An optometrists 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: The prevetive second-opinion on prevention
    as stated by Steve Leung OD.

    Sci.med.vision is devoted to the development of
    new concepts -- and the free and open discussion
    of prevetive methods.

    The concept that the eye is dynamic, and that
    the natural eye controls it refractive state
    to its average visual enviroment is proven
    on a scientific level. (See Howard Howland's research,
    as well as primate-eye research.)

    Even so, the implementation of the preventive
    method is difficult -- and requires that
    a person (or his parents) make a choice
    between these obviously contradictory
    methods.

    Here is the second-opinion as stated
    by a highly qualified optometrists -- for
    your interest and discussion.

    _________________________________


    From: Steve I.H. LEUNG Optometrist

    Dear Myopic Folk,

    Subject: An optometrist's personal experience or MY AWAKENING


    I am a practicing optometrist working in the field of optics
    for more than 16 years. During these years I faced an excessive
    high rate of children developing nearsightedness (myopia). It is
    very hard to resist the obvious need to use a minus lens (concave
    lens) for these children. I deeply appreciate that we all value
    clear distant vision for life. Achieving this goal would be of
    great value for all of us.

    Everyday, a great many people are developing the vision
    problems of nearsightedness, farsightedness, aged vision -- as
    well as crossed and lazy eyes. These people come to my office and
    require immediate vision correction. They all need glasses.

    Among the visual problems, the case of myopia correction
    bothers me greatly. It is a dilemma and tragedy of using a
    "correcting" lenses, which in fact these glasses eventually become
    a crutch for life.

    In the early years of practice, I was not aware the long-term
    bad effect that a minus lens has on the eye. This is because
    neither the curriculum textbooks nor the professors pointed out
    the ultimate side effect that a minus lens has on the eye --
    during my many years of doing course work in optometry.

    After graduation, I practiced the full scope of optometry,
    from refraction to fundus eye examination, and vision correction
    by optical means. But once these means are removed, the vision is
    neither improved nor restored.

    The minus lens is merely an aid to vision, i.e., compensation
    by external means.

    In the majority of cases, naked-eye vision gets worse with
    the traditional minus lens correction.

    The children will need stronger power glasses in the
    following years. It is a matter of treating the symptom -- but
    does not achieve an effective cure.

    I have been mulling over in my mind -- to think about
    alternative and better methods to manage myopic eyes, because I
    also am nearsighted.

    With my accumulating experience, I am well aware that
    constant wearing of minus lens glasses are harmful especially the
    full power ones. However, there is no choice but to use a minus
    lens if the child cannot see well in his class.

    At times, the best that I can do is to emphasize that the use
    of (minus lens) glasses be restricted to chalk board, and always
    must be removed after class. This is the first step in goal of
    avoiding the glasses' side effect.

    But being myopic is unfortunate and inconvenient. At times
    it seems that none of us can escape the use of a minus lenses to
    restore clear vision.

    I have been driven into deep thinking about a way of, "how to
    restore clear vision from myopic and how to maintain distant
    vision for life."

    As a father and an optometrist, I felt a strong commitment to
    protect my own child's vision. It was because my child (age 4) in
    her curiosity asked me, "Dad, why do you always wear glasses? Why
    are the kids I play with in school wearing glasses?"

    Her statement had a serious impact on me, and I woke up to
    the fact that a child should not be fitted with minus lens glasses
    -- if there are means to doing so.

    Why? The earlier age you begin wearing the minus lens, the
    faster vision deteriorates. The minus lens can make vision worse
    all by itself! Many scientists, engineers and health workers have
    formed this opinion -- that the minus lens is definitely harmful
    to young kid's long-term vision.

    Because I was sensitive to both the requirement to use the
    minus lens, but also understood the secondary effect (vision
    deteriorates) I began much broader research into the subject
    matter. This included the judgment of engineers and scientists
    (and some ophthalmologists) who "object" to the use of the minus
    lens.

    Fortunately, I met several enthusiastic engineers, physicists
    and scientists via internet in 2001 by chance. They provided
    excellent postings in their web sites where I got a deep insight
    about the development and management of child's acquired myopia --
    to include the potential of preventing it in the first place by
    wise use of a (reading) plus lens. They are Donald Rehm, Otis
    Brown, James Arthur, Dr. Stirling Colgate and Alex Eulenberg.

