Professor F. Young Endorces the Plus-Preventive Second-Opinion.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, May 31, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: The nature of the developing (preventive) second opinion.

    Dr. Young has a long history in research. Here is his statement
    supporting your right to be infomed of the PREVENTIVE second-opinion.




    Professor Emeritus at Wshington State University, Dr. Young is also a
    recipient of the AOA's prestigious Apollo Award, as well as ten other
    honors in the optometric profession. He has authored or co-authored
    more than 100 research papers, and his groundbreaking research with
    Native Alaskans in 1968 provided powerful evidence that nearsightedness
    might not be inherited and could potentially be prevented. He is a
    graduate of Ohio State University.


    My support for Steve Leung

    To the Parents:

    I would like to personally endorse the work of Steve H. Leung and
    Alfred Han Bossino in their effort to educate the public about the
    necessity of using the plus for prevention. Dr. Leung's knowledge and
    skill could be of considerable value to your child in his goal to
    maintain clear distant vision through the school years.

    Francis A. Young Ph.D.

    N..B.:professor Young requests the removal of his name as an author of
    the Houston bifocal study.
    otisbrown, May 31, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest


    Would you care to answer my questions now:

    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
    Quote:"A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large
    add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between
    accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at
    something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation
    and convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of
    years, the brain has learned that this is the normal situation.
    Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa.
    Thus, if we converge without accommodating the appropriate amount, or
    if we accommodate without converging the appropriate amount, problems
    can develop for this small percentage of children such as eye fatigue,
    double vision, or other types of fusion problems. That is, the two
    images can no longer be fused together without discomfort. Normal
    binocular vision is interfered with."

    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.
    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
    at this time, a myope?
    Neil Brooks, May 31, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    It is easy to shoot you mouth off on -- as
    you are doing.

    But let us have a list of your published scientific papers --
    as Dr. Young has done.

    The concept of plus-prevention is indeed the second-opinion,
    as stated by Dr. Theo Grosvenor.

    The real difficulty is in the implementation of the concept.

    And that will depend on the parents who understand
    the concept -- and will help their children with it.

    otisbrown, May 31, 2006
  4. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest


    As we've discussed on COUNTLESS occasions: you're a freaking idiot.

    My qualifications have AB-SO-LUTE-LY nothing to do with the validity of
    my questions.

    They're valid. You run away from them like a sniveling little coward.

    Case closed.
    Neil Brooks, May 31, 2006
  5. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    I know ted grosvenor. he doesn't know you at all. i asked him. and
    he does not support your plus lens theory. he is a research scientist
    (retired) and is fully aware that your approach has failed scientific
    testing on multiple occasions. you don't appreciate that myopia
    development is much more complicated than you think.

    why do you continue to name-drop when you get caught with your pants
    down? i've told you already that ted doesn't know you from adam and
    doesn't agree with what you are claiming.

    you are a pathetic old fool. go back to you alternative medicine
    forums where people don't care about truth and scientific facts.

    you are a liar and a charlatan.

    p.clarkii, May 31, 2006
  6. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I literally think that the disciples turned on him over there, too,
    having seen how energetically he runs away from valid questions.

    I just think he's running out of places to practice his voodoo and is
    ardently resisting the notion of a "convalescent care facility."

    Neil Brooks, May 31, 2006
  7. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    Isn't it nice that we can pretend to be others on the internet.

    Cletis is now pretending to be Fraqncis Young to prove a point. Pity is
    no-one believes you Cletis.

    dr grant
    CatmanX, Jun 1, 2006
  8. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Well Grant, Francis Young is a good friend -- and he speaks
    for himself as I have posted it.

    otisbrown, Jun 1, 2006
  9. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    That doesn't make you any less of an idiot, though.
    Neil Brooks, Jun 1, 2006
  10. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    is he as good a friend as your old buddy ted grosvenor (who doesn't
    know you from adam)?

    most intelligent people would run away from you otis. you are a
    fanatic that tries to borrow the credibility of other people's good
    names to support your wacko disproven theories.

    p.clarkii, Jun 2, 2006
    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.