I'm finally GETTING a "second-opinion"

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by odisbrown, May 21, 2006.

  1. odisbrown

    odisbrown Guest

    Dear Second-opnion friends,

    Subject: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

    Clearly, I am having difficulty again. The
    caregivers in my Intensive Case Management
    Program--while compassionate people--are making
    little to no headway in my conditions.

    They are using the word "refractory." I am
    unclear as to its meaning, but it does not
    sound good.

    Also, the side effects are quite annoying.
    They include Delusions of Grandeur, inability
    to think rationally, pathological lying, rampant
    paranoia, antisocial personality disorder, mild
    schizophrenia, and just a bit of Tinea versicolor
    on my groin.

    Most disconcerting, especially that last.

    They expect that I will be here a while. It
    has been exceptionally lonely.

    Perhaps one of you would be kind enough
    to give Dr. Jacob Raphaelson a call and ask
    him to drop by. Strangely, he has not been
    returning my calls.

    Also, please tell my niece, Joy, that I am
    indeed sorry that she became myopic despite
    my intervention.

    She should find some solace
    in the knowledge that, at least, her double
    vision was not permanent.

    Best,
    Odis
    Ingenue

    +++++++++++++++++++++++
     
    odisbrown, May 21, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. odisbrown

    acemanvx Guest

    Hello Otis/Odis, whats up? Neil did warn about a slight possibility of
    double vision with plus glasses because they allow convergence without
    accomodation and this fools the eyes. If someone wants plus lens and
    isnt presbyopic, consult your doctor first if its OK. If not, just use
    NO glasses at all and do eye exercises.
     
    acemanvx, May 21, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. odisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I would imagine they're restricting his access to e-mail. I wouldn't
    be surprised if he didn't respond for a day or two... :-(

    We all wish you wel in your recoveryl, Otis. It wouldn't be the same
    without you around.

    Granted, it would be *better,* but ... still ... that's *not* the
    same.

    Neil
     
    Neil Brooks, May 21, 2006
    #3
  4. odisbrown

    Simon Dean Guest

    (keep it quiet, but surely, odis isn't otis. for one thing, odis uses a
    max line length in excess of 15 characters... tsk tsk tsk)

    Cya
    Simon
     
    Simon Dean, May 21, 2006
    #4
  5. odisbrown

    odisbrown Guest

    On 20 May 2006 21:43:37 -0700,
    Dear Ace,

    Subject: my CURRENT situation

    There is some talk of an "involuntary
    hold" at this moment--something that I
    am adamantly against, for obvious
    reasons. My wife does not seem to wish
    to intervene.

    Are you in any position to help
    me--either with transportation or with
    "testimony" on my behalf?

    I never heard from Jacob Raphaelson,
    unfortunately. I counted on the words
    of either him or Stirling Colgate to
    assist me in my defense.

    It seems that they find my behavior
    somewhat aberrant and akin to that from
    the movie, "A Beautiful Mind" which I
    never saw.

    Please let me know whether or not you
    are in a position to help.

    Best,
    Odis
    Ingenue

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++
     
    odisbrown, May 21, 2006
    #5
  6. odisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    This imposter can't even spell my name correctly.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Ace,

    If someone wants to wear plus lens for distance to try and prevent myopia, or negative lenses for reading to prevent presbyopia, that is entirely their choice. If you go by the "majority opinion" wearing either plus or minus lenses should have no effect.

    I'm a strong beleiver that pushing the eye past the normal limits in both directions not only sharpens vison for distance, but tends to slow the onset of presbyopia.

    I have seen several you your posts that claiming that everyone over 40 needs reading glasses if they have good distance vision. I'm 48 and have 20/15 distanced and can still read 6pt font at 8 inches.

    Slightly off topic: I was suprised to see you bashing lasik in another group, which goes hand and hand with NVI. Even if lasik doesn't always get someone to have perfect vision, it should be close enough that NVI will get them to perfect. It will also increase their ability to accomadate so they are more likely to remain with perfect vison even with minor regression. Lasik and NVI seem to work very well together.