    In fact, researchers such as Dr. Jacob Raphaelson and Dr.
    Francis Young had conducted pioneering work to determine the
    cause, effect, and remedy for myopia acquired in school. As early
    as 1904, Dr. Jacob Raphaelson had used the plus (convex) lens to
    effectively cure a child's myopia. Further, Dr. Francis Young
    has revealed the true cause of acquired myopia with his large
    number of insightful experiments and scientific publications in
    the 1960s. All the above mentioned scientists advocate that
    preventative measures be instituted to help children avoid getting
    into myopia in the first place.

    In view of their spirit and fortitude, I felt that I bore a
    responsibility as an optometrist if I did nothing to assist in the
    prevention of myopia.

    I regret that I became part of the system (use minus lens)
    that was put in place long time ago -- and that this system has
    not changed in any significant detail since its inception.

    My goal is to look to the future and begin preventive methods
    which can be effective for the child who is on the threshold of
    myopia. Today, I make it clear that my mission and task is to try
    my best to discuss the alternate opinion on the therapeutic use of
    the plus lens -- instead of the compensatory use of minus lens. I
    do everything in my power to explain the long-term effect that the
    minus lens has on the eye's refractive status, and I encourage
    parents to review this issue for themselves.

    I have supported several hundred children with the plus lens
    since 2001. The long term effect of the lens is developing, and
    results will become better as the use becomes more complete. Most
    of the children retain their current refractive (focal) status and
    few of them achieved significant vision improvement. Although it
    is unusual, there have been several cases of complete vision
    recovery! I also felt that making this commitment is a matter of
    my personal integrity, and is necessarily part of my work and
    career.


    Steve Leung OD


    Steve I.H. LEUNG Optometrist
    Hong Kong, SAR, China
     
    otisbrown, Jun 6, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: Scientific (not medical) PROOF that the natural eye is
    dynamic -- versus passive, which has been the previous and traditional
    assumption.


    Frank Schaeffel, Adrian Glasser and Howard C. Howland, "Accommodation,
    Refractive Error and Eye Growth in Chickens", VISION RES., Vol 28, No.
    5 pp 639-657, 1988. Pergamon Press.


    RESULTS:


    All eyes treated with positive lenses became consistently more positive
    (hyperopic).

    Negative lenses produced more negative (myopic) refractions (focal
    states) in all eyes.


    In a test of plus/minus lenses on left/right eyes, the eye with the
    plus lens moved in a positive direction.

    The eye with a minus lens moved in a minus direction.


    The control group did not change significantly in any direction.

    Note: Subsequent testing of the natural young primate eye shows this
    same caracteristic signature -- of the "input" minus lens, and the
    "output" response.

    Of course a number of people can think up endess "objections" to
    scientific proof of this nature.

    But the objections do not change scientific proof of this nature.

    Further, it is optometrists like Steve Leung who are willing to offer
    true-prevention based on the above science of the natural eye's
    behavior.

    Best,

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

  3. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Still no proof offered anywhere.

    STFU, Otis.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jun 6, 2005
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Still no offer of proof that plus lens therapy halts the progression
    of myopia in human beings.

    STFU, Otis.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jun 6, 2005
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and
    not in any position to give medical advice.

    Thank you!

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Jun 6, 2005
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Dear Dr. Leung,

    Thank you for your comments. I await your future twin publications in
    the peer-reviewed scientific literature, one of which will provide
    evidence that prescribing minus lenses for myopes is harmful, and the
    second proving efficacy of plus lens treatment.

    Like you, I tended to believe those practitioners whose fervor over
    bifocals and plus lenses far exceeded the evidence that such things
    were effective in actual practice. Therefore, I wasn't surprised when
    one of the chief proponents recanted in the face of overwhelming
    evidence.

    Let's continue our free and frank discussion of such matters for the
    benefit of the public's right to be informed.

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

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear DrG,
    can not "prescribe" prevention and "medical".

    You do "over-prescribe" the minus since most
    prescribe for "best visual acuity".

    As you know there are ODs and MDs who will
    "underprescibe" (depends on how you look at it).

    One think is certain -- prevntion with the plus
    takes a great deal of personal "force" and
    conviction to do it "correctly".

    Since that type of intellectual and physical
    commitment must come from "internal" to the
    person -- if follows that is must be HIS JUDGMENT
    OF THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS that steers his
    work on prevention. Truly a job for the
    most "gifted" in this area -- no insult
    intended to you or anyone else.

