Current "vision clearing" by Mike from -2.75 D

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Mar 11, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Given all the "hoopla" about prevention, and specifically
    Raphaelson's problem with "The Printer's Son", it would
    be difficult to see how any OD could be involved
    with true-prevention.

    Rishi rejects the use of the plus lens for prevention.

    Andrew -- wants the "brain" to "solve" the problem.

    But lastly, it is a matter of the person himself
    to make a choice.

    This is an open forum, and all ideas are "open".

    Please remember -- Mike had an exam, and all
    MEDICAL problems were elliminated -- i.e., he
    had NO medical problem. He personally decided
    to REJECT the use of the minus -- on his own.

    Only AFTER that point did is suggest that he follow
    the advice of Dr. Stirling Colgate (Physicist) who
    had cleared with a +2.5 dipoter lens.

    Warrning: DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DO THIS -- UNTIL
    YOU PERSONALLY LOOK AT OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC DATA
    YOURSELF.

    Professor Theodore Grosvenor personally recommended
    the use of the plus FOR PREVENTION -- but provided
    no "plan" to implement his recommendation.

    In a way, Mike is implementing that "plan".

    It looks likd Mike will alway pass all legal
    visual acuity requirments that apply to him,
    so he no longer has any need for OD involvement.

    Please think about these issues. You can expect
    the normal "blasts" against "clean" statements
    about potential prevention. I regret that,
    because there are now ODs who support
    the concept of prevention with the plus.

    The real problem is "public rejection" of
    the concept -- which "shuts down" any
    OD who would be bold enouogh to discuss this
    possibility with you.

    This staement is dedicated to the memory
    of Dr. Jacob Raphaelson (OD)

    As always, the name has been changed to
    protect Mike from the "blasts" you post against him.

    _________________________________________


    Subject: Realizing the importance of wearing a plus not just for
    reading. Mike (Previously at -2.75 diopters)

    Dear Mike,

    Subject: Respecting you and your right to protect YOUR long-term
    vision

    Forty years ago, many mechanics and pilots worked in the "high
    noise" enviroments of jets. Today, they are seriously deaf -- to
    a large extent. As a result, pilots and others who work in a very
    high-noise enviroment wear "noise supression" muffs.

    To me, the situation where your natural eyes move from a
    postive value to a negative value -- is exactly the same. People
    working in these "confined" enviroments become massively
    nearsighed. In Taiwan, the medical staff runs about 92 percent.
    Why can't we make this "connection"?

    You are using the "plus" and are passing the visual standard
    required of us around the world, or the ability to read 1.8 cm
    letters at 6 meters.

    If you regard the "plus" as "protective" -- same as "ear
    muffs", then you will maintain your clear vision -- while everyone
    else in this "near" enviroment will lose their vision.

    People who think they can "avoid" the protective plus -- and
    keep their distant vision -- are kidding themselves. You have
    made a wise decision to use the "plus" correctly.

    More commentary;
    ________________________________________

    Dear Mike,

    Mike> One of the reasons why I chose to improve my vision was so I
    wouldn't have to wear negative lens glasses.

    Otis> Your most important decision was to quit the minus 2.75
    diopter lens, "cold turkey" on your own. Once you decided
    to do that -- it becomes essential that you PASS the LEGAL
    DMV requirement of reading 1.8 cm at 6 meters. By that act,
    you have assumed personal responsibility to "protect" your
    distant vision for the next six years.

    Otis> You gain may benefits. By keeping your vision clear, you
    avoid all the expenses of "a new minus lens" every year or
    so, to the tune of $200 or $300. The "medical" part
    for $100 is worth it, to look for anything "medical".

    Mike> I have been diligent in wearing a plus for reading and near
    work but I haven't been wearing a plus constantly until
    recently because I now realize the importance of wearing a
    plus not just for reading.

    Otis> Once you get into serious nearsighedness -- it is very
    difficult and probably impossible to get out of it. This
    fact should be a "spur" to begin using the plus "correctly"
    at the threshold. Stirling Colgate was wise to recognize
    that a minus lens simply made a near environment even
    "nearer". I think that is why he "cleared" quicker.

    Mike> 20/50 was tough for me to pass and to me that is not
    acceptable. I am now wearing a plus constantly. You could
    say that I was developing myopia again.

