+++++++ Niel Brooks Warning -- Increasing the rate of Stair-case Myopia

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

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention Minded Friends,

    Subject: An open mind about objective facts
    concerning the eye's dynamic behavior.

    Ref: Houston Primate study demonstarting that
    the refractive status of the young eye "follows"
    the applied minus lens.

    Ref: EXACTLY the same result with chickens -- the
    refractive status the the natural eye "follows"
    both its average-enviromnt -- and a minus lens when

    Neil is free to express his profound belief that
    there is NO RELATIONSHIP between the refractive
    status of the eye -- and its average visual environment.

    The problem? His belief is just not supported
    by the scientific data.

    He is then "WARNING" you to ignore science and the
    objective data -- and "accept" his belief-system.

    You are free to do so -- but must understand
    that certain consequences most probably will
    develop for you.

    Here is a discussion of the belief that a
    strong minus lens should be applied, and
    the exams should be increased to once
    every 12 months -- if not every 8 months.

    I regret taht Niel takes such a hostile
    point-of-view towards true-preventive work,
    but you must take his attitude as
    the "majority opinion".

    This is NOT the total opinion, and other
    optometrists have developed the "preventive"
    concept of using the plus for prevention -- and
    are using it on their own children as a
    true "protective" measure.


    You have a right to an "informed" choice -- when
    that choice can be effective for your own children.

    Keep an open mind and understand this incredible
    hostility of Niel -- and factor that into
    any decision you might be making.

    The facts concerning the dynamic nature of
    the fundamental eye speak for themselves -- if
    you listen to them.

    As always, please enjoy our pleasant academic
    discussions of the proven behavior of the
    natural eye.

    Think for yourself -- and if necessary -- act
    for yourself.




    Dear Alternative Method Friends,

    Subject: Why true-prevention with plus -- on the threshold.

    There are now two diametrically opposed judgments about
    prevention-with-plus. There is Steve Leung OD who has his young
    child ALWAYS wearing a plus -- even when she has 20/20 -- and a
    refractive status of zero (emmetropia). He does this for
    prevention. To promote him and his work, I suggest that you be
    offered this "second opinion" so that these two profoundly
    contradictory methods could be understood by you -- or turned

    It is possible to use a mild minus -- say for class, and at
    night -- but keep the minus off at all other times. If you did
    that, I would say that (provided you are at 20/40) you could clear
    your vision -- even after wearing a minus for some time.

    Here is the "majority" opinion for prescribing a minus lens.
    Frankly, this scares the hell out of me -- when I think about the
    consequences for the young children that receive the minus-lens

    I believe that a "contract" with a man like Steve Leung OD
    would be the first step in fundamental change. But you must give
    the optometrist the "best shot" at prevention -- in my opinion.

    My discussions with Steve Leung turn on that premise.





    Subject: Amod Gogate recommends "examinations" every eight months,
    increasing minus-lens strength as necessary, prescribing
    for "Best Visual Acuity" of course. This is usually
    -1.0 to -2.0 diopters more than necessary for normal

    Re: Results? Increase of prescriptionn frequency every 8 months?
    The average rate at which the natural eye will go
    "down" will increase from -1/2 diopter per year
    to about -1.0 diopters per year -- in my judgment.


    Men live by their routines; and when these are called into
    question, they lose all power of normal judgment. They will
    listen to nothing save the echo of their own voices; all else
    becomes dangerous thoughts.

    Harold Laski

    "I know that most men ... can seldom accept even the
    simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them
    to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in
    explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
    others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the very
    fabric of their lives."

    Leo Tolstoy

    Insanity is doing the same thing over-and-over again -- but
    expecting different results.

    Rita Mae Brown


    Subject: Keeping an eye on vision problems -- The Hindu

    An assessment and opinion discussed by Amod Shriram Gogate OD

    Amod Shriram Gogate has been educating optometrists and
    opticians on forms of preventable blindness. Armed with years of
    experience in conducting screening camps in schools across the
    country, Mr. Gogate stresses the importance of early correction
    of refractive errors. "There is an urgent need to generate more
    qualified eye care professionals," he tells M. Dinesh Varma

    Computers and television have not just turned around
    lifestyles but have prompted ophthalmologists and optometrists to
    take a closer look at the influence of these technologies on eye
    health. "The long hours people spend in front of glow screens
    these days is a risk factor for compromised vision and extended
    usage of optical instruments and increased exposure to heat and
    pollution call for more frequent lens replacements," said
    Pune-based Amod Shriram Gogate, head, School of Optometry at
    Bharati Vidyapeeth Deemed University Medical College, an affiliate
    of World Council of Optometry.

    Mr. Gogate, also national coordinator, Indian Association of
    Schools and Colleges of Optometry, was in Chennai to address a
    select group of optometrists and opticians as part of continuing
    education initiative.

    He attributes the increase in visually impaired in lower age
    segments to higher awareness and exposure to screening. "A few
    years back, I recommended a lens change every two years. Now the
    ideal replacement frequency is every eight or 12 months," says Mr.

    Exposure to ultra violet radiation from the sun, which can
    affect vision, continues to be ignored by a majority of
    spectacle-makers in the country. "Unlike the mostly imported
    contact lenses, most spectacles and sunglasses available in the
    country are not coated for protection from UV radiation," says Mr.
    Gogate. Getting into the sun with these instruments will shield
    one from the glare but not from UV rays.

