Science based opinion on Plus lenses to Prevent Myopia

I have been making an effort to keep out of the Otis plus lens threads, but
here is some info about the credibility of the "experts" he quotes.

Otis posted a expert opinion about the validity of claims made by Steve
Leung, Otis's favourite OD on the [email protected] groups forum. Dr Leung is
apparently facing charges from his licensing body regarding the vision
improvement with plus lenses claims he makes.

The opinion also contains information about Francis Young, Dr Colgate and Dr
Guyton, some of Otis's other favourite experts. It points out that Young's
early statements about plus lens prevention were proven incorrect by Young's
own latter work, that Colgate's statements predated Young's work. It quotes
Dr Guyton as saying the plus lens will not work for those already myopic and
also quotes Dr Guyton as saying that a randomized, controlled 3-5 year
clinical trial is needed to determine the effectives of Dr Leung's methods.
Gee, Dr Guyton wants to do a medical, not engineering study using proper
experimental control -- something Otis claims is unneeded and then uses Dr
Guyton's opinions as a reason it is not needed.

I can't believe that Otis actually posted an opinion that is factual and
clearly outlines the science that says plus doesn't work and points out the
lack of science to show it does work. Of course, Otis says it shows how
"the system" persecutes optometists who share his views.

Here is the link, the first page is in Chinese, the rest is in English.

http://www.chinamyopia.org/special/odboarddoc3.htm

Dr Judy

 

How does a medical study differ fundamentally from an engineering study? I
have long thought of medicine as an engineering art. Medicine's subject is
principally living humans as opposed to engineering's principally large
inanimate projects. When it comes to Public Health, there is great overlap.
Consider the great projects of sewerage and water supply that has much more
to do with our quality of life than all the medications ever provided by
physicians.

Bill

 

Dear Bill,

Some problems indeed are NOT medical in nature -- although
neglect EVENTUALLY creates the "medical problem".

This is the "deeper analysis" that can EVENTUALLY lead
to a better (though more difficult) solution.

I was thinking about James Cook and scurvey of the
1700's.

When long-voyages were attempted (gradually extended to years)
the crew would develop scurvey (not everyone -- but
about 30 perecent would die in three years.)

Captain Cook did his research and attempted a number
of "solutions". The effect of his efforts ON HIS CREW
was that in a three year voyage no one died
of scurvey. Did this prove the "cause"?

Perhaps not, but his ability to control the crew's
diet made a major change in the diet habits
of the British navy.

Thus a "medical problem" was partially resolved by
a ship's captain.

People who "stand back" from the immediate problem
can sometimes be more effective then people
who are using the traditional minus-lens quick-fix
of the last 400 years.

Best,

Otis

 

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: The second-opinion (for true-prevention with plus)

If you are interested, Alfred has placed the
"proceedings" on his web:

http://www.chinamyopia.org/special/odboarddoc3.htm

The "Board" excluded ALL scientific research
(concering the dynamic behavor of the
primate eye) the BOARD did not "like".

This is not science and abstract intellectual analysis -- this is
called
"rail-roading".

But then, you decide.

Best,

Otis

 

Dear prevention minded friends,

here are three scientific studies ON HUMANS (not animals) demonstrating
that Otis' theories are full of crap. he has been presented with these
studies before but refuses to comment. he counters by presenting
studies performed on chickens and monkeys, and then dropping the names
of old optometrists whom he doesn't even know.

-------------
first, this study concludes that Otis stairstep theory of myopia
progression is wrong:


Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic
progression.
Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6703013&query_hl=3

Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages from 7.38
to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over the power
required to correct their myopia exactly. These 36 experimental
subjects were matched by control subjects selected at random from the
files of the Indiana University Optometry Clinics. The criteria used in
matching were sex, beginning age, beginning refractive error, and
duration of time covered by the record. The mean rate of change of
refractive error for the experimental group was (minus indicating
increase of myopia) -0.49 D/year (range, +0.37 to -1.95 D/year) on
retinoscopy and -0.52 D/year (range, +0.21 to -1.32 D/year) on
subjective refraction. The mean rate of change for the control group
was -0.47 D/year (range, +0.06 to -2.03 D/year) on retinoscopy and
-0.47 D/year (range, +0.28 to -1.72 D/year) on subjective refraction.
Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly
different. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that
an overcorrected myope has a lower rate of increase of myopia than a
myope wearing a conventional spectacle correction.

-------
secondly, these two studies show that Otis theory of plus lens
prevention is wrong:

1.Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances
rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42:
2555-9.

