CALL FOR ABSTRACTS: Eye Care Conference at Yale

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Jennifer Staple, Jul 4, 2007.

  1. Please Forward Widely

    Unite For Sight Fifth Annual International Health & Eye Care
    Conference
    Building Global Health For Today and Tomorrow
    April 12-13, 2008
    Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
    http://www.uniteforsight.org/conference/2008

    Join 2,000 conference attendees and 130 speakers for a stimulating
    conference.
    Keynote Addresses By: Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, Dr. Sonia Sachs, Dr. Susan
    Blumenthal, and Dr. Jim Yong Kim
    Plus More Than 130 Featured Speakers
    Call For Abstracts - DEADLINE JULY 15, 2007 -
    http://uniteforsight.org/conference/2008/abstracts.php

    Register For Conference - EARLY BIRD RATE ($45 Students, $70 All
    Others) http://www.uniteforsight.org/conference/2008 REGISTER BY JULY
    15th TO SECURE LOWEST RATE

    Who should attend? Anyone interested in eye care, international
    health, public health, international development, medicine, social
    entrepreneurship, nonprofits, philanthropy, microfinance, bioethics,
    anthropology, health policy, advocacy, and public service.

    *Keynote Addresses*

    * Susan Blumenthal, MD, MPA, Former U.S. Assistant Surgeon
    General; Senior Advisor For Health and Medicine; Former Deputy
    Assistant Secretary for Women's Health, U.S. Department of Health and
    Human Services; Clinical Professor of Psychiatry at Georgetown School
    of Medicine and Tufts University Medical Center
    * Jim Yong Kim, MD, PhD, Co-Founder, Partners in Health; Director,
    François Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights; François
    Xavier Bagnoud Professor of Health and Human Rights, Harvard School of
    Public Health; Chair, Department of Social Medicine, Harvard Medical
    School; Chief of the Division of Social Medicine and Health
    Inequalities, Brigham and Women's Hospital; Former HIV/AIDS Director
    at World Health Organization
    * Jeffrey Sachs, PhD, Director of Earth Institute at Columbia
    University; Quetelet Professor of Sustainable Development, Professor
    of Health Policy and Management, Columbia University; Special Advisor
    to Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon
    * Sonia Sachs, MD, MPH, Health Coordinator, Millennium Villages

