Potential optometry student

Sure, and the fluoridation of drinking water has wiped out the dental
profession...NOT.

Sheesh!

DrG

 

I don't attack those who advocate "prevention." In fact, I have talked
about prevention on many, many occasions. I only attack charlatans who
post on this NG.

DrG

 

Why not remove your head from a dark place and pickup a few journals or
do some searches on PubMed, and you would find that your statement is
utterly ridiculous?

DrG

 

I see that we have hit a raw nerve with Otis and his sycophant. Otis
obviously wants to have a monopoly on prevention and doesn't like the
idea that optometrists might actually be able to make it happen.

DrG

 

Thanks Dom, I appreciate it!

 

- G-d needs his devil.
- Democracy needs its [pick one]:
....Russian bear
....Red Stain of Communism
....Axis of Evil
....Radical Islam

Conspiracy theorists need their arch-enemy. His entire schtick [1]
depends on his ability to convince the weak and ill-informed that you
ODs are the Dispensaries of Dioptric Death and that He Alone can save
them.

It's funny that he's fairly mum now where educated people play
(s.m.v.), but that his new lair is a nesting place for relatively
desperate and scared adolescents and pre-adolescents....

There oughtta' be a law....

Meanwhile, you should take a few minutes and watch the party on that
"Vision Improvement Site" below. I've gotten numerous Private
Messages from the participants, as they drift away, saying, "You're
right. The emperor DOES have no clothes (apologize for any
unintentional imagery....)"

[1]
http://www.visionimprovementsite.co...i?board=testing;action=display;num=1145045918

OR http://tinyurl.com/q29hg

 

Dear Nick,

The reality is that optometry is going to grow
by a huge amount.

The reason can be found in the statistics.

In Singapore, 85 precent of the high school
students are nearsighed.

On Taiwan, 95 percent of the medical
students are myopic.

If you want a "growing" field -- then
that would be thing to look at.

Best,

Otis

 

Dear Nick,

Please disregard Otis's postings as he will not provide proof of what he
says.

Otis,

PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE.

I bet you won't or cannot as usual.

Allen

 

Regardless of the validity of Otis' numbers regarding myopia among the
2 aforementioned groups, there is some truth to what he says in that
there has been an increase in many populations in the incidence of
myopia. If some form of proven myopia prevention were discovered you
would not see a diminishing in the optometry profession so much as a
paraadigm shift in standard of care and treatment delivery. In
denitstry, we have seen a shift from classic "drill & fill" to more
prevention and esthetics. The incidence of dental decay has gone down
due to better techniques and understandings regarding prevention and
care. This has led to an evolution in the profession to now having
people living longer and holding on to their teeth longer. We do more
cosmetic dentistry and periodontal treatment now then ever before as a
result. I feel optometry will go the same route as new understandings
and therapies emerge.

 

Of course, you're right and, of course, this is one of the myriad ...
uh ... flaws in Otis's ... uh ... "thinking."

And to my other major point: if this really were a vast ocular
conspiracy (think about the dental analogy), then the Optometrists
would have to knowingly sacrifice their OWN children just to maintain
the cover story.

Likely? IDon'tThinkSo....

Look at this: http://tinyurl.com/z86nr - just posts #1 and #2

Otis will be dead before he comes to this position, BUT ... it's a
reasonable summation of what's known to be true and what's known not to
be true.

Are there absolutes in all of this? Not really, but there are some
pretty strong, "The scientific evidence is vast and contradicts your
belief" arguments to be made.

OTOH, he offers none.

None.

None.

 

Otis> In Singapore, 85 precent of the high school

Otis> On Taiwan, 95 percent of the medical

Dear Nick,

Please disregard Otis's postings as he will not provide proof of what
he
says.


Otis,


PLEASE PROVIDE PROOF OF WHAT YOU SAY ABOVE.

Otis> Certainly, be glad to. Please read the evaluations provided
below.


I bet you won't or cannot as usual.


Otis> Bet I can't??? Or will not?? Try reading the
reports -- if you can get that through your brain.


Allen


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



MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT
FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS


Re: Changes in ocular refraction and its components
among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year
period.

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


1) In Singapore, the vision of 421,116 males between the ages of
15 and 25 was examined. In 1974-84, 26.3% were myopic; in
1987-91, 43.3% were myopic. Both the prevalence and severity
of myopia were higher as the level of education increased.
The prevalence rate was 15.4% in males with no formal
education and increased steadily through the education levels
to reach 65.1% among the university graduates in 1987-91. The
authors state that their findings confirm indications from
other sources that the association between the prevalence and
severity of myopia and education attainment is real (M.T.
Tay, K.G. Au Eong, C.Y. Ng and M.K. Lim, "Myopia and
Educational Attainment in 421,116 Young Singaporean Males,"
Ann Acad Med Singapore, 1992, Nov;21(6):785-91).

