Agreement with Mike -- on certain points

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Sep 8, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    As you know, Steve Leung OD advocates prevention with
    the plus -- as I do.

    But equally, we acknowledge that it takes strong
    resolution in the person himself to do it
    correctly and successfully.

    I agree that it issues is "control".
    If the preson himself learns to look at
    his own eye chart, and clear his vision
    from 20/50 to 20/30 (exceeding the required
    DMV standard) then why would he need
    a minus lens.

    My sister's children were given a "bifocal" when
    they were 12 to 14. After some though, the
    checked their own vision and discovered
    they had 20/40 vision -- and did not need
    the minus lens.

    I explained the -1/2 diopter per year fact,
    the we have agreed to -- and the consequences
    of NOT using the plus properly.

    So prevention is possible -- but honestly difficult.

    You say it is IMPOSSIBLE under ANY circumstance.

    Certainly you can not supply "prevention" in your
    office -- for these reasons.

    That is our point of disagreement.

    Shawn contacted me about three months ago becaause
    his vision was -1.5 diopters (about 20/120).

    He is 13 years old. I asked him to read
    the legal disclaimers on my site, but I did
    say that I personally wished I had a "fighting chance" to
    use the plus "correctly" -- but he would
    have to decide that issue for himself.

    He accepted the challenge, and began working
    with the plus. He cleared to 20/40 in
    about 3 months, and then began working
    on 20/20. I explained that 20/20 was
    a requirement for ONLY professional pilots.

    Is vision seem to stay at 20/20 to 20/25.
    I then found out that he was using
    a CRT Snellen. I think that is more
    the problem -- but he will work that
    issue out in due course.

    Here are some notes from
    by Mike Tyner OD who claimes that:

    Prevention with the plus is a joke.

    Prevention will never work.

    The eye does not go "down"
    at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year
    for children.

    [This has been the conclusion of several (Comet, Young/Oakley, etc.)
    bifocal studies. The single vision (minus)
    lens group went down consistently at
    -1/2 diopter per year. In my opinion the minus
    is a "risky" proposition at best.
    Please be careful with it.]

    Subject: Shawn -- why you had to "clear" your vision by your own logic an
    wisdom -- and under your own "control".

    With the exception of Steve Leung -- no other OD will ever
    help you clear your vision with the plus at all. They only want
    to "sharpen" your vision with a minus lens, pat you on your head and
    send you on your way.

    Now you understand why I had to "arm twist" my sister's
    children on this subject of taking over "control" and using
    the plus to ALWAYS clear to 20/40 or better. The consequences
    of NOT doing this are very serious indeed.

    For obvious reason I get a "storm" of protest
    from the ODs on YOUR right to a "second opinion"
    on this subject.

    Please enjoy the explosion below, and consider
    the resason why Mike objects to this issue.

    Go figure!

    Here is some discussion about the dynamic
    behavior of the eye with Mike:

    Mike> > So show us evidence that myopes who wear glasses get worse
    than those who don't. Why do you refuse to address this

    Otis> I agree that once you begin wearing the minus lens, the
    downward rate is -1/2 diopter per year.

    Mike> Whether you wear the lens or not.

    [Mike had priviously cited the bifocal studies to
    PROVE that a plus had no effect on the refractive
    state of the natural eye. I do not see the
    poin of this question.]

    Otis>> You insist that it is IMPOSSIBLE to prevent this -1/2
    diopter per year -- and I say that it is possible to

    Mike> Please show us some credible study in humans showing where
    prevention works. The US FDA and FTC insist that you show
    efficacy for your treatment before recommending it.

    Otis> If the person concerned with it, uses the plus (when his
    vision is at 20/40 to 20/50, and clears his vision to
    better-than the DMV standard, and does this every time he
    sees his vision below this standard, then he has NO
    REQUIREMENT for the use of a minus lens in the first place

    Mike> The majority of 20/40 myopes CANNOT clear their vision with
    a plus lens. It is ignorance to believe otherwise.

    Otis> AND THE SUBJECT IS MOOT. (If you can not prevent it
    then obviously "recovery" will be impossible.)

    Mike> Then stop preaching non-science in a sci newsgroup.

    Otis> [I would not use the word "brain-dead" to describe Mike --
    if I could find a better word. But I would agree
    that we should define precisely how we test the
    natural eye to establish that it is dynamic.
    That is indeed an issue for pure-science testing,
    and not for "medicine", nor for Mike Tyner who
    is using the traditional method of the minus-lens,
    established 400 years ago, and has not changed one
    iota since then.]