    *130 Featured Speakers (Listed Below Are The Speakers Confirmed Thus
    Far)*

    * Ted M. Alemayhu, Founder, Chairman and CEO, US Doctors For
    Africa
    * Greg Allgood, PhD, Director, Children's Safe Drinking Water,
    Procter & Gamble
    * R. Rand Allingham, MD, Professor of Ophthalmology; Director,
    Glaucoma Service, Duke University Eye Center
    * Jared Ament, MD, MPh, Clinical Research Fellow, Ophthalmolology
    & Corneal Surgery, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard
    Medical School; Harvard School of Public Health
    * Jane Aronson, MD, Director, International Pediatric Health
    Services; Founder and Executive Medical Director, Worldwide Orphans
    Foundation (WWO); Clinical Assistant Professor of Pediatrics, Weill
    Medical College of Cornell University
    * Thomas Baah, MD, MSc, Ophthalmologist, Our Lady of Grace
    Hospital, Ghana
    * Michele Barry, MD, FACP, Professor of Medicine and Global Health
    Director, Office of International Health; Chief, General Medicine
    Firm, Yale University School of Medicine
    * Georges Benjamin, MD, Executive Director, American Public Health
    Association
    * Paul Berman, OD, FAAO, Senior Global Clinical Advisor and
    Founder, Special Olympics Lions Clubs, International Opening Eyes
    * Terry Blaschke, MD, Professor of Medicine and of Molecular
    Pharmacology (Active Emeritus), Stanford University School of Medicine
    * Neil Boothby, EdD, Professor of Clinical Population and Family
    Health; Director, Program on Forced Migration and Health, Mailman
    School of Public Health
    * Harry S. Brown, MD, Founder, Surgical Eye Expeditions (SEE)
    International
    * Donald Budenz, MD, MPH, Professor of Ophthalmology,
    Epidemiology, and Public Health, University of Miami Miller School of
    Medicine
    * Michael Cappello, MD, Professor of Pediatrics and Epidemiology
    and Public Health; Director, Program in International Child Health; Co-
    Director, International Adoption Clinic, Yale University School of
    Medicine
    * Emily Moore and Mark Carlson, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Sociology,
    San Diego State University
    * James Clarke, MD, Ophthalmologist and Medical Director, Crystal
    Eye Clinic, Ghana
    * Susan Day, MD, Chair and Program Director, Pediatric
    Ophthalmology and Strabismus, California Pacific Medical Center
    * Syril Dorairaj, MD, Clinical Research Fellow, Glaucoma
    Associates of New York, The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary
    * Margaret Duah-Mensah, Ophthalmic Nurse, Crystal Eye Clinic,
    Ghana
    * Andy Ellner, MD, Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative
    * Sheri Fink, MD, PhD, Kaiser Media Fellow in Global Health;
    Visiting Scientist, Francois-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and
    Human Rights, Harvard School of Public Health; Senior Fellow, Harvard
    Humanitarian Initiative
    * Susan Hall Forster, MD, Associate Clinical Professor, Department
    of Medical Studies, Department of Ophthalmology, Yale School of
    Medicine; Chief, Ophthalmology, Yale University Health Services
    * David Friedman, MD, MPH, Associate Professor of Ophthalmology
    and International Health, Johns Hopkins University
    * Urick Gaillard, JD, Founder and Executive Director, The Batey
    Relief Alliance
    * Gabriel Garcia, MD, Professor of Medicine, Associate Dean of
    Medical School Admissions, Stanford University School of Medicine
    * Nora Groce, PhD, Associate Professor and Director, Yale/WHO
    Collaborating Centre, Global Health Division, Yale School of Public
    Health
    * Michael Gyasi, MD, Ophthalmologist and Director of the Bawku Eye
    Care Program, Ghana
    * Heskel M. Haddad, MD, Clinical Professor of Ophthalmology, New
    York Medical College
    * Leon Herndon, MD, Associate Professor of Ophthalmology, Duke
    University Eye Center
    * Ibrahim Jabr, Interim President, International Trachoma
    Initiative
    * Rosemary Janiszewski, MS, CHES, Deputy Director, Office of
    Communication, Health Education and Public Liaison; Director, National
    Eye Health Eucation Program, National Eye Institute (NEI), National
    Institutes of Health
    * Evaleen Jones, MD, Founder, President and Medical Director,
    Child Family Health International; Clinical Assistant Professor,
    Stanford University School of Medicine
    * Dean Karlan, PhD, President and Founder of Innovations for
    Poverty Action; Assistant Professor of Economics, Yale University
    * Zachary Kaufman, MPhil in International Relations; DPhil
    Candidate in International Relations, University of Oxford; JD
    Candidate, Yale University Law School
    * Kaveh Khoshnood, PhD, Assistant Professor in Public Health
    Practice, Division of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School
    of Public Health
    * Doug Lawrence, Vice President/General Manager, BD Medical -
    Ophthalmic Systems
    * Fiona Macaulay, President, Making Cents International
    * Carolyn Makinson, PhD, Executive Director, Women's Commission
    for Refugee Women and Children
    * Tshepo Mbalambi, BSc, Med Sci, MBcHB Candidate, University of
    Ghana School of Medicine
    * John McGoldrick, Senior Vice President, International AIDS
    Vaccine Initiative (IAVI)
    * Christine Melton, MD, MS, Friends of Aravind Association
    * Mini Murthy, MD, MPH, MS, Assistant Professor, Department of
    Behavioral Science and Community Health, Program Director Global
    Health, New York Medical College School of Public Health
    * Neal Nathanson, MD, Associate Dean, Global Health Programs,
    University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine
    * Thomas Novotny, MD, MPH, Director of International Programs;
    Professor in Residence, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, UCSF School of
    Medicine
    * Edward O'Neil Jr, MD, Founder, Omni Med; Author, Awakening
    Hippocrates: Primer on Health, Poverty, and Global Service, and A
    Practical Guide to Global Health Service
    * Cliff OCallahan, MD, PhD, Pediatric Faculty, Middlesex Hospital
    Family Practice Program; Chair, AAP Section on International Child
    Health
    * Adeyemi Oshodi, PATH
    * Elijah Paintsil, MD, Associate Research Scientist, Department of
    Pediatrics, Yale School of Medicine
    * Matthew Paul, MD, Danbury Eye Physicians and Surgeons
    * Steven C. Phillips, MD, MPH, Medical Director, Global Issues and
    Projects, Exxon Mobil Corporation
    * Louis Pizzarello, MD, MPH, Secretary General, International
    Agency for the Prevention of Blindness
    * Thomas Quinn, MD, Director, Johns Hopkins Center for Global
    Health
    * Nathan Radcliffe, MD, Glaucoma Service at New York Eye & Ear
    Infirmary
    * Ian Rawson, MD, CEO/Directeur General, Hopital Albert Schweitzer
    Haiti
    * William Reese, President and CEO, International Youth Foundation
    * Ilya Rozenbuam, MD, GANY Glaucoma Fellow, New York Eye and Ear
    Institute
    * Leonard Rubenstein, Executive Director, Physicians for Human
    Rights
    * Jennifer Ruger, PhD, MSc, Assistant Professor, Division of
    Global Health, Yale School of Public Health; Co-Director of the Yale/
    World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Health
    Promotion, Policy and Research; Interdisciplinary Research Methods
    Core Investigator, Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS
    * Lisa Russell, MPH, Filmmaker
    * Sarwat Salim, MD, Ophthalmologist
    * Sarang Samal, Kalinga Eye Hospital, Orissa, India
    * Georgia Sambunaris, MA
    * Werner Schultink, MD, Chief Child Development and Nutrition,
    UNICEF
    * Chirag Shah, MD, Chief Resident, Wills Eye Hospital
    * Bruce Shields, MD, Professor of Ophthalmology, Chairman
    Emeritus, Department of Ophthalmology, Yale University School of
    Medicine
    * Satyajit Sinha, MBBS, Ophthalmologist, AB Eye Institute, Patna,
    India
    * D. Scott Smith, MD, MSc, DTM&H, Chief of Infectious Disease and
    Geographic Medicine, Kaiser Redwood City Hospital
    * Eliot Sorel, MD, D.L.F.A.P.A. Global Health, Health Services
    Management, and Leadership, The George Washington University School of
    Public Health; Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences School of Medicine,
    GWU; Chairman, Founder, Conflict Management Section WPA
    * Kari Stoever, Senior Program Officer, Neglected Tropical
    Diseases, Sabin Vaccine Institute
    * Glenn Strauss, MD, Vice President of International Health Care
    and Programs, Mercy Ships, Int'l
    * Robert Farris Thompson, PhD, Col. John Trumbull Professor of the
    History of Art, Yale University
    * Jamie Lachman and Tim Cunningham, Clowns Without Borders
    * James C. Tsai, MD, Chair, Department of Ophthalmologist, Yale
    University School of Medicine
    * Satya Verma, OD, FAAO, Director, Community Eye Care,
    Pennsylvania College of Optometry
    * Seth Wanye, MD, Ophthalmologist, Eye Clinic of Tamale Teaching
    Hospital, Ghana
    * Gavin Yamey, MD, MRCP, Senior Editor, PLoS Medicine; Consulting
    Editor, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases
     
    Jennifer Staple, Jul 4, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jennifer Staple

    Neil Brooks Guest

    And there you go, Uncle Otie: a perfect opportunity to have your case
    heard by a willing audience of eye care professionals.

    Or would you rather just sit back and launch falsehoods, accusations,
    lies, myths, accusations, and faulty logic from behind your keyboard??
     
