Our Children and Their Choice

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, May 1, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Dr. G.,

    Regarding:

    Otis> Because it is a "struggle" and depends on the fortitude of
    the individual, you obviously can never "prescribe"
    prevention.


    DrG > My son is an accomplished pianist. Most people do not have
    the discipline to sit down and practice for the hour or two
    every day. The difference here is that I can assure my son
    that he will improve if he puts forth the effort. I cannot
    assure him that using a plus lens will prevent him from
    becoming nearsighted. He is -7.50. My wife is -3.50. I
    used to be -4.00, but I have improved spontaneously to
    -3.25.

    ****************************

    Thanks for your commentary. From long conversations with
    optometrists, and the publication of papers with Dr. Ron Berger
    and Dr. Francis Young, and well as many other indicators, it was
    clear that a certain percentage of optometrists advocated
    prevention with the plus.

    It is very easy to make that suggestion -- and very difficult
    and perhaps impossible to implement it, with the possible
    exception of your own children.

    The lives of most people are not impacted with the use of a
    minus lens, and it is very easy to use it. Most people have

    Given the above facts, it is surprising that any OD or the
    public would be interested in prevention in any form, shape or
    manner.

    But with all the above, I wondered about the OD profession,
    made up of some ODs who would have a "different idea", or the
    "second opinion". These few ODs in fact will use the plus on
    their own children -- and yes, when their children are on the
    threshold (refractive status zero to plus 1/4).

    This truly is a result of seasoned judgment, and a wise
    choice. Since the plus must be persistently used, and the results
    are neither immediate or obvious, it follows that prevention simply
    will not "work" with the public at this time.

    It will untimely be the guidance of these few ODs who might
    lead to a systematic change in our attitude towards prevention.

    But, I do respect that fact that -- as you deal with your own
    children -- so also you will deal with the public.

    But even so, that advocacy for the second opinion has had
    some effect -- even if the individual must "do it himself" (after
    all MEDICAL conditions are eliminated by examination.

    I obviously explained most of the above to my sister's
    children, particularly the use of the "bifocal" to them. But I
    suggested that by understanding all of the above, they could make
    a choice and "control" the situation themselves. (No -- I can not
    "prove" what they accomplished. Only their wisdom and good
    judgment could answer that question.) So they took care of the
    situation by their own judgment. Under their own wise control
    they kept their distant vision clear, and never reached -3.25 or
    -7.50, but prevention of this nature, however difficult still
    resides with them.

    And of course you must say -- but they had no "genetics" to
    make them "nearsighted" since it is proven that their is NO
    RELATIONSHIP between the visual environment and the refractive
    status of the native eye.


    Best,

    Otis


    cc:

    Dr. Steve Leung
     
    Otis Brown, May 1, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Otis, get back to me when you have something meaningful to add to the field
    of "myopia prevention."

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, May 1, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Otis, get back to me when you have something meaningful to add to the field


    Dear Dr.G.,

    The most "meaningful" statments made by an optometrist
    to me concerned the effet to minus lens has on the
    refractive status of the natural eye.

    Since you have stated that "prevention at -1/2 diotper
    (20/40) is not possible, I think you will be of
    no help to any pilot who wishes to avoid the
    -1/3 diopter per year scientific fact seen
    at both military academys.

    Since you state that prevention is "impossible",
    I guess the pilot will simply have to do it
    under his own control. Your suppport is not
    required.

    Obviously this information is going to
    pilots and other people how have worked
    to retain clear distant vision through
    junior high schook, high school, and college.

    I suggested to them that they hod no choice but
    to do it themselves -- under their own control.

    Your statement simply confirms that judgment
    of "conventional optometry".

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, May 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Again, more blather and obfuscation on your part. Plus lenses do not
    prevent myopia.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, May 2, 2004
    #4
  5. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest


    Dear DrG,

    "Blather" perhaps, but obfuscation -- not at all.

    I have been absolutly clear that study of
    the NATURAL eye's behavior under engineering-scientific
    conditions will alway produce the same outcome.

    That is that the DIRECTLY-MEASURED refractive
    status of the test group will move negative
    relative to the control-group.

    It is you who must obfuscate the engineering-scientific
    facts about knowledge of the natural behavior of the
    normal eye.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, May 2, 2004
    #5
  6. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in

    Your understanding of visual science is meager, if anything.

    Go back to mechanical engineering 101, please.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, May 2, 2004
    #6
  7. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Dr G.,

    Do we exchange insults?

    What I said can be checked by anyone with
    a more broad mind about what you actually
    measure.

    Basic science says you talk about what your
    measure, i.e., refractive status, not what
    you conjecture, i.e., the box camera
    "heredity" theory of the eye.

    But you lack the broader mind to ask
    this type of "heuristic" question of the
    dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    I do agree that for the most part
    you have no choice but to apply a minus
    lens since the public defines and limits
    you to a man that makes vision sharper
    with a lens -- and you can never go
    beyond that point.

    So spin the dials of your phoropter, and
    crank out a minus lens prescription
    for the eye, and monitor
    the "stair case" myopia created
    by that process.

    Yes, you are limited in that way.
    And I honestly acknowledge that if I
    spent 160 K and 4 years in OD school
    I would think the way that you do.

    But then, after talking with Dr.
    Raphelson, I realized that you had
    to march lock-step with the tradition
    of impressing the plublic with the
    simplistic quick-fix of the minus lens.

    Engineering-pilots have leaned the better
    truth of this matter -- and realized
    that thay had no choice but to
    clear their vision on their own
    using basic spherical plus lens
    available for about $15. No wonder
    you can spin-out your optical-bench
    theory of the eye.

    Of course I, and most engineers
    can analyze fundamental optics -- of
    a box camera -- as did Dr. Stirling Colgate.
    But he went beyond that type of analysis
    and realized the fallicy of representing
    the living eye as a "dead" box camera.

    But when you represent Dr. Colgate, as
    a "failed" optics science -- I can
    understand where you are coming from.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, May 3, 2004
    #7
  8. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Insults? Reading your post is indeed an insult to the mind of someone who
    has studied and worked with the human eye in depth, and answering your
    insults tit-for-tat is an exercise in futility.

    You say optometry has nothing to offer but the minus lens, and I say you
    have nothing to offer. Well, that's not exactly true. I should say that
    you lend a certain "fog" to the argument about prevention. "Fogging," by
    the way, is an optometric term.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, May 3, 2004
    #8
    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.