    Hello Otis/Odis, whats up? Neil did warn about a slight possibility of
    double vision with plus glasses because they allow convergence without
    accomodation and this fools the eyes. If someone wants plus lens and
    isnt presbyopic, consult your doctor first if its OK. If not, just use
    NO glasses at all and do eye exercises.
     
    Rev Jessie James, May 26, 2006
    #7
  8. odisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Jessie James (Colt .44?)

    Hello Otis/Odis, whats up? ]

    "Odis" is a fraud -- Brooks or some joker likes to play
    "head games" on sci.med.vision.


    Neil did warn about a slight possibility of
    double vision with plus glasses because they allow convergence
    without
    accomodation and this fools the eyes.

    Otis> I strong suggest that before a person chooses to do
    ANYHING, NVI, sunning, etc., the check their eye chart -- and
    a medical person -- for potential problems like RP, Macular
    degeneration, and a host of medical problems that can
    produce reduced visual acuity.

    Otis> Once those issues have been cleared off the table,
    the remaining issue is what the person might
    wish to do with a slight negative refractive STATE,
    say -1/2 to -3/4 diopters (i.e., 20/40 to 20/60 vision)
    Hands down, the EASY thing is that minus lens. It
    is very impressive, creates 20/20, 20/18, and even 20/15
    (BVA) is some people. But can be over-prescribed.

    Otis> I suggest that the parents MIGHT be interested
    in PREVENTIVE methods after their own review.
    If the parents had induced myopia from an
    over-prescribed minus -- they MIGHT be interested
    in the second opinion as offered by Steve Leung OD:

    www.chinamyopia.org

    Otis> It is wort a "look". The parents and child
    have nothing to loose from this type of assistance
    from a qualified optometrist -- provided they
    understand this as an either-or choice that
    is PREVENTIVE in nature.


    If someone wants plus lens and
    isnt presbyopic, consult your doctor first if its OK. If not, just
    use
    NO glasses at all and do eye exercises.

    Otis> As you suggested -- that is a choice.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 26, 2006
    #8
  9. odisbrown

    acemanvx Guest

    "I have seen several you your posts that claiming that everyone over 40
    needs reading glasses if they have good distance vision. I'm 48 and
    have 20/15 distanced and can still read 6pt font at 8 inches."


    Thats a major fluke, a freak of nature, 1 in a million. Your
    accomodation is better than mine in fact and im half your age! You are
    so lucky, I am jealous!
     
    acemanvx, May 26, 2006
    #9
  10. odisbrown

    odisbrown Guest

    Dear Jessie James,

    Subject: amending previous comments

    Re: double vision

    Double vision, most assuredly, IS a known side effect
    associated with my much fabled "plus lens" therapy,
    especially if the plus lens WAS NOT PRESCRIBED by
    a licensed practitioner in conjunction with a binocular
    function evaluation and ongoing monitoring.

    I don't speak openly about it because it is a side
    effect of almost NO consequence.

    Double vision is a SMALL price to pay to avoid
    stair-case myopia associated with the use of the
    over-prescribed minus lens. DOUBLE VISION, by the
    way, can be EASILY corrected with "patching."

    Once stair-case myopia begins, there IS no turning
    back.

    As always, I advocate FULL information. Only then
    can a parent choose the path of prevention. It may,
    indeed, be hard, but you cannot lick it by being
    soft.

    I don't believe that the lack of convincing evidence
    of the plus lens as a tool for myopia prevention should
    even be a "consideration" in this discussion. That is why
    you never see me respond to such "requests."

    Best,

    Odis
    Ingenue
     
    odisbrown, May 26, 2006
    #10
  11. I wouldn't even consider just a "plus lens" therapy without also including convergence and divergence exercises. With some practice, both focusing of the eyes and converging/diverging of the vision can be completely independant and under conscious control. If you have this mastered, there should be very little risk of double vision from plus lens therapy.
     