The Chung study is a small (n=94), 2 year randomized and masked
prospective study comparing the effects of full-time undercorrection
(UC, by approx 0.75 D) with full-time fully correction (FC) in young
myopes (mean: -2.86 D). The study group comprised approximately 1.4
time the numbers of girls as boys with Chinese and Malay ethnic groups
being approximately equally represented. Over the 2 years of the study,
the FC group showed a progression of -0.77 D compared to the UC group
that exhibited a progression of -1.00 D. Rates of eye growth also
differed between the two groups, as expected, being slower for the FC
group.
This study suggests that leaving myopes partially uncorrected (i.e.
with a net plus prescription) may in fact promote myopia development
rather than reduce it.

2. COMET multicenter study on use of bifocal glasses to slow myopia
progression.
http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/viewStudyWeb.aspx?id=9
In summary, results of COMET suggest that PALs should not be prescribed
routinely for slowing myopia progression in children. However, they
still may be prescribed for other ocular conditions. Findings from this
study will influence ongoing and future studies of myopia interventions
and mechanisms of eye growth.

Go away Otis. Take up shuffleboard. Build a better sextant.

 

Dear Friends,

If I am working to determine if the natural eye
is a sophisticated system, then I am going
to depend on objective scientific tests to
accurately determine the natural eye's
behavior.

This analysis RESPECTS the eye as a competent
design.

The proof is in this respect.

Since you (with your closed mind) sweep all
SCIENTIFIC data off the table -- before
there is any anlysis, then yes, you
can maintain your myth the
a "quick fix" is based on "your science".

But that is the issue as to who
controlls the preception of the
natural eye as a dynamic system.

Best,

Otis

 

I'm sorry, but your reply makes no sense.

You were presented with scientific data. No one swept it off.
Why do you avoid the issues. Why do you keep trying to redefine the valid
postings that argue against your unfounded theories.

IN HUMANS, THERE IS NO VALID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT PLUS LENSES PREVENT
MYOPIA PROGRESSION, JUST AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT MINUS LENSES CAUSE
THEM. Plain and simple!

=================

 

A little dry, but not crap.

Over correction means giving a myopic more minus (negative) than they need.

Well that's nice, but what does that have to do with Otis and his continuing
refusal to accept scientific evidence (that evidently causes your eyes to
glaze over and result in you calling it "crap") that demonstrates that minus
lenses do not cause myopia and that plus lenses do not prevent it?

 

Let's hear it for the humble lift station.

DrG

 

alot of snops

This is called evidence based medicine

 

It has nothing to do with Otis. Substituting crap for crap does not help.
Part of good science is good reporting. A scientist like Richard Feynman
hated to write. But when he did, it was easy to read--not obfuscation.

Bill

 

well, OK ?
anyway the studies are valid and I suppose the choice of words in the
abstracts sound complicated, confusing, and maybe even boring. perhaps
the authors could be better writers but their real job is to do good
relevant science.

do you suppose our buddy Otis is, like you, disinterested in the
results of their studies because they seem boring to him? perhaps
thats why he is ignoring them? perhaps the chicken and shrew data that
he embraces captures his imagination (like his fond stories of
Raphaelson and "The Printers Son") and that's why he gives them
excessive weight even in light of the overwhelming evidence against his
plus lens prevention theory by researchers who address these issues in
real-life humans!

 

Researchers primarily publish or perish. Science be damned. Well, that might
be a bit too cynical. While I did my share of publishing as field worker,
publish or perish was something I did not have to worry about. Getting
papers published was an ego tip.

Some of my colleagues were more on the publishing track. We were working in
the field of lasers. I noticed when they published in the Physical Review,
they were more pedantic than when they published in Institute of Electrical
and Electronic Engineers publication such as Quantum Electronics. There was
just something about the terser journal that got the one-upmanship juices
flowing.

Richard Feynman did not do that because he had other ways of one-upping.

Bill

 

Dear Judy,

Subject: Factual corrction on
Dr. Young and his bifocal study.

Re: The "Houston" study

Francis Young's name was
placed on the first report.

This is a compete error.
Francis Young was not
involved in the Houston
study.

Francis Young NEVER received
either report -- and asked
if I had a copy of it!

Francis has published a
correction -- asking that
his name be REMOVED
from the Houston study.

++++++++++++

It points out that Young's
early statements about plus lens prevention were proven incorrect by
Young's
own latter work,

This is false -- as stated above. OSB