    Otis> There is no doubt that keeping your distant vision is tough.
    This is very similar to wearing muffs to protect your
    hearing. It was very difficult to get pilots to wear these
    muffs -- because they thought it was "unnecessary". That is
    also why using the plus is so difficult.

    Mike> One bone-head OD said that Jon and I are children. My
    opinion is that we are getting to an age were the DMV eye
    test is important and we are working to pass it.

    Otis> You were old enough to make a wise decision. For some
    reason most people are not that smart (with due respect). I
    resent being led down a "prim-rose" path with the minus
    lens. My anger at that treatment forced me to work on
    "prevention" so that you could "protect" youself -- and your
    vision. These ODs on sci.med.vision DO NOT CARE ABOUT YOU.
    Only you personally can care about your long-term vision.
    They may not want to "hurt" you with the minus lens -- but
    they refuse to help you.

    Mike> Plus I will be 16 this year. My prediction is that he will
    change his difinition of a child from 16 and under to 18 and
    other. You should tell him that and see if I am right.

    Otis> Just our conversations proves your abilities are far above
    average. You have the right to have your long-term vision
    protected. I support your right to an "honest"
    second-opinion. The ODs on sci.med.vision don't think you
    are owed a "choice". I do! People might be "angry" with me
    because I fight for YOUR long term vision -- but that is the
    way it is. I seek to "empower" ODs like Steve Leung who,
    like Jacob Raphaelson is helping his own child with the
    wearing of the plus -- because he knows the consequences of
    NOT wearing the plus properly.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Mar 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    Again a gigantic snip in the same old garbage spam by story teller Otis.

    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Mar 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    Otis.

    Better a story teller than a criminal and a liar.

    At least a story teller has a dignity, a liar none.
     
    g.gatti, Mar 11, 2005
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    And for a person like yourself, Rishi--for whom both of these is true?
    What does that say about you?
     
    Neil Brooks, Mar 11, 2005
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    Dear mister the idiot, you just do a search on google and I have plenty
    of proof to serve to you.
     
    g.gatti, Mar 11, 2005
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Please Otis, direct us to this OBJECTIVE proof. Not on your website, but a
    website OUTSIDE of yours. You probably can't since it probably does not
    exist OUTSIDE your website.
    Gee, another child, another facticious subject????

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Mar 12, 2005
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Who cares?

    This forum is sci.med.vision
    That stands for science, medicine, and vision.
    Nothing that you, or Rishi, or Andrew has to offer has anything to do with
    the first two of those subjects.

    Go post in some other forum, or else PROVE what you propose so that it
    actually falls in the realm of science and medicine.
     
    RM, Mar 12, 2005
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    snip
    As usual, you misquote others. Grosvenor published well controlled studies
    clearly showing that the plus lens DOES not slow myopia progression. He
    speculated that, PERHAPS, MAYBE, using a plus at near before the development
    of myopia MIGHT prevent it. He called for further study. He certainly did
    not recommend plus for prevention.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Mar 12, 2005
    #8
  9. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Judy,

    Subject: Bifocal studies

    Francis Young ran a good bifocal study where a reasonable-strength
    plus was used in the "plus" segment. This was a "high segment",
    were the child had little choice but to look THROUGH the plus
    segment -- i.e., the plus was ACTUALLY USED BY THE CHILD.

    While this type of study was not a full PREVENTIVE study,
    the indications were that if a greater strength plus were
    used the result would be effective prevention could be
    much more effective -- provided that the person
    would "push print", i.e., achieve maxim effect with the plus.

    Dr. Francis Young did NOT participated in the "Houston" study.
    As I understand it, some one "accidently" put his name
    on that study.

    The Houston study, (as I understand it) used a "small" or
    "low segment" where the child could easily avoid looking
    through the plus -- at all. Since the "blind study" protocol
    prevented:

    1. Any instruction in the use of the plus.

    2. Prevented any checking -- at all.

    It is doubtful that the "Houston" study had much "scientific"
    validity -- since no one really checked to see if the
    kids actually used the plus.

    So, while the minus-lens (quick-fix) method will prevail,
    it still remains the "majority opinion", the second opinion
    is still valid. But it clear that, to be effective,
    it must be done by the person himself who has
    the motivation to do it.

