-20 D under self-treatment

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by g.gatti, Dec 28, 2004.

  1. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    Yesterday a girl aged 27 called me at the phone to order my books and
    declared her high myopia of 20 dioptres.

    I asked her to do a check: to grab a printed page and tell me at what
    distance she could read the small characters, without glasses.

    She answered "a little bit more than 5 cm distance".

    Then I instructed her to use her memory and imagination with a capital
    letter T.

    She understood quickly how to read it "in parts", one part best.

    Then I asked her to put it a little bit more distant, and at 8 cm she
    could read it with the same intensity of black.

    Then I asked her to pick up a dictionary with the small print, to open
    it at the word "Amore", and try to learn how to read the word one part
    of each letter best.

    Since the word is in nold chars, I asked her to proceed to read the
    explanation.

    The first word was Sentimento, and we concentrated on the letter "e"
    besides the capital S.

    She grasped the fact that the WHITE half-moon inside the "e" was WHITER
    than the rest of the page.

    By remembering the whiteness of the half-moon she could move the page
    at more than 10 cm distance without losing the letters and continuing
    to read.

    It seems we have halved the myopia in a few minutes, from 20 D to 10 D.

    Please I would like the learned men on this forum to explain how this
    could be possible under the accepted theories of accommodation.
    Un-learned men may visit my webpage http://TheCentralFixation.com
     
    g.gatti, Dec 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    Please be serious!
     
    g.gatti, Dec 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    Please don't worry about Mike.

    He only wants to continue the minus lens
    put is place 400 years ago -- whilst ignoring
    all who suggest we should begin
    re-thinking the facts concerning the
    dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    If fact, when the person himself makes
    the measurements -- he often finds he
    has been profoundly over-prescribed.

    On 15 year old man, who had gone from
    about -1.5 diopters to -2.75 diopters,
    finally "woke up" and decided to go
    "cold turkey". He contacted me, and
    asked about prevention. I asked
    him to check his Snellen (AFTER his
    -2.75 contact prescription). When
    HE CHECKED he found he could read
    between the 20/50 and 20/70 line.

    I suggested that he:

    1. Have another OD exam.
    2. Accept the Snellen-DMV requirement
    as an ABSOLUTE.
    3. Think very carefully about what
    he wanted for his long-term vision.
    4. Recognize the fact that tne natural eye
    "goes down" from a confined visual enviroment,
    and the forced wearing of a minus lens.
    5. Decided to take PERSONAL control of
    his distant vision -- in the manner of Dr. Colgate.

    Currently he is PASSING the Snellen-DMV requirement
    so the DMV does not require that he EVER wear
    a minus lens.

    If he decides to continue this effort, then
    I would believe that he could pass the 20/30 line -- even
    though it is a lot of work for him.

    Thus prevention is possible -- although honestly
    difficult.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Dec 28, 2004
    #3
  4. g.gatti

    Neil Brooks Guest

    [snip]

    So, Otis . . .

    Despite my best efforts at adding you and your pet topic to my killfile in
    every conceivable permutation, here you are again.

    A couple quick things:

    1) I suppose the bar for "proof" should be lower for you than for the
    rest of the scientific community because you want it to be? Seems a little
    narcissistic and self-serving;

    2) In the wake of recent events (Aleve, Vioxx, Celebrex, etc.) I'm
    reminded that scientific hypotheses should be held to the highest of
    scrutiny before introduced as "safe," "accurate," "state-of-the-art," or
    "conventional wisdom." Reach for it, Mister. It's up there for you to
    surmount.

    Time and time again, you eagerly and blithely foist your theories on
    unsuspecting folks who stop by S.M.V. looking for help. The general public
    must rely on the kindly doctors to alert them to your lack of credentials,
    potential for harm, and untested hypotheses.

    Look, Otis, I'll allow for the possibility that all of the eye doctors on
    this NG are avaricious, self-serving monsters who have a lock on a huge
    chunk of change that comes from doing things "their" way. They may be a
    member of the vast ocular conspiracy that defends its wealth by maintaining
    the status quo. All of this may be true (though I don't think it is).

    But you still come across as a petulant, Napoleonic idiot.