    Rev Jessie James, May 26, 2006
    #11
  12. odisbrown

    odisbrown Guest

    Dear Jessie James,

    Subject: vision therapy

    Jessie> I wouldn't even consider just a
    "plus lens" therapy without also including
    convergence and divergence exercises.

    Odis> I am wondering: do you think it would be
    more "honest" if I were to warn people about
    these "risks" up front--perhaps suggesting that
    they work either with a "majority-opinion" or
    a behavioral optometrist to PREVENT (that IS my
    mantra, after all) double vision?

    Odis> Or do you think, as I do, that double
    vision is a small price to pay and that it is just as
    well that I do not mention it.

    Odis> My "rationale" has been simple: I am under
    no "obligation" to disclose known risks. I am not
    a licensed optometrist; therefore, I am not liable
    for ill effects of my recommendations.

    Odis> Do you agree with my position?

    Best,

    Odis
    Ingenue
     
    odisbrown, May 26, 2006
    #12
  13. odisbrown

    Quick Guest

    Dear Odis Ingenue,

    We would love to hear your response to the
    great state of Pennsylvania's inquiry into your
    medical business venture. If you haven't tendered
    this already, as one of your fans, I would like to
    make the following suggestion. I think it would be
    good to start with the clear statement:

    "I am not a crook!"

    Alternatively, although I think it far less effective:

    "I am not a kook!"

    thanks and good luck,
    -Quick
     
    Quick, May 26, 2006
    #13
  14. odisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    Subject: Prevention -- before the minus.

    What I do suggest is that the person (or his parents) check
    the kids Snellen -- before he goes for a medical
    exam (ophthalmologist).

    It is very easy to accedentally over-prescribe a kid, by
    -1 to -2 diopters. So if the kids Snellen is 20/40,
    and some "accident" occurs, then the parent can
    be aware of it -- and ask questions about
    this prescription error.

    We know from the primate studies, that is you
    place a -3 diopter lens on a population of primate
    eyes, the -3 group will go down by
    about -2 diopters in 12 month. Thus
    the suggestion to be CAREFUL in the
    use of a minus.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 28, 2006
    #14
  15. odisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    Subject: Get HELP from a second-opinion
    optometrist.

    Give the OD a chance to help you correctly.
    Plan to be INFOMED of this PREVENTIVE alternative.

    Ask him questions, like, what would be
    the effect of placing a -3 diopter lens
    on the natural eye.

    Would the refractive state of the eye FOLLOW that minus -- or woud it
    not.

    If the OD can not give you a coherent answer to this scientific
    question -- find another OD who can.

    Or just read the site:

    www.chinamyopia.org

    for details.

    But, AFTER you develop stair-case myopia from that minus -- do not
    complain about it.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 28, 2006
    #15
  16. odisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Interesting points, as always, Uncle Otie, but they raise some even
    MORE interesting questions. Perhaps you'll (finally) take a moment to
    ACTUALLY ANSWER them:

    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, do you have any valid clinical evidence 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:

    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 28, 2006
    #16
  17. odisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Ace,

    Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and
    not in any position to give medical advice as provided above.

    Thank you!

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, May 29, 2006
    #17
  18. odisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Notice how Neil Brooks responds to OtisBrown -- and not "OdisBrown".

    Seems I hit a nerve in Brooks.

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 29, 2006
    #18
  19. odisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    Subject: Fundamental scientific testing.

    Do not let Liberman TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK.

    Do not let me tell you how to run AND JUDGE
    scoentific experiments designed to
    establish the fact that the fundamental
    eye is a dynamic system, and NOT
    a PASSIVE system.

    Understand the difference between pure
    scientific PROOF, and medical dogma
    of the Donderrs-Helmholtz passive
    theory of the eye.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, May 29, 2006
    #19
  20. odisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Yeah. My funny bone.

    Care to answer my questions now??
     
    Neil Brooks, May 29, 2006
    #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.