    You are looking for "proof" to deal with the great
    mass of humainity walking in off the street.
    You can certainly call that "medical" if you
    wish -- and I have no desire to get involved
    in THAT situation.

    But the nature of SCIENTIFIC proof is simply
    different that dealing with the general public
    as you do.

    So let us continue our pleasant conversations
    about prevention with the plus -- as well
    as acknowledging its obvious difficulties.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 6, 2005
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    What are you talking about? Nobody can prescribe "prevention," and I
    most certainly can prescribe "medical." I do it all the time.
    Au contraire, Pierre. This proves that you don't understand what you
    are talking about.
    Sure. So what?
    I agree that it takes a great deal of force and conviction to engage in
    an activity that yields meager results if any results at all.
    I call that type of intellectual and physical commitment "stupidity."
    No insult to you or anybody else.
    No. I call that kind of "proof" science. I like to be able to have
    something called scientific evidence to support my clinical decisions.
    Of course it isn't. This is further proof that you don't know what you
    are saying.
    You don't seem very pleasant to me, and prevention with plus is an
    oxymoron. Now, if you would like to prove your assertion...

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 6, 2005
    #8
  9. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Otis,

    Please provide PROOF of the above statement OUTSIDE your website.

    I bet you won't and can't.

    'nuf said....

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Jun 6, 2005
    #9
  10. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Show us medical evidence-- you know, where it's proven efficacious on HUMAN
    subjects!! Your differentiation is of scientific vs. medical is ridiculous.
    We don't fit glasses on chickens. Humans do not respond to plus lens
    treatment as has been proven to you over and over again.
    HERE'S SOME OBJECTIONS FOR YA!
    THESE EXPERIMENT, WHICH ARE INDEED SCIENTIFICALLY VALID FOR CHICKENS, ARE
    NOT VALID FOR HUMANS! THERE ARE EVEN A COUPLE OF MONKEY STUDIES THAT
    SUGGEST PLUS LENSES MIGHT HELP, BUT NUMEROUS HUMAN STUDIES PROVED THAT THEY
    DON'T ON REAL LIFE PEOPLE. AND SINCE WE FIT EYEGLASSES ON REAL-LIFE PEOPLE,
    AND IT'S BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN THAT YOUR APPROACH DOESN'T WORK, THEN GO
    POST YOUR STUFF IN SOME NEWSGROUP LIKE sci.barnyard.animal.vision.

    We have discussed this endless times, and you have been intellectually
    undressed so many times in this forum by countless people. You must be
    feeble to continue to argue these ridiculous points. You pathetic old fool!

    Now, it's probably about time for you to drudge up the old
    Raphaelson-Printer's Son story. And I particularly like the accusations of
    a conspiracy between eyecare providers and lens supplies to make the
    population dependent on eyeglasses. How about a couple of pilot-engineer
    stories just for the sake of repetition. And throw in some phrases like
    "box camera", "dynamic", 'input-output", etc. Don't forget to misquote a
    bunch of old optometrists who don't even know you and would roll over in
    their graves and retirement homes if they knew that such a moron as yourself
    was referring to their work.

    Go design a better vacuum cleaner. Go sail off the edge of the earth with
    your 15th century sextant.

    Best,
    RM PhD, OD
    (Scientist, Medical Practioner, not an engineer)
     
    RM, Jun 7, 2005
    #10
  11. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    What a misinformed thing to say. You really prove that you don't know what
    you are talking about.

    Limit your advice to the sextant-- you know something about that and nobody
    else cares so you won't hurt or misinform anyone.
    So what-- it's a decades old concept that's been proven to be ineffective in
    preventing myopia progression. In fact, one scientific study suggests
    overcorrection with excessive minus seems to be efficacious.
    Sure does. You have to ignor the data that shows that it doesn't work, and
    you have to hope that a large component of your myopia is accommodative
    rather than anatomical. Of course you could just get a cycloplegic eye exam
    and find that out quickly.
    No insult taken. After all, it takes a great "gift" to misinform and
    mislead someone in the face of scientific evidence that your prevention
    method works. That makes you a snake-oil salesman and a con-man. No
    offense intended of course.
    No, you would rather discuss the results of experiment performed on
    chickens.
    Why do you derive pleasure in being intellectually thrashed time after time
    in this newsgroup. You gain no converts to your theory here-- you have the
    reputation of an old fool who is a charlatan.