2) Regarding the prevalence of myopia in Asian countries, Lam and
Goh (Lam, C.S. and Goh, W.S., "The incidence of refractive
errors among schoolchildren in Hong Kong in relationship with
the optical components", Clin. Exp. Optom., 74:97-103, 1991)
found that in 383 school children from ages 6 to 17 years, the
prevalence of myopia increased from 30% at ages 6-7 years, to
70% at ages 16-17 years.

3) Lam and Yap (Lam, C.S. and Yap, M. "Ocular dimensions and
refraction in Chinese Orientals", Proc. Int. Soc. Eye Res.,
6:121, 1990) found that in a group of optometry students at
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the prevalence of myopia
was 75% in females and 69% in males.

4) Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S. and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive
trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39
years," Ophthal. Physiol. Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that
in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong,
the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%.

5) Lin et al (Lin, L.-K, Chen, C.J., Hung, P.T., and Ko, L.S.,
"National- wide survey of myopia among schoolchildren in
Taiwan, Acta Ophthalmol.", 185:29-33, 1988) found that in a
national survey of children in Taiwan, the prevalence of
myopia was over 70%.

6) Lin et al (Lin, L.K., Shih, Y.F., Lee, Y.C., Hung, P.T., and
Hou, P.K., " Changes in ocular refraction and its components
among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
Vis. Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%! over the five year
period.

7) A recent study in Hong Kong showed what other studies have
shown - wearing less than a full correction will slow the
progress of the myopia. Children selected for the study were
between the ages of 9 and 12. All were nearsighted, with 1.00
to 5.00 D of myopia. The children were separated into three
groups. Each group was given a different type of eyeglasses
to wear for the two-year period of the study. The first group
wore single vision lenses with a full correction; the second
group wore progressive lenses with a +1.50 add; the third
group wore progressive lenses with a +2.00 add. All children
were examined at 6-month intervals to check the progression of
their myopia. Sixty-eight children completed the study. As
expected, more undercorrection meant slower myopia
progression.

Minus vision lenses: - 1.23 D increase (2 years)
Progressive lenses with +1.50 add: - 0.76 D increase (2 years)
Progressive lenses with +2.00 add: - 0.66 D increase (2 years)

Source: Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong
Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive
lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76:346, 354. Published 10/07/00.

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

December 6, 2000

By Liu Shao-hua
Staff reporter
Taipei Times

Subject: Myopia Increases Among Children

One of every five children in the first grade in Taiwan's
elementary schools is myopic (nearsighted). The proportion of
myopics in this group has increased from 12.1 percent in 1995 to
20.4 percent this year, according to the results of a survey
released by the Department of Health yesterday.

The results also show that 60.7 percent of sixth graders in
elementary schools, 80.7 percent of third graders in junior high
schools, and 84.2 percent of third graders in senior high schools
suffer from myopia. In addition, the number of seriously myopic
children is also on the rise. The proportion of seriously myopic
children among sixth graders in elementary schools has increased
from 2 percent five years ago to 2.4 percent this year.

Serious myopia is defined as exceeding 600 degrees (6
diopters). Anything over 25 degrees (0.25 diopters) is myopia.
Normal eyesight is zero degrees.

"We appeal for reductions to children's work load in schools
and the amelioration of visual environments in daily life," said
Chen Tzay-jinn, director-general of the health promotion bureau,
under the health department.

The survey was conducted by the department, in cooperation
with National Taiwan University and its hospital, and involved a
sample of 12,000 students from four million students between the
ages of 7 and 18 nationwide. Myopia has been on the increase in
Taiwan ever since the first myopia survey in 1983. The department
manages the survey every four or five years.

The growth of nearsightedness among young children is thought
to result from learning to read very young and using computers
very young, Chen pointed out.

Last year, the department and the Ministry of Education
delivered official documents to kindergartens nationwide demanding
that children not be taught to read or use computers too early.
"But many teachers and parents protested against this appeal,"
said the department officials. "They questioned exactly what they
were permitted to teach if reading was not allowed."

"We do hope that parents and teachers can heighten their
awareness of myopia and understand that early learning does not
guarantee students' performance in the future, but it does bear a
strong correlation to defects in vision," Chen said. The
department also appealed for children under the age of 10 not to
be taught how to use computers.

Senior high school students suffer the highest rates of
nearsightedness, at over 84 percent. "It reached a plateau five
years ago and has not changed this year. But their myopia has
become more serious," Chen said. According to the survey, 20
percent of third graders in senior high schools are seriously
nearsighted.

