Proving the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye --- for RM

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Otis Brown, Nov 22, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear RM,


    Subject: Honesty with objective SCIENTIF facts. Honesty with pilots
    who wish to keep their distant vision clear.

    Re: Placing ALL THE SCIENTIFIC FACTS on the table as well
    as current "attitudes" -- yours included.

    RM > Kill-filing Otis is a good enough answer for me. The only
    reason I consider something else is because he is so
    stubborn and replies to everyone who posts here with his
    voodoo theories that I'm afraid he will mislead some
    innocent citizen or cause everyone to think this is some
    quack newsgroup.



    There are few hopeless situations. There are only men who
    have grown hopeless about them.

    Anonymous

    "I know that most men ... can seldom accept even the
    simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them
    to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in
    explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
    others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the very
    fabric of their lives."

    Leo Tolstoy



    You post the following arguments with complete insincerity.
    And then you expect we are going to have an "honest" discussion
    about prevention?

    Believe me, that is a EXCELLENT topic for discussion among
    honest sincere people who wish to work towards effective
    prevention -- your lack of an honerable discussion of facts.

    This is a major reason for running a SCIENTIFIC study where
    these pilots are exposed to your attitude as you stated it.

    As for "protecting" the innocent, that remains to be seen.


    Best,

    Otis




    Otis> I deeply regret that we can not communicate effectively
    about the dynamic nature of the natural eye FIRST.

    RM > We can do this.

    Otis> With you lead-in statement? You must be kidding.

    Otis> It is true that I believe that a person who previously had
    20/20, and recently reads the chart at 20/40 or 20/50, could
    gradually work his way out of it.

    RM > OK, now that you are qualifying your statement some then we
    have some opportunity for agreement. A person who was 20/20
    and very quickly becomes 20/40 or 20/50 is likely not an
    anatomical myope. This type of person is likely an
    accommodative myope.

    Otis> What ever he is, the fact is 20/50 by his own reading of his
    own eye chart. That is his start.

    RM > The myopia is caused by inappropriate contraction of the
    ciliary muscle.

    Otis> I don't agree. Just say you used a trial lens kit, and it
    took a -3/4 diopter lens to clear to 20/20. His refractive
    status is -3/4 diopters, there is no need to go beyond that
    point.

    RM > Such a person might develop this increased muscle tone due to
    lots of recent near work (e.g. "student myopia"). Such a
    person is likely young.

    Otis> I would suggest a 16 year-old would be young enough.

    RM >The diagnosis can be made by cycloplegic refraction which
    involves pharmaceutical agents that paralyze the ciliary
    muscle.

    Otis> If you wish to establish "paralized" refractive state, then
    OK.

    RM > Yes-- such a person could be treated with plus lenses and
    should try to avoid using their minus lenses.

    Otis> If he passes the required DMV-Snellen, then there is no
    requirement that he wear a minus lens -- at all.

    RM > However, their distance blur is real and since they have to
    function (like drive, etc.) they may, on a practical basis,
    need to wear minus lenses to accomplish critical tasks like
    getting back and forth to work, see whats going on in
    school, etc.

    Otis> If their vision is less than the required DMV standard, then
    you are correct. The selection would be those who are
    passing, or close to passing the DMV (20/40) level test --
    so the use of the minus could be avoided.


    RM > This group of people is the MINORITY of myopes that you
    encounter in the world.

    Otis> But almost all children are born with a POSITIVE refractive
    status. The goal it to prevent it at the threshold level.

    RM > Your technique could work for this subgroup of people but not
    for the majority of myopes.

    Otis> I agree that is a pilot can not clear from 20/40 to 20/20,
    then the rest of the subject is moot.

    RM > You try to extrapolate your case reports and theories about
    these people to everybody.

    Otis> I HAVE NOT DONE THIS. You ASSUMED that I did. If you read
    my site you would find that I only advocate PREVENTION at
    the 20/50 to 20/70 level, BEFORE a minus lens is used. You
    did the extrapolation -- I did not.


    Otis> > This is established by direct "input" versus "output"
    testing. This establishes that a population of natural eyes
    will move "down" from the wearing of a minus lens.

    RM > Here you go extrapolating this observation to the entire
    "population of natural eyes" again.

    Otis> I believe this is true of all NATURAL EYES. This would be a
    major topic for review by college students (at -1/2 diopter)
    who are interested in this type of analysis of the natural
    eye's beahvior. Clearly not a MEDICAL topic.

    RM > This is an error in your reasoning that you keep repeating.

    Otis> No, the error is in your assumption that all refractive
    states are ERRORS. This is a direct result of assuming that
    the natural eye is a box camera, and you could classify
    refractive states (direct measurements) in that manner.
    This would be another subject for discussion with the
    educated pilots, i.e., assumptions that are not verified
    about the natural eye's behavior.

