The effect of denying scientific proof and truth

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Jan 9, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: Kids and their 3-inch (-13 diopter) reading bad habits.

    Re: Failure to provide ANY warning about this bad habit to the
    parents. The important thing to do would be to stop the
    kid's bad habit FIRST -- before the situation got
    out-of-control.


    SCIENCE:

    If you take a population of young primate eyes (measure the
    refractive state of all of them) and place half of them in a
    confined visual environment, then the half forced into that
    "close" environment will experince a refractive change in the
    direction and approximage "near" environment. Remark: This a
    natural process -- and the science is final. This experiment can
    be repeated and the results will be the same -- versus the concept
    that the eye WILL NOT change its refractive state in conformance
    to this change.


    OPTOMETRY:

    Optometry pretends that scientific proof that the living eye
    is dynamic -- DOES NOT EXIST. Therefore they will provide NO
    WARNING about some children's obviously bad habits. (i.e.,
    putting the nose on the page when reading -- same as the above
    "monkey" scientific test. The implication for the 3-inch child is
    that his eyes will behave EXACTLY as the primat eye behaves, i.e.,
    the refractive state of his eyes will do the same thing -- and his
    natural eyes will have a seriously negative refractive state. The
    real issue is for the parents (by one means or another) to stop
    the child from doing this. But of course that would require that
    the parents have a clear understanding of the science of the
    natural eye's behavior. (But anyone attempting to provide that
    type of information will get "sued" for telling scientific truth.
    Does anyone give a damn?)


    NOW ENTER THE OPTOMETRIST

    (Who for reasons of the Neil Brooks effect, will not talk
    about the first issue -- of prevention -- but will simply apply a
    minus lens. Sometimes a "bi-focal" but that is probably
    too-little, too-late. In fact the REAL ISSUE is the extemely bad
    habit of the child.

    Here is the discussion for your understanding.



    Subject: Kid reading at 3 inches -- and effect on natural
    eye's refractive state.


    ______________________


    From: RT <>

    Subject: Re: Appraising the OD

    "Mike Tyner"

    MikeOD > > We have several good bifocal studies that show they
    don't offer substantial benefit to asymptomatic young
    people. So where are these "professionals" recommending
    bifocals for non-presbyopes?

    Layman> My 9 year old son was prescribed bifocals. I don't have
    his script in front of me, but both eyes are around -7.50
    with 1D of astig.

    Layman> > He has +3. The reason being is that when wearing the
    -7's he reads over the tops of his glasses about 3 inches
    from his face because he cannot focus in his glasses at a
    comfortable distance to read.

    Layman> > They seem to be working, meaning that he can now read
    and do his homework with his glasses on, but sometimes I do
    catch him reading over the tops of his glasses. He does
    that consistently if he wants to examine something close up.

    Layman> > He has contacts too (Proclear) and in those he's forced
    to read from a greater (and probably more correct) distance.
    He doesn't like wearing them for that reason because he
    can't bring things up to the tip of his nose like he's used
    to.

    Mike> > He's certainly not a presbyope!

    Mike> BTW: his glasses are progressives. he adapted to them very
    quickly.


    __________________________________


    Commentary: The real issue is this kids "unfortunate" habit of
    putting the nose on the page. Nothing was said about this
    -- and no attempt was made to do anything about it -- since
    that whoud have required that the parents be aware of the
    effect that a "near" environment has on the refractive state
    of the natural eye.

    Otis> It would be better if the parents had this information --
    and could take effective actions, but Retinula keeps
    insisting against all scientific proof, that environment had
    NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATE OF THE NATURAL EYE.

    Otis> I would suggest you understand the effect that Retinula's
    intense bias against science has on the restraint of
    information about this issue to the parent.

    Otis> It would indeed be difficult to STOP a child from doing this
    -- but that would be the first step of true-prevention, and
    this certainly is not a "plus" issue at all. It is an issue
    of "open" information and choice for the educated parent and
    child, and is not a "medical" issue. Although neglect of
    this issue eventually BECOMES a "medical" issue. This is
    why sci.med.vision is an open SCIENTIFIC forum where we learn to
    understand this second-opnion issue.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jan 9, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    This issue is more that the father did not
    "notice" that his kid was putting his
    nose almost ON THE PAGE in the
    first place.

    Of all the "bad" things a young child
    could do -- that is about the worst.

    If any OD encounters a child (at age
    5) at -3/4 diopters (about 20/50) it
    is my strong opinion that the OD
    should talk to the parents about
    this specific issue, and have the
    child read some things -- and monitor
    the child.

    This is obviously not optomtery -- and
    it is very hard to "stop" the child, but
    my personal opinion is that we
    should start this preventive process.

    Just my opinion -- what do you think -- and
    why.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Jan 9, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Nobody gives a damn.

    You are getting sued because you are not in a position to give medical
    advice since you are not in the medical profession.

    Have you not gotten this yet???

    Allen
     
    A Lieberman, Jan 9, 2006
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    my personal opinion is that ...

    I like your new approach. Did your lawyer recommend it?

    BTW, there is no data that reading too close causes myopia. In fact, I have
    a lot of parents who claim that their kids read too close and in fact they
    are hyperopes (that means they are farsighted Otis).

    On the subject of prevention, that would be great if there was something
    that we knew that worked.
     
    RM, Jan 9, 2006
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    Major snip....

    Look in the mirror Otis Brown and speak out loud and clear what the header
    says.

    ''this is the effect of denying scientific proof and thruth"

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

    In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Jan 9, 2006
    #5
    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.