Dr. Stirling Colgate endorces the concept of plus-prevention

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, May 31, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dr. Stirling Colgate's support for Steve Leung OD


    November 12, 2004

    My support for Steve Leung OD and Alfred Bossino


    To the Parents,

    I have often wondered why the profession of optometry does not change
    its treatment for the prevention of myopia with a plus lens -- in these
    decades after the ground-breaking scientific research by Dr. Francis
    Young, Dr. Howard Howland and others has been successfully completed.

    I have seen the number of young myopes increase in the USA and to an
    incredible extent in the Far East. The prevalence is very serious in
    Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and China.

    I regret this obvious and rapid increase in the degree of myopia around
    the world -- because of the use of the traditional (minus-lens)
    treatment. This is a primitive method indeed. To this date there has
    been no systematic effort to educate the public about this method of
    effective nearsightedness prevention with the plus lens.

    I personally support and recommend the work of Steve H. Leung and
    Alfred Han Bossino. They are making a sincere effort to educate the
    public about the necessity of "correct use" of the plus lens for
    prevention. Mr. Leung's knowledge and skill will be of considerable
    value to your child in his goal of maintaining clear distant vision
    through the school years.

    SAC
     
    otisbrown, May 31, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Here is Dr. Colgates further statement of the need to
    understand the necessity of the plus as the
    preventive second-opinion.

    Otis

    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    November 20, 2004


    To the Parents:

    In the Matter of Steve H. Leung OD and Alfred H. Bossino.

    www.chinamyopia.org


    Dear Sir,


    I am a senior scientists, astrophysicist and nuclear
    physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a member of the
    National Academy of Sciences of the USA. For all of my scientific
    career I have been dedicated to understanding the cause of natural
    phenomena. From the age of 13 years, now 66 years ago, I
    recognized that the standard response to myopia was perhaps miss
    guided. Instead I used positive lens glasses to correct, or alter
    my focal environment, namely one of reading nearly all the time.
    (A positive lens "corrects" a near-point focal environment by
    altering the light rays to be more parallel from the near-point
    object. as if the print were made more distant.) Being young and
    therefore developmentally plastic, my eyes and their focal
    properties immediately responded. Within just a few weeks, the
    clarity or focus of distant objects had been restored. This was
    just as I expected from scientific arguments. I had to maintain a
    positive lens for reading thereafter. This was a small price to
    pay for perfect distance vision for all my life.

    I have continued an effort to bring this awareness of the
    focal adaptation of the natural eye to the public, but
    unfortunately the ease and immediate response of the standard
    treatment of using a negative lens to reverse the myopic
    adaptation to a near point environment is so immediate and so
    rewarding to the myope that I and a few associates have not been
    successful. This is regardless of the decades after the ground
    breaking scientific research by Dr. Francis Young, and Dr.
    Howard Howland and others.

    I have worked scientifically with Prof. Joshua Wallman of
    City College New York where his research on the response of the
    natural eye to focal and neurological environments is leading the
    fundamental research on this topic in the US. The animal model
    used is the recovery function of the deprivation induced myopia of
    the chicken eye. Here myopia and recovery can be altered by 10
    diopters in a few weeks. This extreme animal model allows many
    factors of influence to be investigated in a short time. Although
    the complexity of the response of the eye is extraordinary and a
    detailed understanding of the mechanisms still eludes all in the
    scientific field, nevertheless there is no experiment, no
    anecdotal example that contradicts, and no doubt in my mind that
    myopia in all animals, including humans, is induced in response to
    a near point environment.

    In view of this research and countless personal successful
    examples the growing number of myopic individuals in the world is
    deplorable, when such a simple remedy is available to the public.

    Steve H. Leung OD is a dedicated optometrist who has
    taken a lead in attempting to bring this knowledge and
    benefit to their patients.

    For them to be persecuted within his own professional
    societies is wrong. He should be lauded and encouraged instead.

    I am reminded of the first health professionals who spoke out
    about the health problems that smoking brings to a society.
    Theirs was a difficult task, but now thirty years later, smoking
    in the US has declined to a negligible fraction of society. If
    we, as a culture, can give up smoking, we can also be weaned from
    the negative lens.

    I do hope and recommend that you strongly support what these
    dedicated optometrists are bringing to your profession.


    Sincerely yours,


    Stirling A. Colgate Ph.D.



    Dr. Colgate is a Senior Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory
    and a Member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.
     
    otisbrown, May 31, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    How interesting.

    Perhaps now you're ready to answer my questions:

    1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely
    differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying
    that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard?
    2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the
    SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus
    lens, the myopia was prevented?
    3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
    corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
    of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?