    Otis> If the person is not successful in the above context and
    understanding -- then of course the use of the minus lens
    must follow.


    Mike> Don't take my word for it. Ask a few low myopes to "clear
    the Snellen chart with a plus lens." The majority CANNOT do
    it and the tiny remainder will do it anyway, eventually,
    WITHOUT your plus lens.

    Otis> I hope this clarifies that point.

    Mike> Clarify for us how many myopes you've found that could clear
    their vision with a plus lens.

    Mike> THEN tell us how many you find who CAN'T.




    Mike is right about this specific point, concerning people (or
    pilots) clearing their vision from 20/50 to 20/30 or better. The
    reason is that people like "Mike" control this entire process.

    Do you think they would ever let ME or YOU control the use of
    the plus lens and the study. Certainly prevention with the plus
    is difficult. But it must fall to you to do it yourself.

    It is significant that both of us
    agree that only true-prevention is possible.

    Once you begin wearing the minus lens (for whatever
    the reason) both the "battle" and "war" are lost. Indeed most of
    the public are totally lacking in even ANY INTEREST in prevention
    and so are beyond the pale as far as this preventive work is


    Otis Brown, Sep 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Thanks for your commentary.

    I will respond in due course and
    forward your questions to
    our "interested parties".



    Otis Brown, Sep 9, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    LarryDoc Guest

    But you never respond. Never with facts that support your already
    disproved theories because, well, you can't because there aren't any and
    that's exactly why there's no value to your position.

    What you call "response" is merely a "repetition" of the same
    "unfounded, disproved garbage", over and over again.

    You are finished here, Otis. Move on.


    Dr. Larry Bickford, O.D.
    Family Practice Eye Health & Vision Care

    The Eyecare Connection
    larrydoc at eye-care-contacts dot com (remove -)
    LarryDoc, Sep 9, 2004
  4. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest

    On 8 Sep 2004 07:33:12 -0700, Otis Brown wrote:



    PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE KIDDING ME!!!! 13 year old understanding the
    legalities of your disclaimers?

    You have to be kidding me!!!!

    Your ethics are less then desirable (more dispicable (sp?) if you rely on
    13 year olds to understand the full implications of "disclaimers".

    A Lieberman, Sep 9, 2004
  5. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear A. Lieberman,

    cc: Shawn, Keith, Dr. Steve Leung, other people
    who support a person's right to informed choice.

    Subject: Ethics of the "second opinion".

    First of all -- Dr. Jacob Raphaelson recommended
    the strong use of the plus lens -- at the threshold.

    I agree completely with him.

    Secondly -- Dr. Steve Leung recommends the use of the
    plus FOR PREVENTION -- and is using the plus on
    his own children for that purpose

    Further -- a person "owns" his eyes -- you do not.

    A person has the right to an informed choice -- that
    will affect him for the rest of his life.

    You are using a procedure put in place 400 years
    ago -- and has not changed one iota since.

    Since you are never going to "change" this young
    man has a right to do what you refuse to do -- think
    for himself and act to protect his distant vision
    for the next seven years -- if that is his choice.

    Dr. Stirling Colgate used a strong plus at the
    age of 14 years -- and cleared his vision also.

    He was considerable "wiser" that you -- in my

    Shawn is well-aware of the results of the
    control group (Comet studies) that the
    kids wearing the single-minus lens all
    the time has a "donward" rate of -1/2 diopter
    per year.

    Mike -- and others stated that BOTH the control
    group and the test group will have the
    SAME -1/2 diopter per year.

    There is good reason to doubt that -- but that
    -1/2 diopter must be taken very seriously BEFORE
    you even start wearing the minus lens.

    I will send this to him. If you wish to
    tell him he is stupid or something I will
    forward your remarks too him.

    Further: Since I understood Dr. Raphaelsons
    advocacy I acted to PROTECT my sister's childern

    1. Assist them in protecting their distant vision for life.

    2. Aviod becomming nearsighted -- under their own control,
    since there does not seem to be any other choice.

    3. Work with other ODs who have the decency to DISCUSS
    the possible use of a strong plus BEFORE a minus lens
    is used.

    I am sorry if you do not respect a person's right
    to a second-opinion -- but I do.

    No one has such total knowledge that they can
    DENY a person his right to "informed choice" -- but
    you think you do.

