Response to "warning" --keep an open mind!

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Dec 4, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: Statements "protecting" you from scientifc

    Re: Please do not reply to "Otis" posts. DrL.

    "This above all else, to thine own self be true; and it must
    follow, as the night the day, that thou can not then be false to
    any man"

    Polonius -- Hamlet

    I always believe in accurately reporting the dynamic behavior
    of the fundamental eye. There is no need for complex language --
    just simple English. Others, would ask you to ignore science (and
    this basic confirming experiment) -- do not like this language. I
    regret that sad truth. Otis Brown


    From: Don Rehm (The Myopia Myth)

    Otis. What has Dr. Howard Howland done that puts him along
    with Dr. Francis Young? Never heard of Howard before. Don


    Dear Don,

    Howard Howland did a simple scientific experiment -- and
    reported results objectively and accurately.

    But because the "OD community" did not like exact scientific
    results they sought ways to "blunt" the effect of objective,
    scientific truth -- and avoid the fact that they were "twisting"
    objective facts to suit the 400 year old conception of the eye --
    and protect their "standard practice".

    Howard put a minus lens on the eye -- and the refractive
    status "followed' the lens.

    He put a plus on the eye, and the refractive status of the
    eye followed the plus -- although more slowly.

    And he put a minus on one eye -- and not the other. The
    result. The refractive status of the eye followed the minus lens
    -- where the eye without the lens (control) remained with no
    change in refractive state.





    We should all thoughtfully evaluate the unfortunate effect of
    using an immediate and easy fix for the problem of
    nearsightedness. This situation of a self-perpetuating mistake
    (produced by public need and attitude) is sometimes recognized by
    the students of medicine. Dr. Perri Klass said it this way in

    "... Sometimes the awesome weight of medical knowledge is
    totally off the beam. You have to practice medicine with that in
    mind, with the knowledge that a hundred years or so along the
    road, they'll be telling stories about the medical theories of
    today to get a laugh of the medical students of 2085..."

    And about medicines' confidence in its routines:

    "... Or something so basic, so taken for granted, that no
    one has gotten around to questioning it. Whatever it is, probably
    the medical profession is collectively doing something really dumb
    and really damaging, and doing it with complete good will and
    typical medical self-confidence."

    This applies to vision. The demand for negative lens use
    comes partly from the public's demand for an instant solution,
    (and corresponding reluctance to properly use a plus lens) and not
    from a scientific assessment of the behavior characteristic of the
    normal eye.


    "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

    Men live by their routines; and when these are called into
    question, they lose all power of normal judgment. They will
    listen to nothing save the echo of their own voices; all else
    becomes dangerous thoughts.

    Harold Laski


    For your interest:

    From Dr. Leukoma on

    Readers please note:

    Otis Brown posts his ridiculous, unsupported theory to this
    newsgroup over and over again, day after day. Over a thousand
    times thus far. Numerous doctor practitioners and vision
    scientists have clearly and precisely debunked his argument, yet
    he persists in trying to attract the gullible.

    That which those of us with vision science background post
    here is based on proven, tested repeatable, clinically observed
    (thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times) real data.

    This is very much unlike "Otis", who invents theories,
    creates terminology to fit it, and "reports" "findings" based on
    two individuals who may or may not exist.

    Please do not reply to "Otis" posts.

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to"
    which appears on Mondays for information on how to filter out his
    posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile
    discussion in this forum.

    Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.

    Dr L.


    Dr L implies something that is false -- that scientists do
    not believe or suport the concept of prevention with a plus lens.
    If he wishes to state that a majority of ODs believe that
    a minus lens has no effect on the eye -- that would be
    fine with me.

    Here is a statement by a world-class scientist who both
    cleared his vision with a plus -- and also suports your right to
    this "second opinion".

    A Letter to China

    Nov. 28, 2004

    Alfred Hou-ian HON:

    Dear Mr Alfred Hon H.I

    I would like to pass on to you a letter to the Chinese people
    in the hope that greater understanding will lead to a better life
    for us all. This has been written in the support of a mutual
    friend, Steve Leung, Optometrist, in order to support his work in
    the prevention of myopia.

    I am a senior scientists, astrophysicist and nuclear
    physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a member of the
    National Academy of Sciences of the USA. For all of my scientific
    career I have been dedicated to understanding the cause of natural

    From the age of 13 years, now 66 years ago, I recognized that
    the standard response to myopia was perhaps misguided. Instead I
    used positive lens glasses to correct, or alter my focal
    environment, namely one of reading nearly all the time, a
    near-point focal environment. (A positive lens "corrects" a
    near-point focal environment by altering the light rays to be more
    parallel from the near-point object, as if the print were made
    more distant.)