    Otis > The same result is obtained from a step-change in visual
    enviroment. You deny this behavior of the natural eye.

    RM > No, this could happen in some patients but not all of them.

    Otis> We are not talking about "patients". We are talking about
    educated engineers -- who will NOT be treated as patients.
    This issue will be discussed also.

    RM > For examply, some patients are inadvertently overminused in
    an eye exam and when you recheck them it's apparent they are
    overcorrected and they prefer the lower prescription (i.e.
    reduced minus).

    Otis> The way I proposed it -- no one would be wearing a minus, or
    a very weak minus. If SLIGHTLY below the DMV they would
    receive a TEMPORARY minus to bring them up to the 20/40
    line. This would probably be no more than -1/4 to -1/2
    diopter max. That minus would remain in the car -- ONLY for
    driving.


    RM > You are extrapolating your beliefs on the whole population of
    myopes again.

    Otis> That is again YOUR extrapolation. The goal is
    true-prevention. The method can not be used AFTER a minus
    lens is prescribed. I thought I made that concept clear.

    Otis> > Since I would supply this information to an intelligent
    person with 20/50, (like a "entering" college student) and
    you would deny it -- whe do have an argument about what
    constitutes fundamental scientific truth about the natural
    eye's behavior.

    RM > I would not deny it. If I find an accommodative myope I
    inform them they should wear their minus correction
    sparingly and consider using plus at near. There's just not
    that many of these types of myopes.

    Otis> I realize that if you made the recommendation to the
    "general public" the most likely result it that the person
    would totally ignore your advice. (Read "The Printer's Son)
    on my site for details. This topic WOULD be spelled out to
    the pilots. Total lack of motivation will instantly kill
    effective prevention. That is why you talk intelligently to
    them about the subject matter under THEIR control. If THEY
    have no interest -- there is no scientific study.

    Otis > > Shawn used these objective facts, and intense motivation
    with a strong plus lens to clear his vision.

    Otis > > I believe that students who are older that he is, would
    have the "smarts" to examine the objective facts themselves
    and decide the issue. Their long-term visual future depends
    on their judgment -- and not on you.

    Otis > If they choose to reject the analysis, and the plus lens,
    then they can expect their vision to go down by -1.3
    diopters per year.

    RM > Are you saying that all myopes will "go down" (I assume you
    mean become more myopic) by -1.3 D per year.

    Otis> Sorry for the mis-print. Previously we established that the
    "down" rate for children with a single-lens minus was -1/2
    diopter per year. For students at West Point (were ALL the
    records are maintained) the "down" rate is -1/3 diopter per
    year.

    RM > No way. Again you are extrapolating your theory to the whole
    population.

    Otis> Again, there was no extrapolation, since I repeatedly said
    COLLEGE STUDENTS entering a four year collge. Again, for
    the intelligent student -- the meaning of "average" and
    "population" will be understood by these engineering-pilots.
    There is no confusion -- except in your mind.

    RM > Otis, get objective.

    Otis> I am, that is why I posted your lead-in statement indicating
    your total lack of interest in a pilot's wish to AVOID
    nearsightedness. He ceartinaly has NO CHANCE under YOUR
    control. And that is why the engineer-pilots should examine
    YOUR logic on this topic.

    RM > ...Who has seen more myopes in their careers. The docs who
    post in this forum or you.

    Otis> That makes you the expert -- to continue the method that was
    put in place 400 years ago? Expert in quick-fixing the
    public that walks in off the street. Absolutly yes. But we
    are talking about scientific review and prevention by the
    individual himself -- under his own control, not YOUR
    control, for the resasons previously stated.

    RM > Here is a question for you that does not involve an
    understanding of the anatomy/physiology of the eye- right
    down your alley. It's been posed before but you haven't
    responded---- Why does a young myope (-1.50 to -2.00) who
    goes around totally uncorrected (meaning they never have
    used a minus lens) not revert to emmetropia (or at least
    less myopia)?

    Otis> RM, why don't you read my site? www.myopiafree.com Click on
    -12 diopters and look at the kid with reasting his nose
    (almost) on the page. As I stated the natural eye controls
    its refractive state to its average visual enviroment. You
    say it has NO effect (with no proof) and I say it has a
    mathematical effect. The child who continues to do this,
    will continue "down". Why don't you see the logic of that
    -- I wonder? Even that subject is moot, if a negative
    refractive state of the eye can not be prevented by pilots
    at a four year college. I do not deal with children, nor
    with people with NO MOTIVATION for prevention.

    RM > These individuals essentially have a plus optical correction
    on their natural eye which they wear 24/7. They have a
    constant plus blur. This is equivalent to aggressive plus
    lens therapy.