    I regret you arrogant attitude, and I am certin
    Shawn will take that into consideration as
    he continues to always pass the required Snellen-DMV
    line for the next seven years -- when otherwise
    his vision would go "down" at a rate of
    -1/2 diopter per year.

    The "ethics" I further explained to Shawn were
    that I would prefer this "fighting chance" over
    the high-handed use of an excessively strong
    minus lens.

    He is an intelligent young man, and unusually
    wise to the "ways of the world" at this point.

    And you provide a strong example of that
    truth with your obvious hubris.



    Otis Brown, Sep 10, 2004
  6. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest


    You obviously missed my point.

    How in the world can you think that a 13 year old KID make an "informed
    decision" on a disclaimer that he probably is too young to understand what
    he is reading???? THE KID IS 13 YEARS OLD.

    He is just entering puberty and you want to make him read a disclaimer on a
    web page and make an informed decision?

    Yeah, you may run into that rare case where the 13 year old can make an
    informed decision, but based on your past history of accuracy (which I have
    found as nil regarding pilots), I doubt that you had a genius run through
    your "program".

    A Lieberman, Sep 11, 2004
  7. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear A. Liberman,


    cc: Shawn

    Again, Dr. Rapahelson verified the "correct use" of
    the plus ON HIS OWN CHILD. Equally, he could NOT use
    the plus on the general public that walked in off
    the street -- for obvious reasons.

    A vast amount of information concerning this issue
    is posted on my site -- including support for
    true-prevention by Dr. Steve Leug.

    Shawn is an unusually mature young man. I have
    met few young men like him. He, like the rest of
    us has the right to information concerning
    the "second opinion" concerning the native
    behavior of the natural eye -- when an
    accommodation "delta" is a applied to the
    visual-environment of primates.

    Since he personally verified his vision as
    PASSING the required legal standard, I rather
    doubt that he will EVER allow his vision to
    return to less-than 20/40 -- since he
    has personally defeated nearsightedness by
    his own efforts.

    Further, he will well-aware that the AVERAGE
    "downward" rate for children and young adults
    in a "school" environment is -1/2 diopter per year,
    and can expect to get "back in to it" if he
    quits wearing that plus lens for awhile.

    Again, in the future, that must be his choice,
    since the quality of his judgement must be
    the first line-of-defense to protect his
    distant vision for the next seven years.

    I personally believe he will be completely
    successful since he has gone through this
    "clearing" work. He has read of Dr. Colgates
    successful efforts with the plus -- and
    followed this scientist's lead. Can
    you deny him that right.

    I will send this to Shawn, so that he
    can determine for himself if he has
    received fair-and-honest support
    for his preventive efforts.

    Also, Shawn is now 14 years old. Happy Birthday!



    cc: Shawn, and others who will work to protect
    their distant vision through the "school" years.



    Maybe "Shawn" is not a "genius", but he is one smart dude -- in
    my judgment!

    When he looks back on his work seven years from now, he will
    say -- I made the "better" choice.


    Otis Brown, Sep 12, 2004
  8. By law, children under the age of majority cannot grant consent for
    research. Their parents, furthermore, cannot provide "consent", because
    you can only grant consent for yourself.

    The current legal standard for research on children is the combination of
    the permission of a parent or legal guardian, and the "assent" of the
    child following a presentation of study information at an age-appropriate
    level. The info comes from Dunn and Chadwick, "Protecting Study
    Volunteers in Research: A Manual for Investigative Sites", 3rd ed,
    Thomson Centerwatch, Boston, 2004.

    My own opinion is that doing research on your own children creates all
    sorts of appearances of coersion and undue influence, and should be
    avoided like the plague.

    Scott Seidman, Sep 13, 2004
  9. My own opinion is that doing research on your own children creates all

    What kind of nonsense is this???

    Are you mad?
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Sep 13, 2004
  10. (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in
    Oh, I see my hundred day plonk has expired.


    Looking forward to another hundred days of peace
    Scott Seidman, Sep 13, 2004
  11. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest


    Dear Scott,

    Subject: "Reaching age of "majority".

    You will be please to know that Shawn is now 14 and
    has reached his age of majority.

    That means that he can make intelligent decision to
    review the "second-opinion" about myopia prevention
    and the scientifc work required to achieve that
    specific goal. Since prevention is advocated
    by Steve Leung OD, on, Shawn
    has every right to inform himself of these facts
    and clear his vision to 20/25 if that is his desire
    and is can sustain the effort with the plus.

