Dr. Steve Leung's response on the effect of the minus lens

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Jun 14, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Subject: An honest difference of opinion about the behavior of
    the eye. Recommendation to use the plus
    on the "threshold" of nearsightedness by an OD.


    It is fair-and-honest to state that there is a profound
    disagreement about the behavior of the natural eye.

    The issue concerns the effect that a minus lens has on the
    refarctive status of the eye (whether positive or negative).

    The traditional opinion is to insist that a minus lens has NO
    EFFECT on the refractive status of the eye, i.e., a minus lens
    does not induce further negative change, and does not produce
    "stair-case" myopia.

    It would be wrong to insist that only one opinion was the
    "right" opinion. When professionals disagree on fundamental
    points, then it is wise to understand both WHY and HOW they
    disagree.

    Dr L has insisted that Dr. Leung would not use a plus lens
    for prevention. Dr L made a presumptive statement. Dr. Leung
    will be using a plus lens on his own child for the purpose of
    true-prevention.

    Here is his statement for your thoughtful review.


    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Dear Dr L.,


    Re: > I do insist that a minus lens has no negative effect on the
    refractive status of a myopic individual when properly
    prescribed and properly used. Scientists who run this type
    of experiment would not disagree. Dr. L.


    From long friendships with both ODs, and scientists, I would
    suggest that you are making your personal opinion "universal" by
    ascribing to other scientists beliefs that you have, and that in
    fact, reflect the opinion of only a certain percentage of ODs.

    To demonstrate this professional truth, I present the opinion
    by Dr. Steve Leung. His statement is below



    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Date: Wednesday, June 09, 2004 3:38 AM

    Dear Otis,

    Thanks for the last email.

    I am not interested in talking/discussing with the kind of
    people (like Mike Tyner, Dr. Leukoma, etc.) who express no
    concern about vision deterioration with MINUS lens.

    In fact, they are welcome to set up their practice in Far
    East and watch the effect of the minus glasses they prescribed.

    I think they might see the consequence with the so-called
    "... properly fitted and properply used" minus lens.

    Best,

    Dr. Steve Leung


    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I spent a great deal of time learning that
    Dr. Leung was "right". So I think
    his case for prevention should be
    examined, both the "pros" and "cons".

    Best,

    Otis
     
    Otis Brown, Jun 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Otis continues to ignore the preponderance of modern scientific evidence,
    while unable to produce evidence of his own in support of his ideas.
    Instead, he is now reduced to "producing" an email from a mutual admirer.

    Perhaps Dr. Leung will report back to us in a few years on the results with
    his own child, along with additional results such that his findings have
    some statistical validity. Until then, an endorsement from one Otis Brown
    doesn't quite rise to the level of scientific "proof."

    DrG

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    It is fair to state that there is a profound misunderstanding of the
    behavior of the eye by Otis.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    There is no such thing as "perfect data".

    If you wait for that -- you will wait forever.

    Dr. Leung is an a man who understands the
    need for change. He has review explicit
    data demonstrating that the eye is
    a sophisticated system, and under direct
    experimental control will move negative
    when you place a minus lens on it.

    [This is a natural process -- not a "defective"
    process -- although you refuse to understand
    the concept.]

    It is clear that he will take actions to
    protect his own children, even though
    he recognizes that he must make
    "changes" in his own child's life.

    That means the use of a plus ON HIS
    OWN CHIDREN.

    It is true that this is a "slow" process,
    and you can not offer this approach
    to a person "in 15 minutes".

    So Dr. Leung will do this work with
    his own children. I do not
    expect you to learn anything from
    Dr. Leung.

    That is the nature of a "second opinion".

    An intelligent person knows that nothing
    is "perfect" in "medicine", and will
    explore new concepts and ACTUALLY
    PAY ATTENTION TO EXPERIMENTTAL FACTS --
    something you refuse to do.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer

    cc Dr. Steve Leung
     
    Otis Brown, Jun 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Francine,

    Thanks for the commentary.

    From my conversations with Dr. Raphaelson, and reading
    his books, it was clear that, however and OD might
    wish to help -- the person would have to make
    a choice himself in the matter.

    Since that is the issue, I felt my time was
    better spent researching the "second opinion",
    and discussing these issues with my sister's
    children.

    Since they lived 300 miles away, most of
    this "arm twisting" depended on both
    their motivation-level and intelligence
    in the matter.

    Since true-prevention requires long-term
    use of the plus, it again became THEIR issue
    if they wished to take that degree of control.