    This is also the reason why people who underwent intra-ocular
    implants for cataract correction in the late 1980s and early 90s
    are now developing sub-normal vision, he says. Based on his
    experience in conducting school-based screening camps, Mr. Gogate
    estimates that at least three or four out of 10 children require
    vision correction. A major handicap with vision correction in
    children is poor compliance and follow-up.

    He recommends annual check-up for children. With cheap
    "made-in-China" spectacles and contact lenses flooding the market,
    it is time the authorities kept an eye on quality control. Mr.
    Gogate suggests FDA-like controls to set standards for corrective
    aids in addition to emphasis on education of opticians.
    otisbrown, Jun 8, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Like the danger of minus lenses that echos incessantly from your
    keyboard? It's a concave piece of glass or plastic, not a hunk of kryponite.
    Such as the repetition, thread by thread, you have woven into the fabric
    of sci.med.vision over the years? I know you're delighted in your
    explanations, and am sure you are proud of your "achievements".
    Amen to that.

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

  3. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    How come studies on real live humans, like me and you, do not agree with
    this? If it's only true for chickens and monkeys but not people then go
    post your views in sci.med.animal.vision. THIS HAS BEEN STUDIED AD NAUSEUM.
    Minus lenses have no detrimental effect on humans. Plus lenses have no
    positive effect on humans.
    Please provide us with the scientific data that minus lenses cause the human
    eye to get more myopic (hint-- there aren't any. in fact, overminusing has
    been statistically shown to decrease myopia progression in one recent
    scientific study).

    Please provide us with scientific data that plus lenses slow/reverse myopia
    progression in human eyes. Not one or two anecdotal accounts of
    pseudomyopes-- a real controlled statistically valid studies (hint-- there
    aren't any.)
    Here comes the con-artist in you. Scare people with concerns about things
    that really don't happen so that they will believe your point of view.

    You are a shameful old man.

    Since you stated the word PROVEN, how about providing the proof. In
    real-live people, not chickens and monkeys.
    RM, Jun 8, 2005
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear RM,

    Again, you choose to insult me.

    But that is because you do not have much scientifc
    data -- and a very poor argument.

    But you could say that the public "loves" that
    impressive minus lens -- and would not
    listen to the facts about prevention.

    And you would be "right" about that issue.

    That is the reason I posted the "Printer's Son",
    because it is the individual himself who
    must take a large degeree of BOTH
    understanding and RESPONSIBILITY to
    do this work properly.

    At the point he figures out how to "clear" his
    vision to always pass the legal-visual standard, the
    he basically has no need for you or your

    [Remember: I totally support optometrist Steve Young,
    and would have the parents completely understand
    the preventive method of the plus -- to be
    administrated by a highly-qualified optometirst.
    But it is clear that the parents must be
    cognizant of the nature of this choice -- the
    must make for their own children.
    The purpose of this post is to clear the air and
    prepare them for that type of either-or choice.]


    otisbrown, Jun 8, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    bullshit Otis. that you keep arguing this is insulting to everyone's

    what is your proof that humans are harmed by minus lenses? provide
    scientific studies.
    what is your proof that plus lenses reduce myopia progression in
    humans? provide scientific studies.

    animal studies are useful in evaluating potential human therapies in so
    far as humans can be shown to react physiologically the same as the
    animal models. however there are numerous examples where humans are
    known to react differently than animals. and the field of myopia
    development is demonstrably one of those situations. humans react
    differently as many scientific studies have revealed.

    but you know this already. you have been taken to school so many times
    by experts here that this argument is clearly not about myopia
    progression-- it's about Otis' sick psychological problems. you want
    to take the side of david against goliath (the established paradigm).
    despite the overwhelming proof that you are wrong. look in the mirror
    and be honest with yourself otis brown engineer.

    sick. sad.
    retinula, Jun 8, 2005
  6. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Enough with the feigned indignity, Otis. Your entire "shtick" is an
    insult to professionals and scientists of all stripes.

    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 8, 2005
  7. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear DrG,

    All scientists?

    Meaining Dr. Francis Young?

    Steve Leung OD

    Dr. Peter Greene

    Dr. Paul Romano (ophthalmologist)?

    Anyone who advocates that a person
    be intelligently informed of a preventive
    method before a minus lens is applied?

    Or have you gone completely intellectually
    blind in your office -- since you pay
    NO ATTENTION to direct factual
    data concerning the dyanmic behavior
    of the primate eye.

    I wonder.


    otisbrown, Jun 10, 2005
  8. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I read the study and interpreted the results as they were intended.
    You did not, and I have since pointed that out to you on numerous
    occasions. Bifocals are appropriate to treat esophoria in a myope.
    I haven't read their studies. Where are they?
    Do you mean atropine therapy? Atropine therapy is the only method
    scientifically shown to prevent myopia. Would you want your
    grandchildren dilated 24/7 for the next 20 years?
    I work with eyes every day. I am awash in factual data. You obtain
    yours second hand from the junk-heap of failed pseudo-scientific ideas.

    Dr. Leukoma, Jun 10, 2005
  9. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    Let's see if I understand. Theses people above are SCIENTISTS, because
    they advocate use of the plus to prevent myopia. ODs and OMGs who don't
    advocate use of the plus to prevent myopia, because they have read
    scientific studies, are not SCIENTISTS and only practicioners of medicine,
    due to their failure to advocate use of the plus to prevent myopia.

    Do I understand this correctly?

    I didn't think so.
    Dan Abel, Jun 10, 2005
    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.