    The bar for proving your theories is the same as it is for all others. Go
    prove your theories (yes, the old fashioned way: proper testing, accurate
    data, peer-review) and -- if there's a kernel of truth in what you spout --
    you'll be rich and you'll be right up there with Bagolini, Heimholz,
    Donders, Schirmer, Robert A. Strabismus, and all the other paragons whose
    names are memorialized in ophthalmology/optometry.

    Until then, you're a troll . . . who creates risk for unsuspecting, often
    desperate, people seeking help. "Engineer" in your signature expiates some
    of your guilt. It does nothing to ameliorate the risk. Perhaps if your
    signature said, "I am not a doctor. My theories are my own and are not
    shared by most in the medical community. Consult your doctor."

    Neil
     
    Neil Brooks, Dec 28, 2004
    #4
  5. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    Please explain why the myopia of that girl could be so easily lessened
    without glasses.
    There is no question of overprescribing since the girl, once left
    without glasses, could not see much over 5 cm of distance.
    She could read 1 mm letters at double that distance just after few
    minutes of practicing.

    Thanks.
     
    g.gatti, Dec 28, 2004
    #5
  6. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Neil,

    I regret that your "kill-file" does not work.

    My primary interest was in understanding why
    a "quick-fix" method of 400 years ago got
    perpetuated beyond reason and scientific logic.

    It is certain that "impressing" a person (who has
    no interest) with a minus lens -- is very easy indeed.

    The difficult problem is helping the person develop
    a scientific (not medical) understanding of
    the direct-facts (i.e., input versus output) as
    they concern the dynamic nature of the
    natural eye's behavior. Obviously
    the engineer who can translate these
    objective scientific facts into a course
    of action where he clears his vision
    to the accepted legal standard has
    PROVEN TO HIMSELF that his
    natural eyes obey the same
    physiological law -- that is
    found in these OBJECTIVE scientific
    experiments conducted by Dr. Francis Young.

    If you choose to ignore this scienttific truth,
    and prefer an over-prescribed minus lens,
    then that becomes your problem.

    In the case in question, the man has
    no doubt about what he is seeing -- as
    well as the honest hard work it took him
    to "clear" from the -2.75 diopter perscription
    (assuming it was accurate).

    Since he knows that his vision will again
    start "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per
    year if he neglects the use of a strong
    plus -- I doubt that he will EVER neglect
    the use of the plus again.

    What he gains is the ability to keep his
    distant vision clear (at almost no cost)
    for the next seven years, when his
    friends vision goes down at that
    standard rate.

    He is indeed a wise person to
    take his own ability seriously, and
    "protect" his vision as others
    are doing it.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 28, 2004
    #6
  7. g.gatti

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Again, anecdotal hype from a self-aggrandizing charlatan.
     
    Neil Brooks, Dec 28, 2004
    #7
  8. g.gatti

    RM Guest

    This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
    that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
    "" or "Otis, Engineer".

    Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
    training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia (i.e. nearsightedness)
    prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects even
    been disproven by controlled scientific studies. He has posted and reposted
    his ideas approximately 1000 times over the last two years despite being
    repeatedly debunked by numerous doctor practitioners and vision scientists.

    No one means to suppress the opinions of others. This message is only meant
    to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert.

    DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll!

    For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of
    scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following
    link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually
    appears on Mondays for information on how to filter out his posts so that
    you may be able to participate in

    worthwhile discussions in this forum. Thank you for your cooperation and

    understanding.


     
    RM, Dec 29, 2004
    #8
  9. g.gatti

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear vision prevention friends.

    Please ignore Otis's postings. This allegedly 15 year old child is named
    "Shawn".

    He allegedly "protects" his subjects and doesn't give his subjects the
    option of participating in this newsgroup.

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Dec 29, 2004
    #9
  10. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    No, she could read the whole sentence and so on, and when it went out
    of focus again, she again practiced with the memory of the white
    half-moon, and continued.
     
    g.gatti, Dec 29, 2004
    #10
  11. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    I'm serious too, please tell me how much can the c.r. influence the
    myopia. Ten dioptres?
     
    g.gatti, Dec 29, 2004
    #11
  12. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    But why do you litigate with poor Otis?

