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

Dear Prevention minded friends,


Subject: Statements "protecting" you from scientifc
knowlege.

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.

Best,

Otis

________________________________________


A REVIEW OF THE PAST APPROACH

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
VITAL SIGNS:

"... 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 sci.med.vision

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 sci.med.vision"
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
phenomena.

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
progression.)

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.)

 

This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision 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 sci.med.vision" 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
understanding.

 

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
eye.

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

www.chinamyopa.org

Just to confirm this fact.

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

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

The prestidigitation you do every day when you prescribe glasses.

Isn't it a true game of prestidigitation?

 

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.

======

 

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.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

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.

Allen

 

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.

 

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.

Allen

 

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.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

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

Allen

 

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?

 

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

 

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.