Children with a tendency for myopia wearing reading glasses propholactically

Discussion in 'Glasses' started by Reece, Jan 30, 2006.

  1. Reece

    Bassslapper Guest

    If we can sift through the name calling and accusations, I think the
    fundamental thing Otis is trying to espouse is the prevention of
    myopia. I think it is safe to say that most myopes would prefer not to
    be myopic and not rely on visual aids to see better. Otis' point, his
    suggestions aside, is that the industry needs to make a paradigm shift
    in it's standard of care and the industry owes it to the public to
    offer alternatives if a child is begining to show signs of myopia. I
    know most of you feel Otis' theories are incorrect and feel he is
    dispensing medical advice without having a license to do so, but if
    there are proven alternatives or treatments that are available to stave
    off, minimize, and even reverse myopia, the public has a right ot
    informed consent about these. If the eye industry is holding back for
    any reason, then shame on the eye industry.

    Again, this is a lot of if's. Both sides of the arguement have lots of
    good and stimulating points that make one want to research further.
    It's a shame it has to digress into a pissing match.
     
    Bassslapper, Feb 3, 2006
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Bass,

    Subject: Understanding the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    I regret the "personal" attacks I receive on sci.med.vision.

    As I suggested, I would have LIKED TO RECEIVE information concerning
    the PREVENTIVE alternative. (At the threshold -- when it could be
    effective.)

    This would be stated as the second-opinion, and I would then PERSONALLY
    go research the proven behavior of the primate eye ON A SCIENTIFIC
    LEVEL.

    I know that a person who is highly motivated to use the "plus" can
    clear his vision -- and keep it clear through the college years. It is
    in no sense easy, but it is possible.

    I would GLADLY PAY A TRUE-PROFESSIONAL FOR THIS ADVICE. That would be
    Steve Leung OD.

    If I turn it down at the 20/50 level (-1.25 diopters) and wear that
    minus all the time, I will expect my refractive state to move negative
    from that day forward at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.

    That is a very serious issue, and should be spelled out to the
    individual. That "first use" of the minus therefore has life-time
    consequences.

    These majority-opinion ODs can and SHOULD point to the fact that any
    psycho-idiot can prefer "charges" against them (for no good reason) and
    put them OUT OF BUSINESS -- with out any proof and with no good reason.

    But that is to say that "practice" is determined by the lowest common
    denominator among us -- and NOT by scientific preception of the natural
    eye as a dynamic system.

    Think about it. "Practice" is not based on science, or scientific
    fact, but meery what "works" on the general public walking in off the
    street -- and what works in a "legal-protective" mode, or "protection"
    against any false charge leveled by a person like "Brooks".

    If the preson understands the nature of "practice" he will have a
    pretty good idea as to why this traditional "minus lens theory" and
    method continues with out ANY CHALLENGE for
    the last 400 years.

    It is a shame that we must have these "pissing" contests. Rather, let
    us understrand the "limits" of a group of people dealing with a mass of
    people walking in off the street. You
    can NEVER supply the "educatiion" to such people in 15 minutes in a
    "office".

    But that is indeed the "limit" that is imposed on an OD --even those
    who will support the first step towards fundamental chage -- which is
    what I advocate.

    Thus I do not "prescribe" anything -- except for "informed choice" at
    the threshold. It becomes a matter of the person himself if he wishes
    to be supported in "prevention" with the plus.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Feb 3, 2006
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. Reece

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Otis, I dislike your personal attacks on the eye care professions and
    the Ph.D.'s and scientists who have published valuable research in the
    field.

    On the other hand, you have contributed nothing but smoke and mirrors.
    Indeed, there exists no true "preventive alternative" of the kind you
    suggest.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 3, 2006
    #43
  4. Reece

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear DrG,

    Subject: Respecting a person's right to an informed, second-opinion.


    DrG> Otis, I dislike your personal attacks on the eye care professions


    Otis> Bull S___. Use the word "refractive state", were the
    natural, living eye can have both positive and negative
    refractive states -- and their is no "attack". It is
    all in your mind.

    DrG> and
    the Ph.D.'s and scientists

    Otis> And again, more intellectually blind Bull S___. I have
    friends in all walks of life. And I do not deal with a great
    mass of people walking in off the street. That is why
    I expect the person to go throuhg a "learning process"
    if he is to PERSONALLY use the plus correctly -- and
    successfully.

    DrG> who have published valuable research in the
    field.

    Otis> Good -- and I am personal friends with such researchers.
    We have a FRIENDLY discussion about the pardigm used
    to represent the living eye as a sophisticated system.
    Something you totally ignore and do not understand at all.
    Try reading "Structure of scientific revolutions."

    On the other hand, you have contributed nothing but smoke and mirrors.
    Indeed, there exists no true "preventive alternative" of the kind you
    suggest.

    Otis> More Bull. I asked for help with prevention -- and
    you told me to get stuffed. So much for your
    "majority opinion".

    Otis



    DrG
     
    otisbrown, Feb 3, 2006
    #44
  5. Reece

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I use the jargon everyone understands, including the scientists who
    publish in the field. You prefer to invent your own terms.
    I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean you don't have time to
    read the research, which means that you are advising people without
    having an understanding of what you are advising? What learning
    process will you have the layperson go through, if you aren't capable
    of learning anything yourself?
    Name the researchers and their papers in the peer-reviewed literature
    within the past 15 years.
    You've not asked for anything insofar as I can tell. You are basically
    dictating what it is that we are supposed to offer you, which basically
    amounts to self-help and not a scientific discussion. I'm sure you can
    find an appropriate forum for that, but it isn't here.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 3, 2006
    #45
  6. Reece

    Quick Guest

    You're kidding right? Promoting fhe curative practice of
    bleeding would fit very well with what you say above.

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Feb 3, 2006
    #46
    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.