    His method here has nothing to offer, since he talks about prevention,
    here I would like to talk on the fact that this girl has halved her
    myopia, from -20d to -10d in a matter of minutes.

    I would like to know from the learned men here what can be the impact
    of cycloplegic refraction in this case.

    That is, the amount of myopia that the lens has produced by spasm, and
    that it will go away onder the action of the drug.
    Can it be 10 dioptres?

    Thanks for the answer!
     
    g.gatti, Dec 29, 2004
    #12
  13. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Neil Brooks,

    You would be OK, except that is YOUR opinion.

    The person who checked his vision on his own
    eye chart by OBJECTIVE measure, and keeps
    his distant vision clear for the next seven years
    (versus going "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per
    year can form his own judgment of your
    statement.

    The measurements made by the 15 year old
    are OBJECTIVE. When he reports them
    to me (you could say) that they are
    SUBJECTIVE.

    What counts in science is OBJECTIVE measurements.
    That is the nature of this man's measurements.

    If he has his own trial-lens kit, I am certain
    he could supply the REFRACTIVE, OBJECTIVE
    measurements also.

    But he has to use the best measurement tool
    available -- his own retina -- which is
    very accurate indeed.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Dec 29, 2004
    #13
  14. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Allen L.,

    I have discussed their right-of-choice with them.

    The easiest thing for them to do -- was to do nothing.

    Given their age, and the fact that the eye goes
    "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year (if no
    "protection" is worn) they had to make an
    either-or decision at a relatively young
    age.

    They had every right to listen to the
    "majority opinion", which is to just
    "accept" the mininus lens and remain
    nearsighed the rest of their life -- or
    conduct a scientific effort to prevent it.

    The natural eye is proven to be dynamic -- for
    those with an engineering-scientific background.

    As a very minimum, (even if you hate scientific facts)
    the plus is advocated as the "second opinion".

    So they had the right of "informed choice".

    There are two young men, one 14, and
    the other 15. I say they have reached
    their "majority" and have a right to
    make this type of decision -- as
    my sister's children did.

    You have insisted they are too young
    to make that type of decision -- as
    we previously discussed.

    I think it is better that they look
    after their own visual welfare -- as
    Dr. Stirling Colgate did.

    I will send this to them for their
    enjoyment -- of your intellectuall
    blindness.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Dec 29, 2004
    #14
  15. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    NOT so many, since the market now pushes progressive multifocal
    lenses!!!
     
    g.gatti, Dec 29, 2004
    #15
  16. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    You fool and criminal.
     
    g.gatti, Dec 29, 2004
    #16
  17. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    These ODs know you do not have the equipment to
    measure a person's refractive state -- by induced
    paralysis -- so they are telling you that you
    don't know what you are doing.

    This is just a simple "power play" and they
    have absolutly no interest in any "preventive" effort,
    but they wish to stop anyone from working
    to achieve effective prevention.

    THEY are the people supposedly working
    on the issue. Yet at every turn you
    run into this statement by Jan,
    who insists that the concept
    of prevention with the plus,
    OR ANY OTHER METHOD
    MUST BE DESTROYED.

    Why do you think they are going
    to take prevention seriously?

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 30, 2004
    #17
  18. g.gatti

    Neil Brooks Guest

    [snip]

    Note to Otis:

    Aligning yourself with Rishi can only /hurt/ your credibility.
     
    Neil Brooks, Dec 30, 2004
    #18
  19. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    Dear Mr. Brooks,
    these are facts.

    This girl was genuine, she was really astonished.

    She bought not only my three books but also a pair of pinhole glasses.

    Total cost: 140 eur.

    I do not think that anybody could have the fancy of spending so much
    money on the phone for ordering strange old books, if some result was
    not achieved quickly!

    What is your comment?

    Please stop harassing Mr. Otis, who is an old man.
    Discuss the real facts.
     
    g.gatti, Dec 30, 2004
    #19
  20. g.gatti

    Guest Guest

    And again Otis is quoting incorrect.
    The signature below is what I declare, nothing more, nothing less:

    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
    destroyed.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Dec 30, 2004
    #20
    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.