Petition to the FDA about the reisks of minus-lens use

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Mar 31, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: Donald Rehms petition to FDA about the
    second-opinion concerning prevention of nearsightedness.

    In the interests of "fair play", and in developing
    the second-opinion (that a negative refractive
    state of the eye CAN BE PREVENTED) Donald
    Rehm has posted a petition. This is to
    support true-prevention as offered by
    Steve Leung on:

    The petition can be found at:

    As should is an impartial assessment
    of the need for a more "open" discussion
    of the possibility of true-prevention.

    As always, enjoy!


    otisbrown, Mar 31, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and
    in no position for giving medical advise.

    Thank you!

    A Lieberman, Mar 31, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Please disregard the postings
    of Allen.

    We have no idea who the hell he is!

    It is true that the ODs on this site express the
    strong opinion, that the natural eye is not dynamic, and therefore, the
    natural eye will not change its refractive state in the direction of
    the applied minus lens.

    They insist that this "does not happen". In terms of pure science --
    it does.

    Further, while there opinion is indeed "heavy handed", please remember
    that other ODs have advocated PREVENTION with the plus for the last 50

    If the ODs are "expert" -- then that is fine. If they all agreed on
    the behavior of the natural eye -- then that would be "proof" of sorts.

    But in fact, other ODs directly CONTRADICT the statement made by the ODs. So when they imply "trust me", a minus lens has on
    effect on the refractive state of the eye, and a minus lens is
    "perfectly safe", then please read the second-opinion as stated by
    other ODs over the year -- and specifically on:

    Keep an open mind.

    Only by developing challenging ideas is it possible to "change the

    Remember, you do have a right
    to an "informed choice" in this matter.

    You can turn it down at the threshold -- and
    if you do there would be no further requirement
    for an OD to help you with prevention.


    otisbrown, Mar 31, 2005
  4. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    A Lieberman wrote:

    In fact, the medical profession has utterly failed in curing vision.

    What do you suggest?
    g.gatti, Mar 31, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    I consistently told you that it is very difficult to
    "control" a young child -- in the use of a plus.

    Where a "small-segment" bifocal is used -- and the
    child DOES NOT LOOK THROUGH THE PLUS -- the study
    means nothing. This is the nature of the
    "Houston" study.

    Where a "high plus", is used, and in the Francis
    Young study, the plus stopped further movement
    into nearsighedness (a negative refractive state
    of the natural eye -- in pure-science).

    Even then, the children were not given proper
    instruction in the use of the plus.

    An older group -- say pilots -- who have intellectual
    "control" and good judgment, could potentially
    clear their distant vision from a refractive
    state of -1/2 diopter (20/40) to 20/20 refractive
    state zero or slightly positive.

    I have posted this proposed pure-science study
    on my site:

    for your reading enjoyment! Let
    us continue to work towards
    an effective PREVENTIVE second opinion.


    otisbrown, Mar 31, 2005
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: Response to Allen Liberman.

    (Who has every right to his opinion, that the PLUS must
    not be offered for the purpose of true-prevention)

    Dear Allen,

    I am curious -- are you "medical".

    I have been very clear that my discussion is about
    the dynamic nature of the natural eye.

    Further, it is clear from Steve Leung's statements
    that -- in his opinion -- prevention with the plus
    is a WISE thing to consider -- and he
    is a fully qualified MEDICAL person.

    That is why there is a "second opinion" and that
    is why you should respect a person's right to
    know about it -- whatever you might blieve -- or
    not believe.

    The WORST that could happen, if a parent is
    "correctly informed" about this choice -- is
    that they simply turn it down -- and agree
    that their child should wear a strong minus lens
    all the time.

    But "decision" responsibility rests with the parents.



    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "A Lieberman" <>

    Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 11:50 AM
    Subject: Re: Petition to the FDA about the reisks of minus-lens use
    otisbrown, Mar 31, 2005
  7. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest


    Doesn't matter what my background is Otis, but if you need to know, look at
    my previous postings. You will find the answer as I have directly given
    you that answer.
    Not when you are discussing your imaginary subjects, having them use the
    plus system. Looks to me, you are trying to provide medical advise by
    having them use your system. You have been talking about so called
    subjects, not the dynamic nature of the natural eye.

    But you will think differently. As long as you post, I will continue to
    post my caution to others so they know to ignore YOUR second opinion.

    A Lieberman, Mar 31, 2005
  8. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    I am curious -- are you "medical".

    We all know that you are not Otis. You admit that you have no medical
    training. You admit that you have no understanding of the anatomy and
    physiology of the eye. How are you qualified to give anyone advise on
    treating eye problems? How many patients do you see? How much clinical
    experience do you have? You are just an guy who constantly types at your
    computer. Your brain has lost it's "dynamic" character-- you have become
    static in your thinking.
    If a parent was "correctly informed" about this choice, they would have to
    be told that it is totally unproven! They would have to be told that some
    evidence even exists that slightly overcorrecting the eye with excessive
    minus lens power actually appearred to have lessened myopia progression in
    one controlled study.

    Do not act like you are being an objective scientist Otis. We all know the
    facts clearly. Your theory of plus lens prevention IS NOT PROVEN.

    Prove it and we'll use it.
    RM, Apr 1, 2005
  9. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    Thank God! The FDA investigates things very seriously. As soon as Donald
    Rehms submits repeatable evidence in the form of a placebo controlled,
    double blind, matched group, long term studies that show the danger that
    minus lenses pose to children, the FDA will take action.

    And when Donald Rehms submits repeatable evidence in the form of a placebo
    controlled, double blind, matched group, long term clinical trials that show
    the effectiveness of plus lenses in preventing and treating myopia, the FDA
    will endorse the treatment.

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Apr 3, 2005
  10. otisbrown

    heynita2000 Guest

    Id rather listen to him than you.You Q_AC_"
    heynita2000, Apr 3, 2005
  11. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    have you noticed that nobody cares what you say?
    retinula, Apr 3, 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.