My response to "caring" about the second opinion -- and implementation

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Jun 8, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    It has been asserted by William Stacy that I "don't care"
    about the protection of a preson's long-term distant vision.

    I do. For that reason I listened very carefully to
    Raphaelson's statement about the "Printer's Son" and realized that
    the person himself must institute the plus-lens preventive method.
    I did not what to see my sister's kids develop stair-case myopia
    from an over-prescribed minus lens. Equally, this "caring" only
    works for your blood-relatives.

    In fact I would gladly PAY for support from an OD like Steve
    Leung OD for leadership in this preventive method.

    Here is my response to my "caring" about your long-term
    visual welfare.

    Best,

    Otis

    _________________________________


    Dear Jon,

    Subject: Here I am accused of "not careing".

    If I had any "fault" it is that I care too much. Some people
    I no doubt "irritate", and that group of people (or their
    children) will get stair-case myopia from their over-prescribed
    minus.

    It takes a wise person to sort through these issues -- and
    make a success of prevention as you have done.

    Welcome to the would of science -- you have proven to be
    skillful in your vision clearing work from -1.5 diopters
    and 20/60 to 20/20.

    Best,

    Otis

    __________________________________________


    Subject: Who cares for your distant vision? You personally -- or
    some "third party"?


    cc: Jon who cleared from -1.5 D (20/60) to 20/20.
    Mike who cleared from -2.75 D to 20/30 (still working on it).

    DETERMINATION

    Some people dream of success ...
    while others wake up and work hard at it.


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


    DrG > As far as Otis goes, I doubt that he cares not a whit for
    your daughter, or anybody else, for that matter. Even
    though your daughter is being helped by her optometrist,
    Otis still finds fault.

    Otis> As you might recall the poster had made a slight
    distortion in her statement. I totally support
    prevention-minded ODs who help mothers with
    there children -- clearing their vision (on
    the threshold) to 20/20 -- if requested
    by the parent.

    Otis> Fine, that is your opinion. You say I don't care. I
    suggest you don't care about the long-term effect that the
    minus lens has on the refractive status of the natural eye.
    I cared deeply about Raphaelson's statement about the
    "Priner's Son". Rapahelson cared -- and so do I. But the
    implementation must be by the person himself.

    Otis> That basically means that the person himself implements the
    PREVENTIVE method of solution -- and further means that you
    are destructive towards that "second-opinion" goal.

    Otis> But we disagree on objective scientific facts that PROVE
    that the natural eye is dyanamic. You prefer to ignore this
    proof of the natural eye's bahavior, and insist (on your
    ability to quick-fix with a minus) that all others totally
    ignore this direct proof. This suggest that a person who
    has the ablity to comprehend the nature of the natural eye's
    bahvior must also have the ability to "take control" and
    clear his vision back to standard by heavy systematic use of
    the plus.

    Otis> The alternative is staircase myopia with the minus lens.
    But you don't seem to care about this proven "secondary
    effect". You just tell the person he has "bad heredity",
    and he will believe you.


    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. It would be helpful if you posted this as part of the previous thread to
    which it refers so at least I and other interested people (why there
    must be at least 2 or 3 of them) could follow the context.
    Wow. Are those your true colors showing? Do I see a swastika on that
    little flag?

    w.stacy, o.d.
     
    William Stacy, Jun 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    William Stacy OD


    Dear William,


    Subject: Caring for people close to you.


    Wow! First you accuse me of "not caring" -- like you could
    "judge" an issue like that, and then you accuse me of being a Nazi
    -- or something like that.

    For my part -- I HAVE NEVER INSULTED YOU. I have only
    reported scientific facts accurately -- and suggested we develope
    preventive measures based on scientific facts.

    The reason for my statement about "immediate relative" was
    the issue of the quality of the information, and the type of
    motivation it takes IN THE PERSON to keep vision clear -- when
    otherwise the refractive-status of the natural eye goes down by
    about -1.3 diopters in four years. (West Point and Annapolis).