    Francis Young and Theordre Grosvenor were correct. Prevention
    with the plus is possible, PROVIDED the person (like Mike)
    has the fortitude to do this work correctly -- as the second opinion.

    His eyes belong to him -- and he has the right to
    exert "control" to protect his distant vision.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Mar 12, 2005
    #9
  10. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    If 10,000 ODs believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
     
    otisbrown, Mar 12, 2005
    #10
  11. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Your reasoning on this is totally irrelevant. The only relevant fact
    is that the Young study was done on children who had nearpoint
    esophoria. This is a special subset of myopes whose myopia is probably
    more accommodative than axial. Even in subsequent studies, this is the
    only small subset of myopes for whom bifocals and plus lenses seem to
    have some effect.

    You either haven't read the study, or you choose to ignore certain
    aspects of it because your thesis would be partially discredited.


    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Mar 12, 2005
    #11
  12. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    I don't think anybody is interested in changing their ROTTEN minds.

    The problem is serious: all those people HAVE NO CLUE about vision
    problems.

    Just yesterday a client has written to me.

    You may find in the text some reference to an endless series of
    desperate attempts by the official physicians and ophthalmologists that
    have simply destroyed this man's life.

    The text is in Italian but I understand that you will be able to CATCH
    the names of the diseases SINCE THEY ARE ALL FROM LATIN WORDS.

    It will be interesting to know what you could offer more to this poor
    man of 42.

    Now he has come to me, to Dr. Bates.

    I bet what you want THAT HE WILL FIND IMMEDIATE RELIEF if not a cure,
    to his sufferings.

    And if I say IMMEDIATE I mean it.

    Here is his letter:
    racconto che l'hanno portata alla conoscenza ed alla consapevolezza da
    lei descritta.
    nella situazione in cui ti trovi, nessun Sig. Gatti e nessun Sig. Bates
    può aiutarti > .
    scrivere >, mi son detto : proviamo lo stesso ad interpellare il Sig.
    Gatti; può essere che ne possa scaturire qualcosa di positivo.
    all'età di 43 anni - l'intervento di cataratta. Successivamente
    un'altro intervento, sempre allo stesso occhio, per regolarizzare una
    sinechia.
    all'occhio sinistro ( conseguenza - questa - del massiccio uso di
    cortisone e dell'uveite all'occhio destro).
    anni, step dopo step, periodi di recidività continua e periodi di
    astensionismo e la medicina oftalmica (nonostante sia stato
    letteralmente rigirato come un calzino) procede per terapie aspecifiche
    presupponendo e basandosi sul fatto (non pienamente accertato) che il
    tutto sia dipeso dal virus dell'Herpes.
    rificcano la causalità herpetica (ed il relativo cortisone) quasi
    dapperttutto quando non sanno dove andare a pescare.
    questo punto non ci sia Bates che tenga, Lei ritiene che vi possano
    essere - ancora - margini per manovre dettate dalle regole di Bates e
    quindi evitare il prossimo trapianto di cornea ???? .
    necessario, sono a sua disposizione nella discesa di dettagli.



    NOW LET'S SAY WHAT THIS MR. TYNER, A PART OF THE MULTI-MILLION QUANTITY
    OF PHDs WHO HAVE INFESTED THE WORLD ABOUT ITALIAN HUMOR, OR ABOUT THE
    SHAME OF ITALY, OR A B O U T - T H E - S H A M E - O F - Y O U R - D I
    R T Y - P R O F E S S I O N - O F - B U T C H E R S.





    http://TheCentralFixation.com
     
    g.gatti, Mar 12, 2005
    #12
  13. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    I AM CERTAIN THE MAN ITSELF WILL FIND SOME TRUE HELP TO HIS PROBLEM.
    NO, I DON'T RECOMMEND ANYTHING, JUST I SELL A BOOK, WELL MORE THAN ONE,
    ALMOST 3500 PAGES TO READ, AND PEOPLE CAN DO AS THEY WISHES.
    I THINK YOU ARE A BEST IDIOT. IF YOU WERE A LITTLE BIT MORE INTELLIGENT
    YOU COULD HAVE SHOWN A DIFFERENT MIND: WHAT HAS THIS POOR MAN TO DO???

