Professional "Bias" -- and how to identify it

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Discussion with ODs by Jamie

It is very important to identify "professional bias". I
think your remarks are very accurate as to the "standard method" of
the minus lens -- that has not changed at all in the last 400
years.

While I can understand the sourse of this "bias", it is also
very difficult to deal with it.

At some point we must admit to our own "bias" as well.

We want BOTH:

1. Instantly sharp vision from and OD, and

2. Also -- to maintain clear distant vision through the school
years -- without any thought or effort on OUR PART.

As some point, we must sort out how much responsibility "WE"
might wish to assume for true-prevention. These two goals might
well be impossible, or profoundly directly contradictory.

We should also "understand" that you can only be "helped"
after YOU "clear your mind" and decide what you want in your life.

You report vision of 20/50 in room illumination, while a
"refractive status" of -3.5 diopters or so.

I think you have three choices -- with due respect.

1. Just quit any thought of vision clearing.

2. Use the Bates method -- but check your eye-chart to verify
clearing, and try to work this with your OD -- at
considerable cost.

3. Consider very agressive use of the plus, (quit the minus lens
-- except for driving a car, or when absolutly necessary.)

Since I consider "3" to be honestly "difficult", you should
think long and hard about what your goal is.

Also, I reponded to your thread -- and did not relize that
you wished to "restrict" my posting. My appologies.

I think your post are very accurate -- and I have seen this
type of "pressure" in the "academic community". It does not pay
to "rock the boat", if you wish to "survive" in that community.

Best,

Otis

__________________________________________

From: Jamie


Thanks for all of your replies. Hopefully I will be able to
continue talking to and corresponding with many other ODs as well
as I learn more about this field.

One thing came to mind while reading your posts. You seem to
rely heavily on 'science' and the existing research. While that
may provide a good starting point for discussion and
consideration, it has been shown that the scientific method as
currently employed today can be highly flawed in cases. I am by
no means an expert in this area of research and debate, but I do
know that there are whole dissertations written on this topic. I
am also not even a novice in optometry research. I am nearly
completely ignorant. However, others in this forum seem to stress
the issue of 'vested interests'. I do know that research is
currently biased in the following ways:

1. There is bias away from performing studies to prove that one's
ideas are wrong.

2. There is a bias away from performing studies which will not
result in knowledge that will have profitable outcomes.

3. There is a bias away from performing studies which jeopardize
the researcher's likelihood of receiving future funding.

4. There is a bias away from performing studies which jeopardize
the researcher's likelihood of getting published.

Does it ever cross your mind that this situation might be
fogging your field of expertise?

Jamie


[Comment: The answer is YES. That is why the preventive
"second-opinion" developes and that is why ODs like Steve
Leung have put THEIR OWN CHILDREN in a plus while the child
still has 20/20. That will be a "sea change" for
all of us. Please read
www.chinamyopia.org
to recognize that even the ODs what to
protect their children's eyes from
the minus lens. Keep an open mind. OSB]

 

Dear Prevention minded friends.

Disregard Otis postings. I have asked for unbiased proof and he fails to
provide it.

Allen

 

***** OTIS WARNING *****


This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
"" or "Otis, Engineer".

Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is
unproven.

Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of
doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in
out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his
behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to
argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument.

Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not
reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that
should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick
psychological needs.

No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only
meant to forewarn newcomers who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare
expert. Those of us who have been here for awhile know Otis oh too well!

For anyone who is interested in understanding the true state of
scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following
links:
http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf
http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?ArticleType=SiteSpec&page=osc/apr01/lesson_0401.htm
http://dels.nas.edu/ilar/jour_online/40_2/V40_2NortonAnimalModels.asp
http://www.optometrists.asn.au/gui/files/ceo865276.pdf

If you are truly interested in Otis' theories of myopia prevention then
visit his favorite websites www.i-see.org and www.chinamyopia.com.

Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision", which usually
appears on Mondays, for a guide regarding this newsgroup and for information
on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in
worthwhile discussions in this forum.

For further information on killfilling (filtering out the posts of a troll
or spammer) see the following link:
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm
For additional information on handling "trolls" like Otis, refer to this
link:
http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/anti_troll_faq.htm