    Being young and therefore developmentally plastic, my eyes
    and their focal properties immediately responded. Within just a
    few weeks, the clarity or focus of distant objects had been nearly
    restored. (This plasticity of development or focal adaptation of
    the eye ball length decreases with age.) This was just as I
    expected from scientific arguments. I had to maintain the use of
    a positive lens for reading thereafter. This was a small price to
    pay for perfect distance vision for all my life.

    I have continued an effort to bring this awareness of the
    focal adaptation of the natural eye to the public, but
    unfortunately the ease and immediate response of the standard
    treatment of using a negative lens to reverse the myopic
    adaptation to a near point environment is so immediate and so
    rewarding to the myope (the myopic young person) that I and a few
    associates have not been successful.

    This is regardless of the decades after the ground breaking
    scientific research by Dr. Francis Young, and Dr. Howard Howland
    and others who demonstrated the unique correspondence between a
    near point environment and the development of myopia.

    I have worked scientifically with Prof. Joshua Wallman of
    City College New York where his research on the response of the
    natural eye to focal and neurological environments is leading the
    fundamental research on this topic in the US. The animal model
    used is the recovery function of the deprivation induced myopia of
    the chicken eye. Here myopia and recovery can be altered by up to
    10 diopters in a few weeks. (One diopter is the focal length of a
    lens of a meter.) This extreme animal model allows many factors of
    influence to be investigated in a short time.

    Although the complexity of the response of the eye is
    extraordinary and a detailed understanding of the mechanisms of
    adaptation still eludes all in the scientific field, nevertheless
    there is no experiment, no anecdotal example that contradicts, and
    no doubt in my mind that myopia in all animals, including humans,
    is induced in response to a near point focal environment.

    In view of this research and countless personal successful
    examples, the growing number of myopic individuals in the world is
    deplorable, when such a simple remedy is available to the public.

    As a dedicated optometrist you have taken a lead in
    attempting to bring this knowledge and benefit to your patients.
    For you to be sued or persecuted within your own professional
    societies is wrong. You should be lauded and encouraged instead.

    I am reminded of the first health professionals who spoke out
    about the health problems that smoking brings to a society.
    Theirs was a difficult task, but now thirty years later, smoking
    in the US has declined to a negligible fraction of society. If we
    can give up smoking, we can also be weaned from the negative lens.
    (A negative lens brings instant gratification of sharp focus to
    the young myopic person, but greatly potentiates further myopic

    I do hope and recommend that you are strongly supported by
    your colleagues of dedicated optometrists and that you all may
    bring to your profession the hope and implementation of myopia
    prevention for human kind.

    Sincerely yours

    Stirling A. Colgate,

    (Senior Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory and Member of
    the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.)
    Otis Brown, Dec 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    RM Guest

    This posting is an automatic reply to any newsgroup thread
    that is receiving comments from a certain person named "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 (i.e. nearsightedness)
    prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects even
    been disproven by controlled scientific studies. He has posted and reposted
    his ideas approximately 1000 times over the last two years despite being
    repeatedly debunked by numerous doctor practitioners and vision scientists.

    No one means to suppress the opinions of others. This message is only meant
    to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert.

    DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll!

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to" which appears on
    Mondays for information on how to filter out his posts so that you may be
    able to participate in
    worthwhile discussions in this forum. Thank you for your cooperation and
    RM, Dec 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Please remember -- RM does not have the guts
    to even identify himself by his name.

    Certainly prevention with the plus is
    possible -- but difficult.

    This is intended to be an "open" discussion
    about scientific topics -- including
    the effect that a minus lens has
    on the refractive status of the

    RM hopes you will not look at the factual,
    scientific data -- and perhaps come to
    a better conclusion about the alternative -- i.e., prevention.

    Even other ODs admit that the minus is not a
    "good idea" and would offer you a choice -- as
    a minimum.

    I would suggest reading

    Just to confirm this fact.

    In the mean time you can "believe" RM
    if you wish.


    Otis Brown, Dec 4, 2004
  4. The prestidigitation you do every day when you prescribe glasses.

    Isn't it a true game of prestidigitation?
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Dec 4, 2004
  5. Otis Brown

    RM Guest

    RM is still waiting for Otis to explain what educational training and/or
    clinical experience he has to give people advise about vision care. Do you
    have a Doctor of Optometry degree? Are you a trained Ophthalmologist? Do
    you have a Ph.D. in Physiological Optics or Visual Sciences? Are you a
    Board Certified Optician?

