Science based opinion on Plus lenses to Prevent Myopia

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Dr Judy, Jul 24, 2005.

  1. Dr Judy

    Dr Judy Guest

    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
     
    Dr Judy, Jul 24, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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
     
    Repeating Rifle, Jul 24, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Dr Judy

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, Jul 24, 2005
    #3
  4. Dr Judy

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, Jul 24, 2005
    #4
  5. Dr Judy

    p.clarkii Guest

    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.
     
    p.clarkii, Jul 24, 2005
    #5
  6. Dr Judy

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, Jul 24, 2005
    #6
  7. Dr Judy

    RM Guest

    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!

    =================
     
    RM, Jul 25, 2005
    #7
  8. Dr Judy

    RM Guest

    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?
     
    RM, Jul 25, 2005
    #8
  9. Dr Judy

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Let's hear it for the humble lift station.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 25, 2005
    #9
  10. alot of snops
    This is called evidence based medicine
     
    Philip D Izaac, Jul 25, 2005
    #10
  11. 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
     
    Repeating Rifle, Jul 25, 2005
    #11
  12. Dr Judy

    p.clarkii Guest

    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!
     
    p.clarkii, Jul 26, 2005
    #12
  13. 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
     
    Repeating Rifle, Jul 26, 2005
    #13
  14. Dr Judy

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, Jul 27, 2005
    #14
    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.