Also, Kill-file Bates -- and the concept of a person's right-of-choice

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Oct 2, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Here are some remarks for your interest.

    Best,

    Otis

    ******

    Subject: Re: Otis Brown's view of myopia

    Re: Posted about Otis on sci.med.vision. I have
    supplied clarifications for educational reasons.

    Re: Dr. Grosvenor stated that it would be wise
    to begin wearing the plus BEFORE they eye
    begins to become nearsighted. An excellent
    and clear statement of the "second-opinion"
    at this time. Perhaps we should kill-file
    the possibility of progress and scientific
    growth.


    Dear Robin,

    You send a mixed message.

    But let us be fair and clear-minded.

    What I said was that the eye is sophisticated. By that I
    mean that;

    1. The natural eye is dynamic.

    2. The natural eye will move "down" (test-group relative to
    control-group) if

    a. It is placed in a more-confined visual environment.

    b. If you place a minus lens on 1/2 of adolescent primate eyes.

    I don't think there is any difficulty in understanding these
    defined words and objective facts concerning the natural eye's
    proven behavior.

    I find it hard to understand that anyone would believe that
    this does not happen given that the natural eye is a sophisticated
    optical system -- that controls its refractive status (which you
    measure) relative to it visual-environment which you can control.
    The scientific proof is too strong to be argued.

    Robin, I know you have a "mixed belief" about these issues
    and at times variously support prevention and then oppose it. You
    are completely inconsistent and self-contradictory. You have no
    stated goal.

    I look for consistent experimental=scientific results as
    described above. I really don't know what others are looking for
    in terms of objective science (not medicine).

    But, for some clarification of the concept of prevention with
    the plus:

    *****************


    (Robin Parsons) wrote in message news



    Rob > Otis Brown maintains that the minus lens is unsafe based on
    a remark said to have been made by the American
    ophthalmologist W H Bates who introduced his treatment of
    refractive errors to the world at the beginning of the last
    century.


    Otis> That is more than a "remark". That is statement published
    in Dr. Bate's book. It intimates that a "follow up" should
    be done to confirm the statement -- in pure
    engineering-science. In the last 50 years, that goal has
    been accomplished. You are free to draw your own
    conclusions.


    Rob > Bates claimed that fitting a minus lens to a myopic eye
    would lead to a loss of vision of 20/200 in a very short
    time.

    Otis> Bates was right. His statement is strongly confirmed by
    direct "input-output" testing. The difficulty was that he
    attempted to use the Donders-Helmholtz theory to "explain"
    this behavior and result of the natural eye.

    Rob > Brown would have us believe that all myopes regress at such
    an alarming rate contrary to the daily experience of every
    optometrist on the planet.

    Otis> You seem to want to represent ALL ODs -- which is totally
    false. But, yes, there are some ODs who BELIEVE as you
    state. But this is not "proof", only the majority opinion
    about a very difficult problem.


    Otis> From long experience I do agree that you express the
    majority opinion at this time. I never said "alarming
    rate". What I quoted were the result of 4 or 5 bifocal
    studies where the control-group, wearing the standard strong
    minus lens when down at -1/2 diopter per year. A
    considerable number of ODs have noted this "down" rate but
    judge they can do nothing about it. That is their daily
    experience. If the person passes the 20/40 line, they will
    avoid "prescribing" a strong minus lens. Their words,
    "poison glasses for children" truly express the
    understanding of this "second opinion".

    Rob > Brown is a middle aged man with myopia in the region of ?6
    dioptres and achieved this stage in spite of his knowledge
    of plus lens therapy.

    Otis> I would use the words "plus-lens PEVENTION". It is a fact
    that I had NO KNOWLEGE about the plus lens until I met Dr.
    Jacob Raphaelson when I was 28. He convinced me that only
    PREVENTION with a plus was a reasonable possibility. That
    is why I "arm-twisted" my sister's kids in the use of the
    plus.

    Rob > Surprisingly his vision has not worsened to the degree he
    forecasts for others fitted with minus lenses.


    Otis> I stopped accepting the "over-prescribed" minus lens at age
    16 -- for fear of developing a detached retina. That
    stopped the situation, because I used the WEAKEST minus lens
    possible.

    Rob > He claims that making a child wear an "unnecessary" plus
    lens will prevent the development of myopia;


    Otis> No child will EVER be forced to use a plus lens. It must be
    a matter of intellectual choice for the person (or pilot)
    after a realistic review of the scientific facts (by him)
    that defines the behavior of the natural eye.

    Rob > ...whether or not the child has normal vision and is
    unlikely to develop short sight.

    Otis> A matter of judgment here. Once a child has a slight
    negative refractive state of -1/2 diopter, and wears the
    standard strong minus lens, the further "down" rate is -1/2
    diopter as stated above.

    Otis> One of the published "indicators" for nearsightedness is a 5
    year-old child with a refractive status of 0.0 diopters.
    Very few chidren in a "reading" or school enviroment will
    remain at 0.0 diopters. If fact I think the use of the plus
    should START at that point -- as recommended by Dr.
    Theordore Grosvenor (Professor of Optometry).

