A scientist states his support for the concept of prevention with plus.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Jun 6, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: A scientist who has been successful with
    plus-prevention.

    Re: Support for Steve Leung OD to offer the a DISCUSSION
    of this preventive method to parents and chidren
    before that FIRST minus lens is "prescribed."


    "The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity
    has its own reason for existing".

    Albert Einstein


    It is always good to listen to scientists and people who have
    been successful in vision-clearing work.

    This is something to consider before your child is put into a
    strong minus lens.

    The letter was written to support Steve Leung's offer to help
    parents and children understand the necessity of using the plus
    for prevention -- before the minus lens is used.

    www.chinamyopia.org

    As always, enjoy our pleasant conversations to support for
    "prevention advocacy."


    __________________________________


    Dear Mr Alfred Hon H.I


    I would like to pass on to you a letter to the Chinese people
    in the hope that greater understanding will lead to a better life
    for us all. This has been written in the support of a mutual
    friend, Steve Leung, Optometrist, in order to support his work in
    the prevention of myopia.

    I am a senior scientists, astrophysicist and nuclear
    physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a member of the
    National Academy of Sciences of the USA. For all of my scientific
    career I have been dedicated to understanding the cause of natural
    phenomena. From the age of 13 years, now 66 years ago, I
    recognized that the standard response to myopia was perhaps
    misguided. Instead I used positive lens glasses to correct, or
    alter my focal environment, namely one of reading nearly all the
    time, a near-point focal environment. (A positive lens "corrects"
    a near-point focal environment by altering the light rays to be
    more parallel from the near-point object, as if the print were
    made more distant.) Being young and therefore developmentally
    plastic, my eyes and their focal properties immediately responded.
    Within just a few weeks, the clarity or focus of distant objects
    had been nearly restored. (This plasticity of development or
    focal adaptation of the eye ball length decreases with age.) This
    was just as I expected from scientific arguments. I had to
    maintain the use of a positive lens for reading thereafter. This
    was a small price to pay for perfect distance vision for all my
    life.

    I have continued an effort to bring this awareness of the
    focal adaptation of the natural eye to the public, but
    unfortunately the ease and immediate response of the standard
    treatment of using a negative lens to reverse the myopic
    adaptation to a near point environment is so immediate and so
    rewarding to the myope (the myopic young person) that I and a few
    associates have not been successful. This is regardless of the
    decades after the ground breaking scientific research by Dr.
    Francis Young, and Dr. Howard Howland and others who demonstrated
    the unique correspondence between a near point environment and the
    development of myopia.

    I have worked scientifically with Prof. Joshua Wallman of
    City College New York where his research on the response of the
    natural eye to focal and neurological environments is leading the
    fundamental research on this topic in the US. The animal model
    used is the recovery function of the deprivation induced myopia of
    the chicken eye. Here myopia and recovery can be altered by up to
    10 diopters in a few weeks. (One diopter is the focal length of a
    lens of a meter.) This extreme animal model allows many factors of
    influence to be investigated in a short time. Although the
    complexity of the response of the eye is extraordinary and a
    detailed understanding of the mechanisms of adaptation still
    eludes all in the scientific field, nevertheless there is no
    experiment, no anecdotal example that contradicts, and no doubt in
    my mind that myopia in all animals, including humans, is induced
    in response to a near point focal environment.

    In view of this research and countless personal successful
    examples, the growing number of myopic individuals in the world is
    deplorable, when such a simple remedy is available to the public.

    As a dedicated optometrist you have taken a lead in
    attempting to bring this knowledge and benefit to your patients.
    For you to be sued or persecuted within your own professional
    societies is wrong. You should be lauded and encouraged instead.

    I am reminded of the first health professionals who spoke out
    about the health problems that smoking brings to a society.
    Theirs was a difficult task, but now thirty years later, smoking
    in the US has declined to a negligible fraction of society. If we
    can give up smoking, we can also be weaned from the negative lens.
    (A negative lens brings instant gratification of sharp focus to
    the young myopic person, but greatly potentiates further myopic
    progression.)

    I do hope and recommend that you are strongly supported by
    your colleagues of dedicated optometrists and that you all may
    bring to your profession the hope and implementation of myopia
    prevention for human kind.


    Sincerely yours,


    Stirling A. Colgate,


    (Senior Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory and
    Member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.)
     
    otisbrown, Jun 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friend,

    Proof that a population of natural eyes are dynamic
    has been posted MANY TIMES.

    You totally ignore it -- and INSIST EVERY ONE ELSE DO ALSO --
    to their detriment -- i.e., staircase myopia.


    You totally ignore it -- and INSIST EVERY ONE ELSE DO ALSO --
    to their detriment -- i.e., staircase myopia


    You totally ignore it -- and INSIST EVERY ONE ELSE DO ALSO --
    to their detriment -- i.e., staircase myopia


    You totally ignore it -- and INSIST EVERY ONE ELSE DO ALSO --
    to their detriment -- i.e., staircase myopia


    You totally ignore it -- and INSIST EVERY ONE ELSE DO ALSO --
    to their detriment -- i.e., staircase myopia

    As a scientist, Dr. Stirling Colgate underrstands SCIENTIFIC
    (not medical) proof. You do not -- my friend.

    Prevention is, and remains a valid "second opinion".

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 6, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Just curious Otis,

    PLEASE ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTION.

    Do you go to a chemist for your eye examinations? I bet you don't.

    Do you go to a medical doctor for your eye examinations? I bet you do.

    Who cares about the scientific proof Otis. I want MEDICAL proof.

    I am not going to a scientist to advise me on my eyes. I WOULD NEVER GO TO
    AN ENGINEER FOR MEDICAL ADVISE.

    I GO TO A DOCTOR OTIS for my medical treatment, scientific proof means
    nothing.

    If you are such good friends with Dr. Colgate, why don't you invite him to
    this newsgroup discussions.

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Jun 6, 2005
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    you're pathetic. you were quiet for so long and then you come out with
    this crap again.

    1. what evidence is there that staircase myopia exists in humans?
    2. what evidence is there that minus lenses cause myopia to develop
    further?
    3. what evidence is there that plus lenses reverse true anatomical
    myopia?
    4. why don't hyperopes who accommodate constantly become less
    hyperopic?
    5. why does one controlled study even show that slightly OVERCORRECTING
    myopes seem to reduce progression of further myopia?

    you are an irrational old fool. go navigate off the edge of the earth
    with your sextant.
     
    retinula, Jun 6, 2005
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Upon reading this, I am reminded of the work of Linus Pauling, Noble
    laureate, and his work with vitamin C. He sort of went overboard, just
    like Sterling Colgate.

    If Otis were truly curious, he would take his own advice and follow the
    words of Albert Einstein. Instead, Otis keeps returning us to the junk
    heap of old, discarded, and irrelevant knowledge. Ignorance is
    forgivable, willful ignorance is not.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 6, 2005
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Crap. I mispelled "Nobel."

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 6, 2005
    #6
    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.