    DESPITE ALL HIS TREATMENTS ADMINISTERED BY YOUR OWN COLLEGUES AND
    PEERS, HE HAS SIMPLY CONTINUED TO WITNESS HIS EYES AND SIGHT WITHER
    AWAY.
    YOU SHOULD HAVE OFFERED IT TO HIM: WHY YOU DIDN'T, YOUR PEERS DIDN'T?

    WHAT THIS MAN HAS TO DO N O W ?????
    I DESRESPECT THE BRAILLE SYSTEM SINCE I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE WITH BLINDNESS
    RECOVER FROM BLINDNESS.
     
    g.gatti, Mar 12, 2005
    #13
  14. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    GO CURE YOUR CLIENTS AND THIS FORUM WOULD DISAPPEAR !
     
    g.gatti, Mar 12, 2005
    #14
  15. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    snip of discussion about Francis Young in response to statement about T
    Grosvenor

    Here are Grosvenor's actual comments, published just after he did the plus
    lens research; please note that he DOES NOT say anything to support use of
    plus, in fact, he states such methods have had limited success.

    "Comment in:
    a.. Optom Vis Sci. 1990 Feb;67(2):150-2.

    Myopia: what can we do about it clinically?

    Grosvenor T.

    College of Optometry, University of Houston, Texas.

    Methods that have been used by vision practitioners for the control of
    myopia include visual training, biofeedback training, undercorrection,
    overcorrection, the use of bifocal lenses, the use of contact lenses, the
    instillation of atropine, and refractive surgery. With some exceptions the
    use of these methods has achieved only limited success. The lack of success
    with the less-invasive methods--which are based on the supposition that
    myopia is caused by accommodation--may be due to the fact that they are used
    for eyes that are already myopic and therefore have already undergone axial
    elongation and scleral stretching. If it were possible to predict which
    children were at risk for the development of myopia, vision practitioners
    would be able to institute procedures for the control of myopia when only a
    minimum of scleral stretching has occurred. Risk factors that warrant
    investigation include the axial length/corneal radius ratio and the resting
    state of accommodation."

    And here is the Houston study, note that the differences between treatment
    groups was not significant:

    1: Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1987 Jul;64(7):482-98. Related Articles,
    Links


    Houston Myopia Control Study: a randomized clinical trial. Part II. Final
    report by the patient care team.

    Grosvenor T, Perrigin DM, Perrigin J, Maslovitz B.

    In a randomized clinical trial designed to test the efficacy of bifocal
    lenses for the control of juvenile myopia, each of 207 children between the
    ages of 6 and 15 years wore single vision lenses, +1.00 D add bifocals, or
    +2.00 D add bifocals for a period of 3 years. For the 124 subjects who
    completed the study, the mean changes in refraction were found to be -0.34 D
    per year for subjects wearing single vision lenses, -0.36 D per year for
    those wearing +1.00 D add bifocals, and -0.34 D per year for those wearing
    +2.00 D add bifocals. These differences were not statistically significant.
    When subjects in all three treatment groups were combined, it was found that
    the rate of progression tended to be the most rapid for subjects who entered
    the study at an early age with a large amount of myopia, and tended to be
    the least rapid for subjects who entered the study at a later age with a
    small amount of myopia. It was also found that subjects having with-the-rule
    astigmatism progressed more slowly than those having no astigmatism or
    against-the-rule astigmatism.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Mar 12, 2005
    #15
  16. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    an excellent post.

    Otis please visit the National Eye Institute's website for additional
    experimental results that demostrate that biocal spectacles have a
    negligible, if any at all, benefit on myopia progression. These are
    real scientific studies-- controls, etc. Please provide your data
    supporting your (unfounded) theory:

    http://www.nei.nih.gov/news/statements/bifocal.asp
    http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/static/study9.asp

    but these studies have been presented to you already so I'm sure you
    don't care and you will just ignor them.

    Why do you behave in such an irrational unscientific way?
     
    retinula, Mar 13, 2005
    #16
  17. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Retin,
    Subject: Plus lens -- prevention, versus "bifocal" -- where the
    kids do not look through the small-segment of the "bifocal".
    I have worked with Francis Young for a number of years.