    If a person is adequately informed of these proven facts --
    and decides to take strong "protective" actions -- he can keep his
    vision clear -- while his friends lose theirs.

    And yes, I did not wish to see him develop stair-case
    nearsightedness.

    Here is Keith's statement about his protective work with
    the plus.

    Best,

    Otis

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



    FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WEARING A PLUS LENS

    Dear Uncle,

    Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid
    Nearsightedness". I got it yesterday after I came back from the
    weekend. I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I
    have a great deal of school work to read.

    I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that
    one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check
    my eyes with the eye chart. I am able to read the 20/20 line on
    the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most
    of the time now. I have always passed the driver's license eye
    test.

    I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I
    read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total
    reading I do. I started using them as much as possible again
    because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I
    didn't check them on a chart). I am lucky to have an uncle who
    showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my
    nearsightedness.

    One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and
    then use or adapt methods to work for me. In the last few years I
    have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the
    magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to
    deteriorate. Then I realize it's time to do something to stop
    that process.

    At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I
    know what it does for my vision. Thanks for taking the time to
    tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for
    the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending
    me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the
    methods I am using.


    Keith B.
     
    otisbrown, Jun 8, 2005
    #3
  4. You can't have it both ways. I quote directly from your post on this
    thread:

    ' Equally, this "caring" only
    works for your blood-relatives. '

    Maybe I misunderstood that and maybe I didn't. What in the world does it
    mean, if not that '"caring" only works for blood relatives'? Sounds to
    me like a quote from Mein Kampf. Maybe you didn't mean it. If so, say
    so. Otherwise, in my book, you're otis brown shirt.

    w.stacy, o.d.
     
    William Stacy, Jun 8, 2005
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear William,

    If you remember "The Printer's Son", where Raphaelson effectively
    prevented nearsighedness (cleared from 20/40 to 20/20), only
    to have the parents NOT UNDERSTAND the necessity
    of agressively using the plus -- to kee distant vision clear.

    What that suggests is that a much closer relationship must
    exist between the person who wishes to avoid nearsighedness
    (pseudo-myopia), and the person doing the "leadership".

    Since my sister's kids would know what I advocated, and
    the fact that other optometrists advocated prevention also,
    they learned how to make a choice ... a decision for
    prevention.

    The choice was clearly theirs -- and it meant long-term
    use of the plus -- clearing their vision whenever necessary.

    That takes a great deal of PERSONAL motivation. Since
    they were successful, they never had any need for
    your or the negative lens.

    Steve Leung OD also is in the same situation. It take
    personal commitment to your child to get him
    to systematically put on the plus -- when the
    child has is seven years old and had a refractive
    state of zero.

    You calling me a Nazi, and other insults reflects on
    a tragic attitude on your part. I meant "caring"
    as a long-term commitment to a person -- which is
    something you can not provide.

    If you suggest someting like "prevention" and the person
    does not "like" prevention (as in "The Printer's Son),
    then the person will simply disappear on the street
    and you will never see him again.

    When the person is older, like "Mike" and "Jon" and can
    make this critical decision (as Stirling Colgate did), the
    they can clear their vision themselves under THEIR OWN
    CONTROL. But that takes you out of the loop -- completely.

    It also saves them $200 to $400 since there is no negative
    lens involved, and the plus sells in the stores for about
    $10.

    So yes, it does not have to be a "blood relative", but the
    person must have the scientific commons sense
    of a Stirling Colgate, and understand the fact that
    his eyes belong to HIM, and with correct understanding
    of the eye's behavior, the can SLOWLY clear their
    vision from -1.5 diopter (20/60) to 20/20 as
    Jon has done it.

    Seeing that he is effective, he obviously is never
    going to allow his distant vision to move back
    down to 20/40 -- or if it does so -- it will only
    be because he neglected to use the plus
    for all his close work.

    Since this is an "iterative" process, and he can
    see the results -- and do it himself -- there is
    no need for your "services" other than to
    check for true-medical issues like glaucoma,
    detached retina, MD, or other issues like that.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 9, 2005
    #5
  6. OK then you meant "care-giving" rather than caring. Another example of
    troll-like language twisting. Sorry, I'll try harder not to bite next time.

    w.stacy, o.d.
     