    Neil Brooks, Jul 4, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Jennifer Staple

    otisbrown Guest

    For your information:

    In fact papers have been submitted -- AND REJECTED -- concerning
    the second-opinion, that a negative refractive STATE of
    the fundamental eye can be prevented.

    Dr. Maurice Brumer did exactly that, but since his
    concept was HATED, his analysis was rejected.

    Here is part of his review. I doubt that these people
    have the GUTS to begin a discussion along these
    lines.

    Been there -- done that.

    +++++++++


    A COURAGEOUS EYE DOCTOR DOCUMENTS THE SECONDARY EFFECT OF USING A
    NEGATIVE LENS


    EYESTRAIN - ITS CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND TREATMENT

    By Dr. Maurice Brumer, Frankston, 3199, Australia

    .. . . A succession of practicing optometrists have followed Fournet [a
    pioneer in the use of the plus lens] to this day, all convinced of
    this major shortcoming [use of a negative lens] in eye care. They have
    all been successfully ignored or treated as cranks and heretics, and
    the issue has remained at this level for 90 years. The clarion cry of
    the eye care professions has been "show us proof of the relationship
    of eyestrain and eye disease". I will now demonstrate that no shortage
    of this proof exists.

    At the 1973 annual meeting of the American Academy of Optometry, a
    paper entitled, "Bifocal Control of Myopia", was presented by Francis
    Young, Director of the Primate Research Center at Washington State
    University, and Kenneth Oakley, an ophthalmologist from Bend, Oregon.
    Their study found that the effects of properly fitted bifocals (eye
    strain reducing glasses) on young myopes are to drop the rate of
    progression of this condition from an average of about one half a
    diopter per year to about on fortieth of a diopter per year. This
    study involved control and experimental subjects who were matched for
    age, sex, initial refractive error and duration of wearing bifocals so
    that most of the possible causes of failure to achieve results with
    bifocals were controlled.

    THE BIFOCAL (PLUS LENS) STUDY


    There was a significant number of subjects, 226 in the bifocal group
    and 192 in the control group, to assure that the results were
    consistent and effective over time. The effect of the bifocal was
    uniformly to reduce the rate of progression even in children who had
    already achieved as much as 4 or 5 diopters of myopia before they were
    fitted with bifocals. In other words, the control group moved into
    myopia at a rate 20 times faster than the bifocal (plus lens) group.
    The implications of such results are obvious and sinister when it is
    considered that myopia is the third largest cause of blindness in
    western society.

    SERIOUS COMPLICATIONS DEVELOP FROM USING A MINUS LENS


    The visual disability in high myopia is usually considerable. I am
    including this description of the condition as felt by its victims so
    that you may put yourself in their situation:

    Apart from the visual incapacity, the high myope is not usually
    comfortable in the use of his eyes. When corrected, the small, sharply
    defined and bright images are annoying; much use of the eyes brings
    about a feeling of strain and fatigue. The degenerated and liquefied
    vitreous gives rise to a multitude of "muscae volitantes" and floating
    opacities, and these, throwing abnormally large images upon the retina
    owing to its backward displacement, cause a great deal of distress and
    anxiety to the patient although their actual significance is small.
    Most of these patients are naturally anxious. Their disability is
    obvious and may have excited sympathy. The memory of admonitions to
    care for the eyes lingers into adult life. Thus matters tend to
    progress slowly and relentlessly, the patient all the while never
    using his eyes with comfort or without anxiety until finally no useful
    vision may remain or until the occurrence of a sudden calamity such as
    a gross macular lesion, a hemorrhage of a retinal detachment brings
    about a more dramatic crisis. (I thank Sir Stewart Duke-Elder for this
    description).

    The complications of myopia are numerous and grave, frequently
    resulting in blindness. The degenerative changes appear typically in
    adult life after the myopia has been fully established for some
    years.

    The complications are:

    Choroidal thrombosis and hemorrhage.

    Vitreous opacity, always present in some degree in high myopia, this
    condition may suddenly increase to become a serious complication.

    Retinal detachment is the most dreaded and one of the most common
    complications of myopia, occurring with considerable frequency in all
    degrees of the defect but showing a progressively greater tendency,
    the higher the myopia.

    Simple glaucoma is a further complication of high myopia, occurring
    in the higher degrees after mid-life.


    THESE PROBLEMS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED


    Few of these people faced with the prospect of blindness in old age
    realize that their problems actually began in childhood when they were
    fitted with their first pair of corrective [negative] lenses by
    someone who was probably unconcerned about the tragic, long-term
    results of that action. Few of these people realize how their
    situation became more precarious each time their glasses were
    strengthened and nothing was said about prevention. Now, when it is
    too late for prevention, they find themselves in the hands of surgeons
    who are making their living from someone else's mistakes by trying to
    patch up steadily deteriorating retinas. The patient has become a
    lifelong victim of ignorance and exploitation.

    THE EYE CHANGES FROM A POSITIVE STATE TO A NEGATIVE STATE AS A RESULT
    OF CLOSE WORK


    The cause of myopia is further clearly indicated in a study of 1200
    Eskimos in Barrow, Alaska, published in the American Journal of
    Optometry in September, 1969, which showed that in one generation of
    the Eskimo population had moved from no myopia to approximately 65%
    myopia among the offspring, and that neither the grandparents nor
    parents over 40 had any myopia.

    Thus the first generation between grandparents and parents was similar
    in that myopia was nonexistent, but in the second generation between
    the parents and their children, suddenly myopia occurs in a
    surprisingly high number of children. As a matter of fact, of 53
    offspring who were in their early 20's, 88% had myopia. Such a sudden
    and great degree of change cannot readily be accounted for on the
    basis of heredity, especially when there has been no identifiable
    force which could have brought about this obviously considerable
    mutation in the genetic composition of the offspring.

    The obvious difference between the parents and the children is the
    amount of near work which is currently being done by the children.
    About the time of the second World War, the white man intruded into
    their lives, requiring the development of education among a population
    which was uneducated and illiterate. The Eskimo has become an avid
    reader because of his environment. While he spends a great deal of
    time out-of-doors in the warmer, daylight summer months, he spends
    relatively little time out- of-doors in the cold, dark winter months.