    You have some serious psychological issues.
     
    RM, Jun 7, 2005
    #11
  12. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear RM,

    You have a tragically slammed-shut mind, not only against
    all primate studies that prove the true dynamic behavior
    of the natural eye, but against ALL OTHER OPTOMETRISTS
    who are attempting to help the plublic with this
    preventive method.

    Quit you ad-hominim attacks, and respect a person's right
    to an informed, competent "second opinion" -- as
    stated by Steve Leung OD:

    ________________


    Written by Steve H. LEUNG and HAN Bossino, Translated by Steve LEUNG



    If you have been wearing glasses for several years and over
    -3.00 D, you probably have a case of axial-length myopia. It is
    impossible to shorten the elongated eyeball with the fogging-method
    (plus lens) to reverse this myopia. However, the lens is significant
    to prevent further myopic development as well as to reduce some part of
    your myopia over a period of time.

    Acquired myopia appears in school children of 7 to 9 and
    progresses with age. Almost every myope has gone through the agony of
    changing minus-lens glasses yearly during the course of elementary and
    secondary school.

    The reason behind this threshold-myopia is that the eye at
    this young age is still developing. The layers of eyeball coating
    are relatively fragile compared with adult eye. Minus-lens glasses are
    given to children on the threshold of nearsighted and they are
    encouraged to wear them all the time.

    Near point stress is significantly increased when the minus
    lens are worn at near work -- causing rapid vision deterioration,
    that is then followed by eyeball elongation.

    Generally, myopia stabilizes after reaching maturity by age
    20.

    In order to avoid getting into high myopia (over -6.00 D),
    myopes should adopt preventative measures (how to prevent
    nearsightedness) designed to relieve near point stress.

    Myopia is a natural (physiological) process that the eye uses to
    adapt to the excessive near focal environment. It develops because of
    the way you use your eyes, and is much more prominent in young people.

    The simplest way to avoid near focal environment is to give
    up all reading or any close work. This is impracticable in our
    modern world requiring literate and educated citizens.

    Fogging with plus lens is an alternate method that allows the
    near focal environment to be moved "into the distance". This
    process "relaxes" the and removes the stress of prolonged close work.
    The method is simple, easy and economic.
    Method should be implemented with incipient Myopes below -3.00 D.
    These children should take off their (minus-lens) glasses for any near
    work.


    Why? The glasses are provided for use at distance 20 feet
    and greater. You can figure out how tired the eye becomes if you use
    the minus-lens glasses at any distance shorter than 20 feet
    --especially at 1 to 2 feet when doing near work. It is the major
    reason accounting for your you vision shows rapid vision
    deterioration when wearing these glasses. This is especially true in
    young children.

    Myopes over -3.00 D should consider two pairs of glasses. One for
    far and the other for near. The full power one is for emergency or
    driving. The other one should be reduced by 1 to 2 diopter for
    comfortable near work. You will not experience too
    much tiredness and fatigue with the use of the reduced prescription
    glasses -- after your whole-day work in front of a
    computer.

    It is simpler for contact lens wearers to put on a pair of
    plus-lens (+1.00 to +2.00 depends on situation) glasses any time you
    are doing near-work. Such glasses have a magnifying effect and you
    will see will everything larger. The stress caused by the intensive
    near-work is greatly reduced by the use of the plus in this manner.

    Patience and persistence is a crucial factor in using the
    plus-lens glasses.

    I am a high myope wearing contact lens. I have been using
    plus lens all the time during my work since 2001. I am a journalist
    which involves doing a great deal of computer work as a relatively
    close distance. My prescription has been reduced from -15 D to -14 D
    in the past two years of doing this prolonged close work.

    I sincerely recommend that all myopes who use their eyes a lot for
    near-work, seriously consider plus lens for prevention.
     
    otisbrown, Jun 9, 2005
    #12
  13. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Please provide the references of optometrist who have presented proof in
    humans that myopia is accelerated by the use of minus lenses, and/or that
    plus lenses prevents myopia. Not anecdotal reports, but real scientific
    studies (Hint, there aren't any. They all prove the opposite).

    At least have Steve Leung, your good friend I suppose, post his data in this
    forum so we can talk to him directly.

    Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

    ==========================
     
    RM, Jun 10, 2005
    #13
    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.