    To answer your concerns to "protect" Shawn.

    Shawn is 14, and has decided to use the plus correctly to
    clear his vision from -1.5 diopters (20/100 approximately)
    to 20/25 (-1/8 diopter approx.) It was his choice and
    determination to follow the advice of Dr. Stirling Colgate
    who also accomplished the same objective at the same age.
    I guess it was up to Shawn to decide what "concent" was
    Shawn is not a "child". I would regret it if you think
    of him that way. He is a person of considerable intelligence
    and fortitude.
    It is nice you are so soliticious about Shawns "visual welfare".
    He alson is concerned about maintain his "vision clearing" ability
    and knows of the -1/2 diopter/year myopia that develops if the
    plus lens is not properly used for the school years.
    That is your opinion.

    In my opinion, a young man should be offered a discussion of
    preventive alternatives -- when the preventive alternative
    can be effective. This means that you have a considerable
    degree of respect for the maturity and wisdom of the
    young man you are in conversation with. If Shawn
    had decided that he had no interest in "true-prevention"
    then that would have ended the discussion on a
    friendly note. Shawn contacted me -- after -- he
    began using the plus for prevention. In that
    sense he had alread made his decision to pass
    the required Snellen-DMV level test. I am pleased
    to report he achieved his desired goal.



    cc: Shawn, and others who can "figure out" the method
    of prevention -- and use it effectively.
    Otis Brown, Sep 14, 2004
  12. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Please provide a website Otis supporting your position that a 14 year old
    is not a child. I bet you can't.

    I CAN provide websites proving YOUR STATEMENT IS WRONG.

    Sheez, first gets the pilots requirements wrong, and now has to be shown
    what the definition of a child is.....

    Sheeez..... and he wants us to use his website as reference material when
    he can't get the simple things in life right!

    A Lieberman, Sep 14, 2004
  13. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    You are a hoot!

    A young man studies the research concerning the behavior
    of the eye.

    On his own he decides to begin using the plus -- for prevention.

    Because of his interest he reads Dr. Stirling Colgates report.

    He contacts me -- and I state that I am an ENGINEER and

    He decides to "be his own man", and contintues with
    the plus -- and verifies he passes the Snellen-DMV test.

    This is NOT the work of a child. This is the work
    of a young man of considerable maturity of judgment.

    To further answer your questions:

    Otis> It must be Shawn's decision to determine if he wishes
    to have his "right" to a second opinion respected -- or not.

    Otis> The proven maturity of the young man proves he
    is not "a child". Get real!

    Otis> Provid them. Mabye YOU can convince Shawn he
    is a "child".
    Otis> Shawn will be convinced about how ridiculus you are. Yes
    there are quite a few jerks in this world. Shawn
    will have to make his own mind up about you. As he grows
    older he will run into many stuffed-shirts of your ilk.
    Otis> Allen, could you give us some more information on
    your professional background? Are you an optometrist, or
    you just like to shoot your mouth off?

    Otis> I would hate to think you practice ANYTHING as
    a "professional".



    cc: Shawn, I have met many fine optometrists and ophthalmologist
    in my research. We all agree that true-prevention is indeed
    difficult and takes uncommon fortitude and good judgment
    to conduct "correctly". In your future life you are
    going to meet blow-hards like "Allen". Just ignore him,
    he is truly a waste of time.

    Otis Brown, Sep 14, 2004
  14. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    Tragically, there are "stuffed shirts" like Scott.

    He can of course apply a strong minus lens to his own
    child and watch the childs vision "stair-case" down
    to -6 diopters or so.

    But there are now optometrists who recognize this
    risk -- and will use a strong plus on their
    own child -- to prevent this situation from

    I believe that is how the "second opinion" will

    We should learn to take action to protect our
    "blood relatives" even if we can not help
    the public that walks in off the street.


    Otis Brown, Sep 14, 2004
  15. But what is the purpose of you being here?
    You have nothing to contribute, nothing at all.
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Sep 14, 2004
  16. Otis Brown

    Dan Abel Guest

    I believe that Otis may be correct. When I saw his comment about 14, the
    first thing to come to my mind was "Canada". The age of consent in Canada
    is 14. My daughter was 16 and wanted a piercing. We forbade that, and
    figured we were pretty safe since the age of consent here in California is
    18. My wife and daughter went to Quebec for a church conference, and she
    got her piercing. There was nothing we could do since she was above the
    age of consent. Fortunately, after about a year she wanted to get a job
    and realized that a piercing below her lower lip would make it hard. She
    gave it up and hasn't expressed any interest in another one.
    Dan Abel, Sep 14, 2004
  17. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Dan,
    Thanks for your commentary about reaching the "age of majority".
    I will pass it on to Shawn.