    Since they did, and took responsibility to
    always PASS the Snellen-DMV test, their
    success will NEVER BECOME PART OF
    ANY MEDICAL RECORD.

    But then, I did it for THEM, and not
    the "general population". Others
    will just have to figure this own
    on the basis of their own insight
    into the behavior of the natural eye.

    Fran, I will post this essay to them,
    since they now have children of their
    own -- and will be better prepared
    to help them with prevention.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer

    *****
     
    Otis Brown, Jun 16, 2004
    #5
  6. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Francine,

    Thanks for the commentary.

    From my conversations with Dr. Raphaelson, and reading
    his books, it was clear that, however and OD might
    wish to help -- the person would have to make
    a choice himself in the matter.

    Since that is the issue, I felt my time was
    better spent researching the "second opinion",
    and discussing these issues with my sister's
    children.

    Since they lived 300 miles away, most of
    this "arm twisting" depended on both
    their motivation-level and intelligence
    in the matter.

    Since true-prevention requires long-term
    use of the plus, it again became THEIR issue
    if they wished to take that degree of control.

    Since they did, and took responsibility to
    always PASS the Snellen-DMV test, their
    success will NEVER BECOME PART OF
    ANY MEDICAL RECORD.

    But then, I did it for THEM, and not
    the "general population". Others
    will just have to figure this own
    on the basis of their own insight
    into the behavior of the natural eye.

    Fran, I will post this essay to them,
    since they now have children of their
    own -- and will be better prepared
    to help them with prevention.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer

    *****
     
    Otis Brown, Jun 16, 2004
    #6
  7. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Otis,

    Many of us share your enthusiasm for prevention. However, many(most) of us
    disagree with the utility of plus in prevention.

    If you could provide some proof....


    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 17, 2004
    #7
  8. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear DrG,

    I have already done so, and asked that
    you answer some simple engineering questions
    about the completely natural eye.

    You refused to do so.

    The experimental data (using the fundamental primate eye)
    is absolutly clear on that point.

    You, in your position choose to totally ignore
    every fact, and basic science concerning
    the eye as a dynamic entity.

    You fail completely to distinguist between
    abstract questions concerning the natural eye
    as a sophisticated control system (which it
    is in science) and you habit
    of perpetuting a "traditional" quick fix
    with a minus lens (when the natural
    eye has a "negative" refractive status.

    All natural eyes will go "down" from the
    forced wearing of a minus lens.

    Under proper conditions (i.e., not controled
    by you or Dr L), I would be prepared
    to make a wager on the outcome of
    a SCIENTIFIC test of this nature.

    But, because you can not answer ENGINEERING
    questions -- the true correct answer would
    be too embarasing for you, you have not
    a clue.

    The fact that some ODs offer the plus (on the threshold)
    means that they are more "wise" than you -- or at least
    more reasonable. The correct approach is to just
    acknowledge that "the public" has the right to be
    informed of a honest but difficult alternative.

    But you want to spin the dials on your phoropter,
    and send them on their way in 15 minutes.

    Never mind if they get "stair case" myopia
    from this casual treatement, after all it
    is THEIR fault -- no yours.

    Think about it.


    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, Jun 19, 2004
    #8
  9. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    You have NOT offered us any proof. Your engineering questions were nothing
    if not silly.
    What would be the point in completing such a meaningless exercise, when in
    order to do so I would be accepting your premises, which have no direct
    correspondence to the real physical world.
    Then, in your very next post, present the experimental data and show
    directly how this proves your case.
    I ignore nothing, and consider everything. I then discard the useless.
    I think that your problem is that you live in a world of your own creation,
    and you fail to see things for what they are, but only as you want them to
    be.
    B*** S***, and I have the evidence to the contrary, which I have presented
    here on several occasions.
    No wager is necessary. Just execute the study and present your findings
    and I will consider them. If those findings are compelling, then I might
    change my position.
    You have not a clue. You won't play by the rules that define the game.
    You prefer to make your own. Well, then play by yourself.
    What kind of "right" are you speaking about? The Bill of Rights? I do
    remember taking an oath that I would "do no harm," and that I cannot engage
    in what the lawyers call "malpractice." And, according to statute, I can
    employ lenses and prisms in the treatment of defects in vision, which does
    include the use of plus.
    Are you implying that I do not give my patients a comprehensive eye
    examination even though I charge them for it? What is your basis for
    impugning my professional integrity, Otis?
    Some patients who do not wear minus also develop staircase myopia, and some
    patients who wear minus do not progress, and still some patients who wear
    minus show improvement. These are facts with which you disagree. Too bad.


    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 19, 2004
    #9
    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.