    A MASSIVE BODY OF EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE EYE CHANGES ITS FOCAL STATE
    TO MATCH ITS VISUAL ENVIRONMENT


    In presenting these studies, I would emphasize that these represent
    only a small (even if spectacular) part of the evidence available
    today which demonstrates the blindness and suffering caused by present-
    day eye care. While continuing to ignore a massive body of evidence,
    the eye care professions continue to ask to be shown proof that myopia
    results from excessive close work and that the prescription of
    corrective lenses causes the myopia to increase more rapidly that it
    otherwise should. It is assumed from the start that the burden of
    proof is on us and that we are expected to raise money and conduct
    endless studies that will somehow convince everyone that we are right.
    In many cases, this is like trying to convince a tobacco company
    executive that smoking causes lung cancer. No amount of testing will
    convince those people who prefer to believe what pleases them most or
    what is more lucrative to them. . . .

    [Dr. Brumer reviewed an exchange of letters with a Dr. Lender (a
    university optometrist) concerning disagreement about the fundamental
    behavior characteristic of the eye under experimental test
    conditions.]

    .. . . These letters represent a desperate attempt to cover up a tragic
    and horrible situation. They mislead the public and, significantly,
    the parliament of my country. They have been unsuccessful in their
    purpose, however, and the question now lies on notice in the
    parliament in Canberra to the Minister of Health for Dr. Klugman
    (opposition spokesman for health) asking him to appoint an inquiry
    into the matters I have raised.

    THE EYE PROFESSION RESISTS CHANGE -- TO YOUR DETRIMENT


    The eye care professions have resisted change irrationally and
    fearfully, unwilling to admit that what has gone on before [the use of
    a negative lens] has been wrong and harmful, and by doing so they have
    unleashed on the public they serve a cataract of horror. This
    continued situation is a tragedy for the public and a disgrace for
    optometry. While it is understandable that optometrists will not find
    it easy to admit that what they have been doing is wrong and harmful,
    especially for those academic university optometrists responsible for
    the education of our graduates, to preserve the current horrors to
    protect our professional prestige and privilege is an abdication of
    our responsibilities, ethics and morality. I can make no apology for
    causing embarrassment to my professional colleagues. The interests of
    the public are paramount and must be served. The purpose of this paper
    is to direct the future to end the disgrace of the past.

    REMARKS ON DR. MAURICE BRUMER'S PAPER


    Dr. Brumer had previously been denied permission to present his paper
    at the August, 1977 Australian and New Zealand Association for the
    Advancement of Science (ANZAAS) Congress because it was too critical
    of the prevailing method of eye care. The above paper is of interest
    because of Dr. Maurice Brumer's scientific and ethical commitment to:

    Coming to grips with nearsightedness. (i.e., The fundamental behavior
    characteristic of the eye.)
    The reaction of other members of his profession. (Extremely critical
    -- without clear scientific justification.)
    The reaction of the public to Dr. Brumer's effort to come to grips
    with the situation. (Nonexistent -- because the public was not clearly
    informed.)
    The fact that this understanding (that the plus lens works) existed
    in 1977, and since then, nothing further has been done to provide
    pilots with the high quality information they need so that they can
    take the steps that are necessary to preserve their distant vision
    for life.

    ++++++++
     
    otisbrown, Jul 5, 2007
    #3
  4. Jennifer Staple

    otisbrown Guest

    But of course, these people will ALWAYS EXCLUDE
    anything that causes them "discomfort".

    After all, when Dr. Bates complained that his SUGGESTED
    methods of vision-clearing were wise, they IGNORED
    his suggestions and FIRED HIS ASS.

    I have no doubt that he would receive the same reaction
    today.

    Here is some review by Don Rehm.

    It would be nice if Mr. Rehm were invited to present
    his concept of PREVENTION.

    ++++++++++


    THE INTERNATIONAL MYOPIA PREVENTION ASSOCIATION
    From, "THE MYOPIA MYTH", by Donald Rehm



    In 1974 Donald Rehm established an organization to help parents
    understand and take steps to help their children avoid myopia. He
    prepared a book that clarifies the various preventive methods
    available for myopia -- and the reaction of most of the profession to
    his efforts. Donald describes his effort to persuade the profession to
    provide you with exact knowledge of the eye so that you might capably
    choose between these mutually exclusive alternatives.

    .. . . Since the organizations in the eye care field were telling the
    public nothing about the true cause of myopia, the idea of forming an
    organization devoted solely to myopia began to seem more and more
    necessary. The final decision about forming a myopia prevention
    organization was made at the 1974 Annual Congress of the American
    Optometric Association in Washington, D. C.

    An important part of such meetings takes place on a large floor where
    booths can be rented to exhibit optical goods, hand out literature,
    etc. I rented a booth to give out literature on the latest research on
    myopia and ways of preventing it. I found that the booth was for the
    most part ignored by most of the optometrists, although an adjoining
    booth, where the tinting of eyeglasses was being demonstrated, was
    usually crowded.

    It was obvious that the people to whom we must go with our vision
    problems were more interested in tinting lenses than in saving sight.
    They were ignoring everything that had to do with myopia prevention.
    It was quite clear that pleading with the members of the eye care
    professions to change their ways was not going to succeed. They would
    have to be forced to change, and this would occur only after the
    public was well informed about the real causes and solutions to the
    problem of myopia.