    William Stacy, Jun 9, 2005
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear William,

    The term "caring" means a two-way street.

    If you care for a person -- and he does not care
    for himself -- then you are wasting your time.

    Like cigarette smokers. You may care that
    the don't smoke -- but if they are warned, and
    continue to smoke then the resonsibility
    for the consequences of ignoring the
    warning rests with them.

    Same with wearing an over-prescribed
    minus lens -- and ignoreing the
    facts concerning doing so.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 9, 2005
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest


    There is a proven relationship between smoking and a number of health
    problems. There is no such relationship between vision and wearing
    corrective lenses. For you to even suggest it is totally irresponsible
    on your part. But, of course you aren't really a responsible person,
    from what I am able to tell.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 9, 2005
    #8
  9. Let's try something new. Let's have you define "over-prescribed minus
    lens" as precisely as you can. You use that term a lot and I'd just
    like a reasonably concise definition that we can work with. Can you do
    that in a sentence or two without trashing it up with a bunch of
    opinions, judgements, testamonials and the like?

    w.stacy, o.d.
     
    William Stacy, Jun 10, 2005
    #9
  10. While I'm waiting for Otis to answer my challenge, I thought I'd post
    the results of my traditional care for a 38 year old female over the
    past few years.

    I first saw her in 1999, at which time her refractive error was:

    R -2.25 20/20
    L -1.50 20/20 and she continued with that Rx

    In 2002 I found

    R -1.75 20/20
    L -1.25 20/20 and I adjusted her Rx to that level.

    Today she was

    R -1.25 20/20
    L -0.50 20/20 and I again adjusted the Rx to reflect that change.

    So I guess "stair steps" go both ways, even when full minus Rx is worn
    full time.

    w.stacy, o.d

    btw, her 40 year old husband went from -3.00 to -2.75 O.U. today, again
    with full time wear. So do you think my treatment has been in error?
     
    William Stacy, Jun 10, 2005
    #10
  11. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear William,

    I would point out that your statements
    are anectdotal -- since
    I have no way to check them
    at all.

    With primates I can verify the
    fundamental behavior characterist
    by "input" versus "output" testing.

    Objective, repeatable experiments.

    You CAN NOT do this with
    human-primates. No argument
    there.

    But a wise scientist can
    draw the correct conclusion
    about the behavior of the
    natural eye as a sophisticated
    system from this type of
    scientific experiment
    and study.

    The difficulty is in helping
    a person to understand
    the NECESSITY of using
    the plus for prevention -- BEFORE
    a minus lens is used.

    And THAT seems to be an
    impossible problem for all of us.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jun 11, 2005
    #11
  12. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    It is not logically necessary that a plus lens does anything at all.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 11, 2005
    #12
  13. Hey Otis, here is the challenge I put forth at the beginning of this
    thread. Your single response to this thread was not responsive at all
    to the question. Lets try again. It's not complicated. All I'm asking
    for is a definition:
     
    William Stacy, Jun 11, 2005
    #13
  14. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    EXCUSE ME OTIS.

    WHERE IS THE PROOF I KEEP ASKING FROM YOU ABOUT SOURCES SUPPORTING YOUR
    POSITION>

    I HAVE NO WAY OF CHECKING YOUR STATEMENTS, THEREFORE YOUR STATEMENTS ARE
    ANECTDOTAL.

    MAYBE BY SCREAMING AT YOU, YOU CAN HEAR ME ASK YOU AGAIN.

    PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF YOUR STATEMENTS OUTSIDE YOUR WEBSITE.

    I bet you can't and won't.

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Jun 11, 2005
    #14
  15. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Otis is an expert at bobbing and weaving, but seems to know little or
    nothing about the dynamic nature of the eye. Perhaps he should read
    some of the studies published by Earl Smith, O.D., Ph.D.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 11, 2005
    #15
    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.