    It is very hard to work with a young child -- not to mention his
    parents.

    In medicine you run totally BLIND STUDIES. The means
    that you have no means to check to see what the hell the
    child is doing -- nor do you care -- in any event.

    For this reasons, there these so called "bifocal" studies
    do not mean squat -- how many times they are run. Because
    THE KIDS DO NOT LOOK THROUGH THE PLUS -- silly.

    And since these studies are completely blind, or doubl blind,
    you simply have not a clue.

    That is why, when an intelligent and MOTIVATED "Mike" uses
    a STRONG PLUS, and takes COMPLETE CONTROL and
    reviews the scientifc datat HIMSELF, he reaches the contclusion
    that the only way he can PREVENT this situation is to
    avoid you and your BLIND STUDIES -- that don't mean anything.

    That is why he is becomming successful in this use of the
    plus, and is now able to pass the 20/40 line for the DMV.

    This is what Stirling Colgatge did -- and that is what is recommended
    by Steve Leung.

    It is true that (as per "The Printer's Son" ) that you can NOT do this
    for a person. He must figure this out for himself. And when he
    does -- there is a good possibility that he can be successful
    in the long-run. But that will depend on Mikes judgment -- and
    NOT ON ME, and not on you either.

    They are his eyes, and provided he always passes the DMV, he
    has no need for anything you might have to offer. And as
    RM says -- who cares.

    In this case -- Mike cares -- and is left no choice but to
    "clear" under his own control -- as he states.

    We should ALL assist a person with this type of motivation.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Mar 13, 2005
    #17
  18. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    In medicine you run totally BLIND STUDIES. The means
    I'm going to butt in.

    That is not what "totally blind studies" mean. What "blind" means is that
    the researcher does not know what treatment group that patient is in and
    vice versa. This assures that bias does not enter into the study and taint
    the results. But you knew that anyway I'm sure-- you just wanted to twist
    some words to try to make an argument supporting your case.

    This problem with bias is a big problem with you Otis! In the face of
    several different studies, which all show that bifocals have no useful
    beneficial effect on myopia prevention, you continue to conjure up arguments
    and disagreements against them. Of course all studies have some limitations
    and have some room for criticism, yet the weight of the scientific proof is
    clearly against you.

    The question is a good one- why do you continue to act in an unscientific
    manner and argue against the only good data? Is this what "engineering
    science" is?

    If you want to really find out for yourself whether bifocals work, or
    whether plus lenses work, then you need to do some studies yourself to prove
    it. Until then, you are swimming against the current and rightly so!

    By the way-- I'm sure the researchers involved in these studies thought of
    your argument. It's not rocket science to understand that you need to look
    through the bifocal. I'm sure it was controlled for as best as could be
    done.
     
    RM, Mar 13, 2005
    #18
  19. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear "RM",

    RM > By the way-- I'm sure the researchers involved in these studies
    thought of
    your argument.

    Otis> They may have "though" about it -- but there is no
    evidence they did anything about it. Checking to see if
    they have a "low-segment" on their face in not
    sense ensures they are looking through it to read.


    RM > It's not rocket science to understand that you need to look
    through the bifocal.

    Otis> Given the results of Francis Young's "high-segment" plus,
    i.e., plus group zero diopters per year, straight miinus, -0.5 diopters
    per year (over 250 students), I would say that these kids
    DID look through the plus.

    RM> I'm sure it was controlled for as best as could be done.

    Otis> From all the intense bias against the plus -- from
    you and others -- I rather doubt that they did much checking.

    Otis> But you have no interest in true-prevention in any event.
    Forces the person concerned with the issue to learn
    to "clear" for himself as Mike and Jon did.
    You can not do it for them.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Mar 16, 2005
    #19
  20. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    From all the intense bias against the plus -- from
    Oh. You found out. Well I guess we should just all admit it now.
    It's a conspiracy between the AMA, and AOA, and the eyeglass companies.
    They paid off the researchers big time to put the seg heights so low
    that the bifocal was actually cut off on the glasses those kids were
    wearing.

    Haven't you noticed how all the researchers mysteriously retired in
    Aruba the year after the report was published.

    Otis Brown, private eye
     
    retinula, Mar 17, 2005
    #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.