    Since talking with the optometrist Dr. Jacob Raphaelson is was
    clear to me that I had to establishe that:

    1. Consistent use of the plus (at the 20/50 level) was

    2. The use of the minus lens was "risky".

    The word "safe" has two meanings:

    1. A lens (plus or minus) has NO EFFECT on the
    refractive status of the eye. (This is what we
    have been arguing about) That is the thesis
    of the ODs on this site. By that argument,
    then, the plus lens is indeed safe -- like
    drinking 6 glasses of water a day.

    2. The plus lens is safe -- and effective
    on the threshold (20/60). If used with
    great force, a person can verify that his
    visual acuity (and refractive status -- measured
    with a trial-lens kit) changes in a positive
    direction, with the result that he
    can clear his vision to 20/40 or better.

    Since Shawn has chosen to use the plus WITH GREAT FORCE
    AND CONSISTENCY, he has verified that is vision
    is on the order of 20/25. A -1/4 dioter lens
    (from a trial-lens kit) would establish
    his refractive status.

    As far as you daughter is concerned -- I agree, piercing
    the body is not an wise thing to do.

    Understanding preventive alternatives like the
    plus lens (which means personal behavior modification)
    is indeed difficult and as a practical matter
    can not be "prescribed".

    That is what the true difficulty of "prevention" with
    a plus is all about.

    It is not "impossible", as these ODs on insist,
    instead, it is just difficult, and only intelligent actions
    of person himself can produce the long-term desired results.

    I know that Dr. Raphaelson put his own daughter into a
    plus lens -- and was effective.

    That is the real test of the "second opnion", and
    that is how "change" in our methods can be
    achieved -- to prevent the development
    of a negative refractive state of the natural eye.



    cc: Shawn and others who wish to understand the
    method of true-prevention.
    Otis Brown, Sep 15, 2004
  18. Otis Brown

    Dan Abel Guest

    I have taken your statement out of context, which makes it completely
    true. I have had cataract surgery in both eyes, and my vision is set for
    distance. I am completely dependent on plus lenses for my close vision.

    And yet, most women, and many men, have holes in their ears for holding
    jewelry. In fact, I took my daughter to the jewelry store for her 11th
    birthday and had holes put in her ears.
    Dan Abel, Sep 15, 2004
  19. Otis Brown

    Dan Abel Guest

    No. Maybe it means the prevention of truth?

    Dan Abel, Sep 15, 2004
  20. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Dan,

    You are right! People are like "snowflakes" -- all different
    in how they think and react to advocacy for their
    own personal benifit.

    Each one of us looks at the "world of ideas", and
    and eventually must choose the intelligent alternative.

    I certainly agree that an OD in an office (like Dr. Raphaelson)
    can never judge a person in that respect. Indeed most of the
    public would be "upset" if he attempted a
    "converstation" about the necessity of wearing
    a strong plus a the threshold of 20/50 or 20/60.

    Only AFTER the person himselr has the time to carefully
    review all aspects of the facts -- and the need
    to take strong action would "true prevention"
    become possible for that person.

    True prevention?

    By that I mean the person -- who previously had 20/20,
    verifies his vision on the eye chart -- at 20/80,
    if that is his determination.

    [This excludes all MEDICAL issues.]

    He must understand that the bifocal studies show a
    standard average "down" value of =1/2 diopter per
    year, for young people his age, and this should be a "spur"
    to action.

    If he decides to "take control" and "push" with
    the plus, and clears his distant vision to greater-than the
    REQUIRED Snellen-DMV standard then he will
    trust his results.

    True prevention means that he realizes that his
    vision will start "down" again if he quits
    wearing the plus. While he can certainly
    quit wearing the plus for a while, he must
    continue informally checking his eye chart.

    If he gets below the 20/40 line -- he must
    restart the use of the plus.

    True prevention means that the person understands
    this and other issues -- and is consistent in his analysis
    and efforts to make this process work for him.



    cc: Shawn -- excellent work on your clearing your distant
    vision from 20/80 to 20/20.

    Otis Brown, Sep 16, 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.