    Otis> There habit of reading at -12 diopters, is the issue. The
    natural eye moves down because of this "average". But our
    topic is prevention at a four year college, where the pilot
    has the motivation and intelligence to use a strong plus --
    to clear his distant vision from 20/40 to 20/20. That IS
    the make or break issus, not kids.


    RM > Why do they not improve and why is it that they oftentimes
    become more myopic?

    Otis> Again, stay on topic. This issue is prevntion among
    intelligent pilots who understand the memaing of -1/3
    diopters per year, when they enter with a refractive state
    of -1/2 dioppter. If they don't understand that issue, they
    have no business being involved in a scientific PREVENTIVE
    effort.


    In addition:


    ==========

    "> RM's attituted is such that, "if you don't like the minus lens
    quick-fix that I provide -- then you will have to do it
    youself -- under your own control. That is RW's real
    message -- that comes across loud-and-clear.

    RM > Tell me where is this message is stated, either directly or
    implied indirectly? Does this argument add more sympathetic
    drama to your point of view?

    RM > My point to you is simply that your plus-lens prevention fix
    can indeed work but only for a subgroup of younger people
    with accommodative dysfunction. When I tried over and over
    again to explain it to you, you avoided direct replying and
    kept giving me equations that you seem to believe apply to
    all myopes. You do not understand what I say because you do
    not know the structure and function of the eye. You quote a
    study where primates were vastly overcorrected and then draw
    conclusions to all human myopes.

    RM > And finally I will restate what I said to you the bottom-line
    issue I have with this. What really irks me is that people
    who propose this kind of snake-oil fix for vision problems
    can mislead people. I have had patients who told me that
    they heard this kind of voodoo stuff on the radio from Paul
    Harvey or bought some cassette tapes after seeing television
    advertisements starring Marriet Hartley. I respect your
    right to think whatever you want to think. But by blurting
    out unproven theories (and in some cases even disproven
    theories) you are misleading people and possibly doing some
    harm to lay-persons reading this newsgroup.

    Otis> You are in fact practicing a disproven box-camera theroy.
    Further, you ignore the "second opinion" expressed by quite
    a few ODs, that the minus lens has never been proven to be
    even "safe". Because Marriet Hartley, Bates, or others
    might say something, or anything in no sense represents me,
    or my point-of-view on the dynamic nature of the fundamental
    eye. In fact, I only advocate that pevention considered
    BEFORE a minus lens is prescribed.


    ______________

    Previous post:


    From: <>

    To: <>

    Subject: The quality of "proof" -- the quality of support
    for prevention.


    Dear RM,

    Subject: PREVENTION of a negative refractive state at the 20/40
    (-1/2 diopter) level.

    As you probably know, most 5 year-olds have a positive
    refractive state -- of some degree, and 20/20.

    Most "myopes" enter nearsighedness by having their refractive
    state move from a positive value to a negative value.

    I stipulate that an a highly motivated pilot, who has just
    entered into nearsightedness could clear his vision bact to a
    positive value -- IF HE HAD THE MOTIVATION FOR IT.

    I sounds like you are inclined to agree with me on that
    point. The only requirement I would have is that the PERSON be
    fully informed of the standard "down" rate of -1/3 diopter per
    year, or -1.3 dioters in four years. (Typo in my post below. The
    "down" rate for children is -1/2 diopter per year -- average of
    the bi-focal studies -- of the single-minus group)

    If it can not be "prevented" at the 20/40, with the pilot IN
    CONTROL, then it can not be preveted at all.

    If you would use a scientific (not medical) protocol then I
    believe a successful PREVENTIVE effort could be conducted with a
    highly educated engineer -- provided he gets the type of
    scientific support he needs -- and makes ALL THE MEASUREMENTS
    HIMSELF -- UNDER HIS OWN CONTROL.

    I believe that will work -- and will make a personal
    commitment to work with that type of person.

    I will reply in later and in greater detail in a separate
    post.

    Best,

    Otis Engineer

    www.myopiafree.com
     
    Otis Brown, Nov 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Dr Judy Guest

    Snipped the whole "blah blah blah" thing

    Despite the post subject, Otis does not actually provide any proof that his
    ideas about preventing myopia work in humans. He does a lot of yakking
    about what he thinks might happen if someone did a study of his method
    (except that he disagrees completely with the rest of the scientific world
    on what constitutes a proper controlled clinical study) and claims the
    negative results of studies with humans using methods similar to his are not
    valid.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Nov 22, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    "Otis Brown" <> schreef in bericht

    Gigantic snip in an ever repeating story......................

    Peyton Place must have been written by Otis, his story about prevention
    also look like it should never end, but boys and girls, have faith, Michail
    Rossi and Allison MacKenzie did disappear from the screen after a couple of
    years.
    Hopefully Otis idea about preventing myopia disappears sooner.

