell them to wear plus lenses instead? And just what good do you
    think that will do? Explain to me in physiological or medical terms how
    exactly that will improve their myopia. Or will you finally admit that in
    cases where true myopia exists that it's OK to use just enough minus lens
    power to provide a good focus of the visual image on the retina. When you
    are finally are ready to admit that Otis, then we are in total agreement and
    you can move your crusade onto some other more important "problem" in human
    health care.

    The majority of myopes ARE NOT accommodative myopes Otis.
    RM, Nov 11, 2004
  6. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    I will post your remarks to Shawn.

    Since you suggest that his successful results require
    that he "go elsewhere" perhaps that is the
    only SCIENTIFIC answer available to him.

    He thought that he could converse intelligently
    with you. I personally rather doubt it.

    Vision clearing has he has done it takes considerable
    fortitude -- and you can never "prescribe" that kind
    of personal interest and effort.

    Since he now passes the 20/20 line, it follows
    that he PERSONALLY solved this age-old problem
    where the natural eye adapts its refractive
    status to its average visual environment.

    That separates SCIENTIFIC work (like Shawn did it)
    from "medical" work where you have not choice
    but to put a 1.5 diopter lens on a person
    who has a reafractive status of -1.5 diopters.

    That is of couse incredibly simple -- but totally
    ignores the fact that the natural arrived at
    -1.5 diopters because is controls its
    refractive status to its visual environmnet.

    In my opinion, Shawn will have a much better
    life, with is 20/20 vision. He knows that
    the use of the plus is necessary when
    he sees his vision move down towards
    20/30 and 20/40. But he know EXACTLY what
    he must do. Restart agressive use of the plus.

    Since this successful work will always produce
    a 20/20 eye, you will never has Shawn in your
    office -- and the issue for you is moot.


    Otis Brown, Nov 11, 2004
  7. Come on, people is suffering YOUR PROBLEMS, the ones of a profession
    which is not able to cure a simple thing like a -.50 or +.50 so called
    refractive error, if not by applying a stupid glass lense before the

    What have you to offer more?


    And what about presbyopia?

    Why don't you cure it either?

    And what about all the other diseases of the eye???

    I see that once in a while you stumbled upon a satisfied "client", but
    the vast majority is suffering and finds no relief, if they are

    Come on, don't make a fool of poor Otis, he is an old man and has
    suffered very much your bad practice, with operations, detachments of
    the retina, and so on.

    Be more polite as your status as a doctor requires!!!
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Nov 11, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.