    4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you
    call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
    this in humans, can you cite your source for this claim?
    5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
    "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but
    Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get
    worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES
    this. Please explain your position.
    6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
    recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware
    that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses
    made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
    esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY
    EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE
    this convergence disorder?
    7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
    International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
    presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm
    states:
    Quote:"A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large
    add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between
    accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at
    something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation
    and convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of
    years, the brain has learned that this is the normal situation.
    Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa.
    Thus, if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or
    if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems
    can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue,
    double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two
    images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal
    binocular vision is interfered with."


    Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware
    of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?
    8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story.
    Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in
    truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his
    "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?
    9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
    Deakins?
    10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I
    provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
    your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
    that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
    that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
    were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
    ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
    nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?"
    If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last
    copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
    received any money for this book.
    11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a
    commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?
    12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative
    spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide
    credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia,
    or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia
    13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
    optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
    than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
    opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
    have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
    please provide it?
    14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any
    economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is
    honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is
    trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website,
    and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to
    sell both your and his book?
    15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your
    niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is,
    at this time, a myope?
     
    Neil Brooks, May 31, 2006
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    We might ask Neil D. Brooks to provide a
    list of HIS published scientific papers -- and
    compare them to Dr. Young's published
    scientific papers.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 31, 2006
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Why?

    My questions are perfectly valid on their own.

    Just how stupid ARE you anyway?

    Rhetorical. No need to answer. "Exceptionally" about covers it.
     
    Neil Brooks, May 31, 2006
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    acemanvx Guest

    Thanks for the heads up, Otis! Your optometrists should inform other
    optometrists about the use of plus lens(with prisms if neccessary to
    prevent double vision) and good vision habits such as not burying your
    nose inches away from a book.
     
    acemanvx, May 31, 2006
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Linus Pauling, Ph.D., won the Nobel Prize in chemistry. He also had a
    lifelong fascination with vitamin C. At the time of his death, he was
    recommending a daily dosage of 20 grams. Was he right or wrong in
    recommending this amount? Most physicians thought he was wrong.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, May 31, 2006
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    Dick Adams Guest

    Well, you gotta admit -- he lived quite long, longer by far, for instance,
    than Dr. Atkins, MD who knew all about what one should eat, presumably
    based on his medical education..

    Notwithstanding that it is a shame that the so called "Plus" is proposed
    by some idiots as a panacea, I can't see how it would hurt to wear
    reading glasses for reading, starting with the first sign of a myopic shift.
    Might even do some good.

    Kind of like praying if you're not even sure there is a God.
     
    Dick Adams, May 31, 2006
    #8
  9. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dicky,

    Subject: The plus is NOT A PANACEA.

    Dicky> Notwithstanding that it is a shame that the so called "Plus" is
    proposed
    by some idiots as a panacea,

    Otis> Tragically -- there are many who make excessive claims -- about
    may things.

    Otis> I ackonwlege that plus-prevention is "difficult" but can lead to
    a better result (preventing the first-step into stair-case myopia).

    Otis> I also recommend that the parent be fully informed of this
    alternative BEFORE he arrives as a "doctors" office. And in
    fact, I suggest that the parents have their child read
    the Snellen -- so there can be an open discussion about
    the plus-alternative.

    Otis> The "plus" can not be used -- AFTER the child begins
    wearing that wretched minus (and his eyes "adapt" to it).
    So, again the parents should be aware of this efffect that
    the minus has on all primate eyes.

    Otis> A difficult, but better choice -- for the informed parent.


    Dicky> I can't see how it would hurt to wear
    reading glasses for reading, starting with the first sign of a myopic
    shift.

    Otis> That is my thesis. Truly it does take a lot of motivation
    to:

    1. Verify your Snellen at 20/60 (let us say).

    2. Agressively use a strong plus (for several months).

    3. Monitor your Snellen -- to verify that your vision clears
    to pass all legal visual-acuity stadards that apply to you.

    4. When you pass the DMV requirement (but are still in
    school) then you just monitor your Snellen -- to make
    certain you pass that standard.

    Not too difficult -- but it takes personal motivation to do it.

    Dicky> Might even do some good.

    Otis> When the college student verifies that he can clear
    "at will" then, yes the preventive plus has done
    a lot of good -- for him.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 31, 2006
    #9
  10. otisbrown

    Dick Adams Guest

    Sounds like "If you're not with us, you are against us."

    Well, I am not necessarily with, or against anybody. But I do not
    consider that the possibilities for avoiding myopia have been completely
    eliminated.

    Particularly, I do not consider that Otis being wrong in some or all
    respects should mean that it is time to give up on myopia.

    It is like a broken record:
    You think that something might be done about myopia.
    Otis thinks that too.
    Otis is a nut (fraud, whatever).
    Therefore:
    You are one, too.

    It is to much -- Otis is a detail, but the attention given to him and to Ace
    is wrecking your newsgroup. Not that there was much hope for it in
    the first place.
     
    Dick Adams, May 31, 2006
    #10
  11. We might ask Neil D. Brooks to provide a list of HIS published scientific papers

    Another dodge; and not a particularly artful one at that.
     