    Otis the man who NEVER showed PROOF and NEVER came up with an adept of his
    idea to whom we may address some questions.
    Otis you are without any doubt a nice old grandpa and a nice storyteller,
    keep it that way and beat the retread.

    --
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
    destroyed.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Nov 22, 2004
    #3
  4. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Judy,

    Subject: Testing the minus lens for safety.

    As you know, you totally reject all scientif proof
    for the behavior of the fundamental eye, i.e.,
    all monkey-primate data is to be IGNORED on your
    say so. That might be the MEDICAL attitude, but
    it is certainly NOT a scientific attitude.

    If you take a population of natural eyes, and
    test the minus lens for simple-safety, you
    find, on the basis of simple "input" versus "output"
    testing that the refractive state of the natural
    eye "follows" the applied minus lens.
    This means that the populsation of primates
    with a minus lens on their eyes will "move negative"
    relative to the control group. You do this
    is a systmatic manner, incerasing the minus lens
    every six months, and in due course almost all
    the "control group" will have a negative refractie
    state (will become nearsighed).

    But since you totally ignore this type of
    scientific testing a verification it is
    hard to believe that your statements
    are scientific -- at all.

    But we disagree on that point -- I pay attention
    to scientifc proof -- and you ignore it. And
    that is proof indeed of your scientific ignorance.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, Nov 23, 2004
    #4
  5. Otis Brown

    Dr Judy Guest

    We've been down this road too many times, readers can search past threads.
    Suffice to say that you ignore all human evidence that the plus doesn't work
    and all animal evidence that using a minus lens to correct myopia in non neo
    nates does not cause myopia. (As opposed to using a minus lens to
    experimentally simulate congenital high hyperopia in neo nates).

    I've been waiting several years for you to cite human studies showing that
    using plus a near reverses myopia or that using the correct minus to correct
    myopia causes myopia to increase. Haven't seen it yet.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Nov 23, 2004
    #5
  6. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Judy,

    You keep telling me that "scientist -- don't believe",
    and then you totally ignore what they DO SAY.

    I will post a statement by a scientist who absolutly
    does support the concept that a person has
    the right to and informed, competent second-opinion.

    But to respond:


    Otis> I agree that prevention is difficult. It takes strong resolve
    in the person to achieve the desired results. This has
    been done despite your total denial of it. The posts
    by pilots and others who have cleared their distant vision
    should be a good indicator. I have proposed an
    engineering (not medical) effort to be conducted at
    a "flight" four year college with highly motivated
    pilots who most likely can achieve the same results.


    Otis> Again your habitual blindness. I have posted studies of
    adolescent primates (Francis Young) where a delta in
    the visual enviroment resulted in a corresponding change
    in the refractive status of the control group. You
    totally and absoluty ignore scientific data -- to
    the detriment of many people indeed.


    (As opposed to using a minus lens to
    Otis> Again, studies demonstrate that the natural eye is
    CONTROLLING its refractive state to "deltas" in the
    visual environment -- and then you invent excuses
    to totally ignore this direct data.


    Otis> I agree that PREVENTING nearsightedness at the threshold
    is the goal of pure science. I have suggested that type of
    effort with human pilots -- and you are not very supportive
    in that goal. Once a person begins wearing a minus lens,
    and his eyes "adapt" to that lens (proven experimentally)
    then I agree that prevention becomes impossible for that
    person.

    or that using the correct minus to correct
    Otis> Again, you totally ignore the direct experimental
    data that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the natural
    eye's refractive state is correlated to its average
    visual environment. You are brain-numb from your
    practice -- not to put too find a point on it.

    Haven't seen it yet.

    Otis> That is because you totally ignore all
    scientific proof -- you don't like.
     
    Otis Brown, Nov 23, 2004
    #6
  7. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    We do not IGNORE primate research. In fact, we examine it with great
    interest. Many primate studies are conducted at schools of optometry.
    Personally, I find vision research on primates totally fascinating. What I
    do not find fascinating is your obnoxious tendency to mistate and
    misinterpret the conclusions. I think that you need to take some course in
    visual science and physiological optics before you start lecturing us on
    the meaning of 'primate studies.'

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Otis Brown

    Dr Judy Guest

    I'm still waiting for you to cite published human studies showing that using
    plus at near reverses myopia or that using the correct minus to correct
    myopia causes myopia to increase.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Nov 25, 2004
    #8
  9. Otis Brown

    Dr Judy Guest

    I'm still waiting for you to cite published human studies showing that
    using plus at near reverses myopia or that using the correct minus to
    correct
    myopia causes myopia to increase.

    Dr Judy
     
    Dr Judy, Nov 25, 2004
    #9
    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.