    In 1974, I therefore formed a nonprofit, tax-exempt Pennsylvania
    corporation, the International Myopia Prevention Association. One of
    the first tasks I undertook was the publication of a twelve page
    booklet, The Prevention of Acquired Myopia. This booklet, which was
    meant for distribution to the public, contained information on the
    real cause of myopia and what methods were available to prevent it. No
    booklet of this type had ever been published previously. In the
    booklet, I also stated the aims of the new organization:

    To work for the widespread acceptance of the concept, now supported by
    numerous studies and research, that acquired myopia is caused by
    excessive close work and is not an inherited condition.
    To inform the public, in an impartial manner, about the various
    methods available for preventing and controlling myopia.
    To promote periodic testing of the vision of children so that the
    potential and beginning myopes can be found early when treatment is
    most effective.
    To promote the use of proper reading habits and adequate lighting in
    schools, homes and offices.
    To maintain a register of eye care practitioners who are interested in
    myopia prevention and skilled in its techniques. *
    To assist the public in coming into contact with these practitioners.
    *
    To issue a periodic publication to provide a summary of activities and
    new knowledge in this field.
    To maintain an advisory board of scientists, researchers, educators,
    optometrists and ophthalmologists who are involved with the myopia
    problem and can advise on the activities of the association.
    To solicit contributions to carry on educational and scientific
    activities related to myopia prevention." *
    As the formation of IMPA was announced in various optometric journals
    (it was ignored by the medical journals), I began to receive letters
    from doctors around the country expressing their interest in the new
    organization. The response was greater than I had anticipated and
    indicated clearly that there did exist an unfilled need for leadership
    in the area. . .
    * In a later publication Donald Rehm sadly concluded, "We no longer
    try to maintain a list of prevention minded eye doctors since there
    are so few of them."



     
    otisbrown, Jul 5, 2007
    #4
  5. Jennifer Staple

    Neil Brooks Guest

    [snip]

    Present it to the doctors at the conference, Uncle Otie.

    Nobody here agrees with you.

    The overwhelming majority of us find you laughable, ridiculous, and
    likely senile.

    You've presented not one single new piece of information in years. You
    don't discuss. You simply preach.

    So ... tell it to somebody who cares .... and/or answer these
    questions:

    www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt
     
    Neil Brooks, Jul 5, 2007
    #5
  6. Jennifer Staple

    otisbrown Guest

    And of course, a good topic would be the habit
    of over-prescribing a child by -4 diopters.

    And how to handle the mother who "complains"
    after the -4 diopter over-prescription is detected.

    Well that is easy, just tell her:

    1. She had a muscle spasm.

    2. She will get "used to it".

    3. Etc.

    But you asked for confirmation for this
    poor child. So here it is.

    Let this symposium discuss this topic -- by
    second-opinion ODs.

    ++++++++++


    COMMENTARY FROM A CONCERNED MOTHER ABOUT THE NEED TO DO YOUR OWN
    CHECKING WITH AN EYE CHART
    AN EXCESSIVELY STRONG PRESCRIPTION?


    HOW OFTEN DOES THIS HAPPEN, AND WHAT IS THE LONG-TERM EFFECT AND
    CONSEQUENCE?


    I have retyped this letter from the original and changed the names.
    Jeanie's daughter started out (at age six) with 20/50. She received a
    strong minus lens -- even though 20/50 is acceptable for most
    children. After years of receiving minus lenses stronger than
    necessary, she received a lens increase from -6.0 to -10.0 diopters.
    Jeanie's suspicion and response is described in the following
    paragraphs.

    JEANIE BRAVE'S LETTER:


    Here are copies of my daughter's eye records and
    prescriptions. You will never know how grateful I am for you and
    Mr. Severson. When I stop and think of what could have happened
    to Shanna had I not found you -- my blood starts to boil. I have
    come to realize that people never question eye doctors as they do
    medical doctors. We are all at their mercy and do not even know
    it. You have my permission to give my telephone number to anyone
    who you feel needs it.

    A CHECK-UP BEFORE SCHOOL


    Shanna received the new contacts on August 5. She puts in
    -10.0 Diopter and is able to see -- she says one mile down the
    road. I immediately told her to take them out. After begging my
    optometrist to please give me information to stabilize her vision,
    he becomes EXTREMELY UPSET.


    I then went to the libraries and book
    stores looking for information but I found only William Bates'
    name. I then ordered his book. Next I found Mr. Severson and
    finally you in the back of his book. After reading your books I
    immediately knew I had the wrong optometrist -- so I nicely asked
    his assistance in obtaining a -6 Diopter lens for studying.

    The doctor reluctantly gave them to Shanna, telling us to use them for
    STUDYING ONLY. I then confirmed the focal status of Shanna's
    eye's, by assisting her in checking her vision against the eye
    chart -- both inside and outside.

    8/26/95 20/20 -8.0 RE -7.5 LE

    8/26/95 20/100 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE (Provided for reading)

    8/31/95 20/40 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE

    9/26/95 20/20 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE (See the -10.0 D prescription below)


    Since she was seeing so well on 9/26/95, I told her to remove
    her contacts and then come back outside. Without ANYTHING on she
    stood 20 feet away and could focus on the 20/70 and 20/50 line for
    about 2 or 3 seconds -- then she said it would flash or float
    away.
     
    otisbrown, Jul 5, 2007
    #6
  7. Jennifer Staple

    otisbrown Guest

    Yes, a second-opinion section should be part
    of this Yale symposium. Ya think that is ever going
    to happen.

    Approximately when do you think that hell is
    going to freeze over?

    Perhaps the subject of over-prescribing by -4 diopters
    should be evaluated -- as discussed below:


    COMMENTARY FROM A CONCERNED MOTHER ABOUT THE NEED TO DO YOUR OWN
    CHECKING WITH AN EYE CHART
    AN EXCESSIVELY STRONG PRESCRIPTION?


    HOW OFTEN DOES THIS HAPPEN, AND WHAT IS THE LONG-TERM EFFECT AND
    CONSEQUENCE?


    I have retyped this letter from the original and changed the names.
    Jeanie's daughter started out (at age six) with 20/50. She received a
    strong minus lens -- even though 20/50 is acceptable for most
    children. After years of receiving minus lenses stronger than
    necessary, she received a lens increase from -6.0 to -10.0 diopters.
    Jeanie's suspicion and response is described in the following
    paragraphs.

    JEANIE BRAVE'S LETTER:


    Here are copies of my daughter's eye records and
    prescriptions. You will never know how grateful I am for you and
    Mr. Severson. When I stop and think of what could have happened
    to Shanna had I not found you -- my blood starts to boil. I have
    come to realize that people never question eye doctors as they do
    medical doctors. We are all at their mercy and do not even know
    it. You have my permission to give my telephone number to anyone
    who you feel needs it.