    Rob >The vast majority of the population do not become myopic
    anyway.

    Otis> True! But once a child is at -1/2 diopter, and begins
    wearing the minus lens the downward rate is proven to be
    -1/2 diopter per year.

    Rob > As a bonus to his miracle plus therapy his treatment will
    eliminate myopia if caught early enough and is guaranteed to
    enable budding myopes to reach a standard enabling them to
    pass a driving test.

    Otis> NOTHING is "guaranteed" ... ever. There are no "miracles".
    It takes strong motivation to use the plus. It is a wise
    step, but depends completely on the motivation and insight
    of the person doing the work.

    Rob > As Brown states, why do we need normal vision when we can
    manage comfortably with sub-normal sight?

    Otis> This depends on EXACTLY how you define "sub-normal" vision.
    The U.S. Army found that 20/20 was excessive for most
    people and established that a reasonable normal must be
    20/40 or better. The FAA requires 20/40 or better for a
    private pilot's license. I think that is a reasonable
    standard. In fact, most people working with the plus can do
    considerable BETTER than the flight required vision, and
    should work towards that goal.


    Otis> If you are young and love the minus lens -- then wear it.
    And indeed your vision will go down at a rate of -1/2
    diopters per ear. It is very easy, and the effect of the
    minus lens "instant". ANY use of the plus requires
    considerable motivation and insight. Definitly NOT for the
    person who only wants the convient "quick fix".


    Rob > Brown cannot produce a shred of reliable evidence to support
    his plus lens concept.

    Otis> In a strict scientific sense -- check the above statements.
    In the sense that the ODs reject, repeatable scientific
    studies designed to prove that the natural eye is dynamic
    then they in fact say what you just said.

    Rob > He offers some anecdotal reminiscences from his archives and
    would have us believe that he has worked with professional
    scientists whose studies incidentally are not necessarily
    accepted by their contemporaries.

    Otis> The ODs do not accept ANYTHING they do not like. In a sense
    they can ONLY provide what the public expects, instantly
    sharp vision.

    Rob> He claims to be an engineer which is probably true but that
    is hardly likely to qualify him as an optometrist with years
    of medical training behind him.

    Otis> ODs are trained in REFRACTIVE CARE. Ophthalmologists have
    extensive MEDICAL training. I thought you would know the
    difference between and OD and an MD by now since you claim
    extensive expertise on the subject.

    Rob> Brown flourishes on a newsgroup, where
    he has achieved recognition as an expert on vision amongst
    those members who believe his statements.

    Otis> I always look for alternative methods -- that may not be
    "standard" at this time. For the past 100 years a minority
    of ODs have advocated this type of change -- of
    true-prevention with a plus lens. I only support the need
    for this change by the person himself BEFORE any minus lens
    is used.



    Best,

    Otis

    Best regards

    Robin Parsons
     
    Otis Brown, Oct 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I am puzzled by your references to the eye as dynamic. Do you mean it
    works independently from the instructions from the brain? According to
    Bates refractive errors are the result of bad seeing habits. I
    followed his advice and improved my sight considerably.
    You talk of eyes going down when fitted with minus lenses. Admittedly
    some myopes regress but not nearly so much as you claim. I have met a
    number whose sight returned to normal after wearing minus lenses.
    Eyes will tend to adapt to any lens and the result depends entirely on
    the way in which the individual responds. Your reference to a Tsarist
    draft dodger who wore minus lenses to fool the draft board medics of
    the day is hardly significant evidence of the minus lens so called
    dangers.
    Your ideas that the human race is unable to cope with 20/20 vision is
    surely absurd. Had our primitive ancestors accepted such nonsense you
    and I would not be alive today having made tasty snacks for the keen
    eyed carnivores roaming the planet.
    The lunacy of plus lens therapy is apparently directed to the
    fulfilment of your dream to put myopes on the road in charge of high
    powered automobiles having barely scraped through the minimum standard
    of a driving eyesight test. A traffic policeman once told me that in
    his opinion you would have to be half blind not to pass some eyesight
    test standards for driving.
    Best regards
    Robin Parsons
     
    Robin Parsons, Oct 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Charles Guest

    Kill-filing is a right of choice. Those who don't want to read about
    Bates can kill-file those threads. Those who want read about it can
    read them. I have no interest in Bates so kill-filing those threads is
    an option to consider. I havn't bothered since this is such a low
    traffic group that it is pretty easy just to skip over the Bates posts
    and also your posts which usually are of no interest to me without
    bothering to use kill filters.
     
    Charles, Oct 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Otis Brown

    Dan Abel Guest


    If you are talking about the Otis Brown true-prevention plus lens therapy,
    then you don't understand it very well. It is only for children and only
    for close work. Children don't drive, and driving is not close work.


    Taken very literally, at least in California, half blind people can indeed
    get driver's licenses. My wife is legally blind in one eye (due to
    amblyopia), and has a driver's license.
     
    Dan Abel, Oct 5, 2004
    #4
    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.