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

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
applied.

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.

www.chinamyopia.org

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.

Best,


Otis

____________________________



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
down.

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
"treatment".

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.

www.chinamyopia.org


Best,

Otis

________________________



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
vision.

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.
Gogate.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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
opinion.

[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.]


Best,

Otis

 

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

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.

 

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

DrG

 

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.

Best,


Otis

 

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.

DrG

 

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.