    A CHECK-UP BEFORE SCHOOL


    Shanna received the new contacts on August 5. She puts in
    -10.0 Diopter and is able to see -- she says one mile down the
    road. I immediately told her to take them out. After begging my
    optometrist to please give me information to stabilize her vision,
    he becomes EXTREMELY UPSET.

    I then went to the libraries and book
    stores looking for information but I found only William Bates'
    name. I then ordered his book. Next I found Mr. Severson and
    finally you in the back of his book. After reading your books I
    immediately knew I had the wrong optometrist -- so I nicely asked
    his assistance in obtaining a -6 Diopter lens for studying.

    The doctor reluctantly gave them to Shanna, telling us to use them
    for
    STUDYING ONLY. I then confirmed the focal status of Shanna's
    eye's, by assisting her in checking her vision against the eye
    chart -- both inside and outside.

    8/26/95 20/20 -8.0 RE -7.5 LE

    8/26/95 20/100 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE (Provided for reading)

    8/31/95 20/40 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE

    9/26/95 20/20 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE (See the -10.0 D prescription below)


    Since she was seeing so well on 9/26/95, I told her to remove
    her contacts and then come back outside. Without ANYTHING on she
    stood 20 feet away and could focus on the 20/70 and 20/50 line for
    about 2 or 3 seconds -- then she said it would flash or float
    away.

    An Excessive -10 D Prescription?


    Prescription by Dr. Bob Smyeth, Optometrist, Dated 8/5/95:

    [Name changed to protect the guilty.]

    Patient: Shanna Brave, Birth Date, 3/2/82:

    8/5/85 20/20 -10.0 RE -9.5 LE (Prescription)

    In subsequent conversations with Jeanie, she stated that her nine year-
    old son was just starting into nearsightedness, and that she would do
    everything in her power to help her son with the proper use of the
    plus lens -- to avoid the catastrophic situation that had developed
    with her daughter. Jeanie wondered why this knowledge is not made
    generally available to the parents of young children.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    YOUR MOTIVATION IS CRUCIAL IN ORDER TO DEFEAT MYOPIA


    It is clear that an intelligent, motivated pilot or student can use
    the plus lens for close work, check his eyes against the eye chart,
    and clear his vision back to normal.

    =================
     
    otisbrown, Jul 5, 2007
    #7
  8. Jennifer Staple

    otisbrown Guest

    And after the symposium, over wine and cheese,
    we could review the following topics
    suggested by Mr. Rehm:


    THE SCHOOLS OF OPTOMETRY AND OPHTHALMOLOGY
    which create the ill-educated "experts" who are turned loose on a
    trusting and unsuspecting public. These schools accept a steady stream
    of money from the optical industry in the form of "research" grants
    and other contributions, thus insuring that they will do nothing to
    upset their benefactors.

    As only one example of how the optical industry uses its money to keep
    the optometric schools under its control, visit the official website
    of the Schools of Optometry at opted.org and click on Corporate
    Contributors. Note that even Wal-Mart, the world's biggest retailer,
    adds its contribution. The deans of these schools, as well as the
    heads of ophthalmology departments at medical schools, may as well be
    on the payroll of the optical industry. ALL of the deans at the 17
    optometric schools have refused to answer our request for a dialog on
    myopia prevention.

    PERPETUAL RESEARCHERS


    who spend their lives applying for research grants and producing
    worthless research results in order to further their careers. They
    have no interest in solving the myopia tragedy because then the
    research money would dry up.


    Although methods to prevent myopia are already known, they always
    claim, "More research is needed."

    Examples of this mindless research mania can be found on sites by
    Karla Zadnik at the Ohio State University College of Optometry and
    Christine Wildsoet at the University of California at Berkeley School
    of Optometry.


    Somehow it never occurs to these people to merely put a strong plus
    lens on children for all close work, to totally eliminate focusing
    effort. Every year, such people meet at an International Myopia
    Conference to present their totally irrelevant, self-glorifying
    research.


    Look at the nonsensical research topics covered at the 3-day
    International Myopia Conference in Singapore in August, 2006. While
    they play their games, the vision of the world's children continues to
    be destroyed.

    EYE "CARE" ORGANIZATIONS
    such as Prevent Blindness America, American Optometric Assn., American
    Academy of Ophthalmology, Intl. Council of Ophthalmology, etc. They
    disseminate vision "information" to the public but are dominated by
    eye doctors and financed by the optical industry. They perpetuate the
    myth of inherited myopia and deny the dangers of minus lenses.

    OUR SCHOOLS

    which teach our children to read but take no interest in ways to
    prevent this from destroying their vision. In the words of one Florida
    school district, "Currently, we partner with Lens Crafters, Prevent
    Blindness and The Lions Club. These groups are very generous in
    proving optometrical services as well as glasses to students who
    either failed their vision examination or demonstrate visual
    problems." The optical industry clearly has gotten its money and its
    viewpoint into our schools, insuring that they will not tell parents
    the truth. This makes the schools part of the conspiracy. For more on
    what schools should be telling parents and students, see
    preventmyopia.org/schoolprogram.

    THE MEDIA
    which never mention the subject of myopia prevention. Their only
    interest is pleasing their advertisers and making maximum profits. If
    they had any concern for the people of the world, they could expose
    and end this tragedy almost overnight.

    The common link between these people is not science or compassion, but
    GREED. With such a formidable group telling the same lies to the
    public, where can anyone find the truth? On this website, of course,
    with over 60 pages of information you won't get from any eye doctor.
    For these groups to join forces to create hundreds of millions of
    crippled children is as despicable an act as most of us will encounter
    in our lifetimes. They are truly an "Axis of Evil." Everything on this
    website is true. You don't believe this? You don't WANT to believe it?
    Read further and judge for yourself

    =============

    Jeeze, I wonder if these people at Yale would have the
    guts to invite Mr. Rehm to speak?

