Professional "Bias" -- and how to identify it

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Mar 28, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    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]
     
    otisbrown, Mar 28, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends.

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

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Mar 28, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    ***** 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
     
    RM, Mar 29, 2005
    #3
    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.