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

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.