    Or present a paper?

    What are the odds of that happening?

    I guess Rehm does not get invited to the wine and
    cheese reception after all.



     
    otisbrown, Jul 5, 2007
    #8
  9. Jennifer Staple

    otisbrown Guest

    And of course Dr. Stirling Colgate should speak,
    as part of a second-opinion presentation, as
    endorcing Steve Leung. See:


    http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/SAColgate.html

    But, I am certain the "committee" will figure out a
    way to dis-invite him to speak also -- since he
    was successful in clearing his vision back
    to 20/20, after inducing a negative refractive STATE
    in his eyes.

    It would be nice if these people had something
    approaching an "open mind" on the subject
    of the natural eye's dynamic behavior. But no
    one wants to "disturb" the traditional can
    conventional "thinking" of the last 100 years, now
    do they?





     
    otisbrown, Jul 5, 2007
    #9
  10. Jennifer Staple

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Gee, Uncle Otie. That was quite a little burst of self-pleasuring
    there.

    You going to have a cigarette now?
     
    Neil Brooks, Jul 5, 2007
    #10
  11. Jennifer Staple

    p.clarkii Guest

    otis, i believe neil brooks suggested that you use the announced
    meeting to present data to support your point of view about
    myopiagenesis. it appears that your reply basically was "no-- because
    someone submitted an abstract to a meeting once a long time ago and it
    was rejected. you guys will never listen and are a bunch of jerks".
    i am paraphrasing of course but thats basically what your reply was.

    so lets go back to the original point. why don't you, or as qualified
    a member of your so called "second-opinion" group as there is, submit
    an abstract to THIS meeting that is scheduled at Yale. i'm sorry that
    Dr. Brumer's abstract was rejected at some meeting long ago but that
    doesn't mean that one would be rejected at this conference.

    also, and I consider myself to be someone experienced in abstract
    submission since I do it routinely for ARVO, Neuroscience, AAAO, etc.,
    the abstract that you posted here by Dr. Brumer was TERRIBLE. no
    doubt it would be rejected. Dr. Brumer appears, as do you, to have a
    10-ton chip on his shoulder and seems on the verge of name-calling and
    arguing. furthermore it doesn't appear that the Dr. Brumer has
    actually performed any experiments and is presenting any new data.
    several times I have been called upon to render an editorial opinion
    about whether an abstract that someone has submitted to a meeting
    should be considered for acceptance and I would definitely recommend
    "yes" provided that the author(s) have valuable data to share and that
    they can explain their data in the context of a current problem in
    vision science. whether or not it is line with the current thinking
    in the area is not important in the least-- actually I tend to lean
    toward inviting people with different ideas as long as they can
    support them with data and logical thinking. BTW, this is where YOU
    fall down miserably since every time someone asks you a difficult
    question that your theories must be able to address if they are indeed
    valid, you run away. real scientists can't run away Otis.

    you, and your so-called "second-opinion" buddies, never produce any
    data. you just pull out a few observations that you put your own spin
    on (Eskimos, Asian myopia problem, etc.) and then start telling
    everyone else that they are nuts unless they agree with what you are
    saying. indeed, it takes a bit of diplomacy, as well as being a good
    scientist, to get a forum in the modern research community. and you
    guys seem to fail miserably on both of those counts. you never
    present any new data, and instead you want to polarize everyone
    against you. I predict the future holds for you exactly what the past
    has-- miserable and continuous failure. you can say it's someone
    else's fault but it's YOUR fault!
     
    p.clarkii, Jul 5, 2007
    #11
  12. Jennifer Staple

    Kakuzu Guest

    Funny how you call him senile, yet you are always engaging him in
    discussion. Doesn't that pretty much sink you down to his
    'pathological' level, eh Neil? What happened to your promise, Neil?
    You simply feed the troll!
    Wasn't it you who said this, Neil?

    "Though it may pain me, and test my resolve, I
    shan't engage this troll.

    Please join me in this effort. Please allow Rishi's (and Otis's)
    words to echo in the cosmos, unanswered. Eventually, they /will/ go
    away.

    If /I/ can do it, . . . .

    Neil "

    So why are you, after 3 years, still engaging the troll?
     
    Kakuzu, Jul 5, 2007
    #12
  13. Jennifer Staple

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I can't speak for anybody else, Mike, but I get just a bit tired of
    you using real-world experience, based on years of actual practice in
    a vain attempt to discredit Otis's fabrications--fabrications that are
    wholly conjecture, and are designed to bolster a long-ago discredited
    theory, lies, and faulty logic.

    If you don't mind.....
     
    Neil Brooks, Jul 5, 2007
    #13
  14. Actually, Mike, I kind of like to read the prattle. I have learned a
    lot from you, not just about vision and opthalmology, but about
    science in general. In fact, the more I read of your posts, the more I
    learn! My dream is someday to become a renowned neuro-ophthalmologist;
    these discussions on sci.med.vision are very interesting to me. So,
    even though they do become repetitive I would like to thank you
    nonetheless! ;-)
     
    Kisame Hoshigaki, Jul 5, 2007
    #14
  15. Jennifer Staple

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Subject: PROVEN over-prescription by -4 diopters.

    You seem to have MISSED THE POINT!

    The mother checked the child's Snellen at 20 feet,
    and the child read 20/20 THROUGH a -6 diopter lens.

    This is basic verification by the mother.

    But I am certain you will insist that the mother was
    too stupid to make the measurement.

    Let others judge the -10 diopter prescribed for
    a child who could read 20/20 through a -6 diopter lens.

    You say that ODs do not over-prescribe by 4 diopters.

    I say the mother made a correct measurement.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jul 6, 2007
    #15
  16. Jennifer Staple

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    I haven't read the mother-and-child story (don't have time to examine
    all the anecdotal fairy tales), but the question is: Can an over-
    prescription provide higher acuity? Mt logic suggests that if the
    answer is "yes", then it's not over-prescription. My experience is
    that over-rx provides lesser acuity, not better, and the OD will not
    prescribe it. Without knowing the details of the case, I would doubt
    the credibility of the mother's claim.
     