Many people thought operations could cure myopia. "But the
superficial improvement of vision does not better the health of
the eye. More importantly, it might reduce people's awareness of
other problems associated with nearsightedness, apart from visual
ones," said Lin Lung-kuang, ophthalmology professor at National
Taiwan University. "Myopia cannot be cured. We have to prevent
children from becoming nearsighted. Don't let them use their
vision too early," Lin urged.

Because of the public's lack of awareness of myopia, the
department estimated its prevalence would continue to grow.
"Singapore resembles Taiwan in many respects and the extent of its
myopia problem might serve as a warning for us," Chen said.

 

My boys are 6 and 7. I'm thinking of taking off the
blind folds next year...

-Quick

 

....and a Swift reply....

 

Dear Ace,

Subject: What do parents who are ODs do to PROTECT
their children's DISTANT vision?

Brooks occassionaly stumbles into a good question.
(Like 1,000 monkeys typing Hamlet.)

So let us evaluate it:

Brooks> And to my other major point: if this really were a vast ocular
conspiracy (think about the dental analogy),

Otis> This is of course simple bull S__t. The OD has the
requirement to make a person's vision very, very, sharp -- and
that is exactly what he does, no more and no less. That
is knee-jerk simple. We have reviewed the FUNCTIONAL
training it takes to do that. In fact, ANY OD who steps
out of "line" with that grinding routine will have "charges"
filed againt him, witness Neil D. Brooks, filing charges
against me -- because I recommended that you
be informed of a competent second-opinion on
prevention as suggested and supplied by:

www.chinamyopia.org

Brooks> then the Optometrists
would have to knowingly sacrifice their OWN children just to maintain
the cover story.

Otis> That is interesting -- and ASSUMES a great deal.

Otis> The reality is that the M.O. ODs on sci.med.vision will
put their own children into a strong minus -- because they BELIEVE
that a minus lens has no effect on the fundamental eye (monkey-primate,
or human-primate).

Otis> But there is a percentage (small) of ODs who recognize the
scientific truth in the primate studies, and will insist that
their own chidren BEGIN WEARING A STRONG PLUS
WHEN THE KIDS REFRACTIVE STATE GETS DOWN
TO ZERO DIOPTERS.

Otis> This, as it turns out, is how a second-opinion developes
in a field as "conventional" as medicine.

Otis> But I certainly agree as to the difficulties of true-prevention,
and it takes a strong will on the part of the parent and
child to properly implement this preventive method.

Best,

Otis



Likely? IDon'tThinkSo....

 

But you still don't answer them.

Here they are again. I invite you to answer them.

1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely
differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying
that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard?
2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the
SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus
lens, the myopia was prevented?
3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?
4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you
call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
this in humans, can you cite your source for this claim?
5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
"proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but
Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get
worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES
this. Please explain your position.
6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware
that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses
made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY
EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE
this convergence disorder?
7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm
states:

Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?
8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story.
Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in
truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his
"testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?
9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?
10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I
provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?"
If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last
copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
received any money for this book.
11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a
commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?
12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative
spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide
credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia,
or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia
13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
please provide it?
14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any
economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is
honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is
trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website,
and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to
sell both your and his book?
15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your
niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is,
at this time, a myope?

 

As in "Johnthan"

 

Dear Quick,

Good luck with your kids.

Oh, and one correction. I stated 85 percent Singapore kids.

It was 87 percent Hong-Kong kids -- entering the first
year of college.

But I am certain that the parents of those kids are thinking,
boy MY KIDS are NOT going to become part of
those 87 percent, not at all. That will always be
some one elses problem.

Think again -- with all due respect.

-----------------

4) Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S. and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive
trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39
years," Ophthal. Physiol. Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that
in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong,
the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%.

 

Dear Mike,

I never described preventing the development
of a negative refractive STATE as "therapy",
nor, from these discussions, would
it ever be possible for you to "prescribe" prevention.

But as we have seen, when the educated
PARENT (who is an optometist) looks
as ALL THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, and
makes his own PERSONAL judgment about
PROTECTING his child's distant vision,
then the answer FOR HIM is that PROTECTIVE
PLUS.

That is why I described is the SECOND-OPINION.

Certainly not YOUR OPINION.

And from Quick's remarks about his own children, he
would effectively prohibit ANYONE from attempting
to help his kids with plus-prevention.

And I am certain that the parents of the 87 percent
of the Hong Kong students made the SAME JUDGMENT
as Quick has made -- with (in the future) exactly
the same result.


Best,

Otis

 

You're such a blithering idiot. That's still one guy IN THE ENTIRE
WORLD--Steve Leung--and HE has no evidence that it works ... OR that
it's safe.

Yeah, Mister President: we're either with you or we're with the
terrorists. Thanks for clearing that up.