    The Central Scrutinizer, May 31, 2006
    #11
  12. otisbrown

    Quick Guest

    Uh oh... Otis, have you lead Ace to believe that you have
    a practice and that you have optometrists? Who are the
    "your optometrists" that he is refering to?

    Have you gone full out representing that you have a practice
    now with optometrists working for you?

    -Quick
     
    Quick, May 31, 2006
    #12
  13. otisbrown

    Dick Adams Guest

    20/60 due to myopia is far from the first sign of a myopic shift. I'd
    say that some difficulty reading the 20/20 line would be a first sign,
    or the 20/15 line if could read it before.

    My thesis is not the same as your thesis, Otis. My thesis is that once
    you start getting nearsighted, you are going to be nearsighted. My hope
    would be that you might conduct yourself so that your nearsightedness
    does not worsen too much.
     
    Dick Adams, May 31, 2006
    #13
  14. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dick Adams,

    Subject: Is you goal to always keep your distant vision -- through the
    school year?

    The legal standard in most states is 20/40 in both eyes. With some
    states
    at 20/50 and one or two at 20/60.

    The real issue is to keep the "minus" off the face as much as possible,
    and
    if you have the motivation for it -- to clear your 20/60 vision BACK TO
    20/40
    or better.

    This is of course what Dr. Stirling Colgage did -- even though it takes
    a
    LOT OF SELF-MOTIVATION TO DO IT -- admitedly.

    But for the person who will accept this preventive "challenge" and
    always
    "push" himself in the use of the plus -- the prevention of
    this nature is completely possible.

    But it does take a lot of personal insight and motivation to do it.

    Best,

    Otis



     
    otisbrown, Jun 1, 2006
    #14
  15. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Is that why your niece, Joy, failed and became a myope--likely
    moderately or highly so in her left eye??

    In her case, is it more an issue of a lack of insight or is she just
    lazy?

    Thank you.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jun 1, 2006
    #15
  16. otisbrown

    acemanvx Guest


    Otis has yet to confirm what pescription Joy is except that Joy almost
    never wears the minus lens so shes probably barely myopic in one eye
    and worse in the other but the better eye lets her see fine without the
    wretched minus lens.


    "My thesis is not the same as your thesis, Otis. My thesis is that
    once
    you start getting nearsighted, you are going to be nearsighted. My
    hope
    would be that you might conduct yourself so that your nearsightedness
    does not worsen too much."


    This is what alot of people say, including my optometrists. They all
    think myopia goes in one direction-higher, higher, higher! However even
    if you cant reverse it, if you slow the myopia progression enough you
    will never have bad unaided vision and be functional much of the time
    without glasses.
     
    acemanvx, Jun 1, 2006
    #16
  17. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dicky> "My thesis is not the same as your thesis, Otis. My thesis is
    that once
    you start getting nearsighted, you are going to be nearsighted. My
    hope
    would be that you might conduct yourself so that your nearsightedness
    does not worsen too much."

    Otis> And my thesis -- similar to yours -- is that if ANYTHING is
    to be done for true-prevention -- a decision or choice
    must be made at that point, where the kid can
    function with no minus (i.e., would pass the DMV strandard).;
    I certainly agree that ONCE YOU BEGIN WEARING THE MINUS -- YOU
    WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF IT -- OR "REVERSE" IT.
    On that issue -- I do agree with the M.O. ODs.

    Otis> The issue is whether the parent can child will understand
    the necessity of it -- and place a high value or keeping
    or retaining clear distant vision -- when otherwise their
    refractive STATE will move down at a rate of -1/2 diopter
    per year.

    Otis> Thus prevention is indeed possible -- but difficult for
    these obvious reasons.


    Ace> This is what alot of people say, including my optometrists. They
    all
    think myopia goes in one direction-higher, higher, higher!

    Otis> It does -- if you will not begin plus-prevention at the 20/50
    level.
    The Oakley-Young study confirms what you have just said.


    Ace> However even
    if you cant reverse it, if you slow the myopia progression enough you
    Otis> The issue is how much the person values his or her distrant
    vision through the school years. And that issue is truly
    a personal decision -- not a "medical" decision.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 1, 2006
    #17
  18. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Only to somebody who has NEVER read it, and who has FAITH in what you
    say, rather than doing any independent research.
     
    Neil Brooks, Jun 1, 2006
    #18
  19. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    What's going on Cletis?

    You are the toothpaste man now?

    You really stick to your own warped personality rathe rthan pretend to
    be someone with no experience in bioscience.

    Ooops, sorry, you already are someone with no expertise in bioscience.

    Well, just think of someone who is remotely valid to pretend to propose
    an arguement, like Francis Young. Sorry, you've tried him already.

    Why not pretend to be Helmholtz and admit the errors of your ways?

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Jun 1, 2006
    #19
    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.