    Ms.Brainy, Jul 6, 2007
    #16
  17. Dear Mike,
    Please could you explain this part? I don't understand.
    And I don't understand what you mean; if something causes pain then
    isn't it doing harm?
     
    Kisame Hoshigaki, Jul 6, 2007
    #17
  18. Jennifer Staple

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    Sometimes pain might even be beneficial, as in "no pain -- no gain."
    Physical exercise, for instance, might stretch the pain for a few
    days, but result in developed muscles and/or incereased flexibility.
    Physical therapy hurts even more, but provides restoration of mobility
    and healing.

    P.S. Higushaki Konsumoki asks extremely idiotic questions, Mike.
    Please don't waste your valuable energy answering them, and then get
    hit by his insults and "noise" claims. He is a Batesian, you know,
    and believes only in relaxation (combined with spiritual palming,
    sunning and nude bathing).
     
    Ms.Brainy, Jul 6, 2007
    #18
  19. Jennifer Staple

    p.clarkii Guest

    you are basically correct with regard to the effects of
    overprescription in patients middle-aged or older ( approx. >45).
    excessive minus lens power usually results in reduced acuity along
    with eye strain, headaches, and possible double vision.

    in younger patients however, excessive minus lens power can still
    result in good acuity although patients still will sometimes complain
    of headaches, eyestrain, diplopia, etc. Furthermore, young people who
    are overminused sometimes actually prefer their vision this way
    because the combination of excessive minus lens power, along with
    excessive plus lens power which is reflexly added by accommodation
    within the eye in order to maintain good acuity, gives their visual
    world a darker, higher-contrast appearance. "young people" refers to
    those less than ~40 years of age who can still recruit some
    accommodation to help them see clearly through excessive minus lens
    power.

    and you are right also about eye doctors being careful not to
    overminus their patients. Otis simple-mindedly believes that eye
    doctors just crank up the minus lens power on patients excessively.
    In practice, minus lenses are used primarily in nearsighted patients
    whose retinal image is not clear because either their eyeball is
    slightly too long, or their corneal curvature is too steep. Just
    enough minus lens power is given so that the patient can see clearly.

    interestingly, studies have shown that when excessive minus lens power
    is used in humans, it DOES NOT stimulate further development of myopia
    as Otis continually claims it does. he knows about these studies yet
    he will not comment on them and they do not cause him to question his
    own beliefs whatsoever as they would a truly rational person. Otis is
    truly an objective thinker, huh? he makes up his mind and then just
    ignors facts that contradict them.

    I have provided the citations and abstracts for those studies below.
    The studies were undertaken to see if overprescribing minus lenses
    would be beneficial in the treatment of other disorders aside from
    investigating whether they induce staircase myopia as Otis claims, yet
    the data is still relevant and bears directly upon the claims of Otis
    Brown, Engineer. If Otis were a real man he would comment, but he
    won't!

    --------------

    Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic
    progression.
    Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6703013&query_hl=3

    Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages from
    7.38 to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over the
    power required to correct their myopia exactly. These 36 experimental
    subjects were matched by control subjects selected at random from the
    files of the Indiana University Optometry Clinics. The criteria used
    in matching were sex, beginning age, beginning refractive error, and
    duration of time covered by the record. The mean rate of change of
    refractive error for the experimental group was (minus indicating
    increase of myopia) -0.49 D/year (range, +0.37 to -1.95 D/year) on
    retinoscopy and -0.52 D/year (range, +0.21 to -1.32 D/year) on
    subjective refraction. The mean rate of change for the control group
    was -0.47 D/year (range, +0.06 to -2.03 D/year) on retinoscopy and
    -0.47 D/year (range, +0.28 to -1.72 D/year) on subjective refraction.
    Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly
    different. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis
    that an overcorrected myope has a lower rate of increase of myopia
    than a myope wearing a conventional spectacle correction.

    ==========================

    Arch Ophthalmol. 1999 May;117(5):638-42.
    Does overcorrecting minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia
    cause myopia?

    Kushner BJ. Pediatric Eye and Adult Strabismus Clinic, Department of
    Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison,
    USA. [email protected]

    http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/117/5/638

    RESULTS: At the time of initial examination, the mean (+/-SD)
    refractive error was 0.00 +/- 1.40 diopters (D) in the control
    group, 0.00 +/- 1.50 D in the study group, and -0.10 +/- 1.50 D in
    the 5-year study group, all of which were essentially identical.
    Five years after initial examination, the mean change in refractive
    error was -1.40 +/- 2.80 D in the control group, -1.52 +/- 1.80 D in
    the 6-month treatment group, and -1.54 +/- 1.80 D in the 5-year
    treatment group. These differences in the change in refractive error
    (myopic shift) were not statistically significant (t test), and the
    differences are clinically unimportant. CONCLUSION: Overcorrecting
    minus lens therapy for intermittent exotropia does not appear to
    cause myopia.

    -----------
     
    p.clarkii, Jul 7, 2007
    #19
  20. Dear Brainy,

    I deeply apologize for my annoying and stupid questions. I know
    sometimes my teachers at school also get very aggravated with me,
    because I am always asking them things about everything. The thing is,
    I have an obsessive personality where I must find out everything
    possible about a subject, and it is this unending curiosity that
    sometimes gets me into a lot of trouble! Again, I apologize when I
    take up your time with my many questions! (I do it too much, I know!)
    But I am hopeful that my inquisitive nature will be accepted by this
    group, in which I see that many scientists and great thinkers are
    participating. Dr.Tyner is no doubt very generous in answering all my
    silly questions! It is certainly rare to come across men of such
    brilliance and kindness as is his. His patience never fails to impress
    me, and I do believe that there are some remarkable geniuses within
    our community. I can only anticipate my future, when I become a neuro-
    ophthalmologist, I will with the greatest amount of luck and grace, be
    as intelligent and knowledgeable as he is.
     
    Kisame Hoshigaki, Jul 7, 2007
    #20
    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.