    And forget the romantic story you read about the Printers Son, blah blah
    blah. What is it that you KNOW and HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S TRUE? And forget
    about your 1 or 2 rat studies with Shawn, etc. Where is the proof?

    And don't try the mathematical equations and the black-box stuff again.

    RM, Dec 4, 2004
  6. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    Subject: Poor, Tragic, mistreated Otis??

    That is an interested subject. Since I have not
    complained in any sense or in any way.

    The people who are "mistreated" are the people
    who are blindly given a strong minus lens -- and
    watch their distanc vision spirial downward
    out of control.

    THOSE are the people (kids) who are mistreated.

    This is EXACTLY what Dr. Bates complained about,
    the insensitivity of it all.

    For me, it only mattered that my bood-relative
    "woke up" to this "attitude", used the plus
    through college -- always wore the plus,
    and NEVER developed the stair-case myopia
    induced by a combination of "near" environment
    and compounded to an incerdiable extent
    by that minus lens.

    You have to decide who is "mistreated"
    and by whom.


    Otis Brown, Dec 5, 2004
  7. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest

    WRONG AGAIN Otis. My vision did not spiral down as a result of properly
    prescribed eyeglasses. 20/20 is the same corrected or uncorrected.

    Your so called therapy is not proven as you have not provided any proof.
    The proof I am looking for is your so called subjects to let us ask them
    through this newsgroups. Your Shawns and Jons probably don't exist, so get
    real Otis.

    A Lieberman, Dec 5, 2004

  8. You should get real.
    It's impossible that you do not worsen your eyesight while wearing the glasses.
    Glasses always produce eyestrain.
    There is no doubt about it.
    You be honest and tell if you do not produce eyestrain after wearing the glasses.
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Dec 5, 2004
  9. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Maybe you should go to a different eyedoc??? No eyestrain with glasses.
    To see distance WITHOUT glasses, mega eyestrain!
    See above, no eyestrain wearing glasses. I guess I am as real as it gets.

    A Lieberman, Dec 5, 2004
  10. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Subject: Telling us what you wish to believe.

    Re: You tell us anectdotal tales too.

    Thanks for admiting a mistake, i.e., -3.25 versus +3.25.
    The accommodation system (in a young child) will
    make good this difference.

    But that suggests an additional point -- for the
    educated pilot. He should do his OWN CHECKING,
    using a low-cost trial-lens kit.

    Any competent parent using this simple device would
    have found out about the 6.5 diopter in
    a prescription.

    Further, the only person who really BELIEVES
    the results -- is the person who makes the measurements,
    ergo, the pilot should read his own eye chart,
    and confirm 20/40, and with the plus, confirm
    his "clearing" to 20/20 as Shawn did it.

    Furhter, givin the availablity of a low cost
    trial-lens kit, and the required training
    they could have supplied accurate readings
    of their refractive status in diopters.

    No problem. Any engineer could make these
    confirming-scientific measurements.


    Otis Brown, Dec 5, 2004
  11. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Why don't you let Shawn speak for himself. Probably because he doesn't

    A Lieberman, Dec 5, 2004

  12. This proves once again that Dr. Bates was right: the mind of your
    patient trusted you so much that he thought that you were right and
    wearing your contacts was the right thing to do for him.

    Others do not adapt to this, and continue to do worse from the strain.

    Others accept it at first but never adapt, and then revolt, and then
    search for relief elsewhere.

    This demonstrates that YOUR SCIENCE is completely wrong.

    Please explain how the poor boy could see well without complaint.

    Either his eye adapted to 6 dioptres of error or not.

    What is your explaination?
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Dec 5, 2004
  13. Otis Brown

    Jan Hladik Guest

    I don't think you have any friends here.

    And regarding the topic - Yes folks, keep an open mind, but make sure
    your brain does not fall out.

    [Bullshit deleted]

    Jan Hladik, Dec 6, 2004
  14. Otis Brown

    Dan Abel Guest

    It's not a matter of "guts". Many people, myself excluded, find it
    prudent not to use their real name. I'd certainly rather have somebody
    identify themselves consistently, either with a pen name or initials,
    rather than what I've seen on other groups, where someone who is obviously
    one person uses three or four different names in an effort to convince
    readers that three or four different people support their position.
    Dan Abel, Dec 6, 2004
    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.