The Oakley-Young Study versus the Shotwell Study

Donald Rehm is the author of "The Myopia Myth" and
has extensive knowlege of the "preventive" concept.

The Oakley Young study proved that a plus could PREVENT
nearsighedness (at the zero diopter stage). The "minus" group
went "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year (over 4 years
of the study.) This SUGGESTS that people who learn
to use the plus at the threshold -- can keep their
distant vision "clear" through the school years.

But it obviously takes a lot of personal motivaiton
and understanding to do this work effectively.

Here is the comparison between these two
studies.

Enjoy!

Otis

______________


Dear Don,

Subject: The competency of Francis Young.

Re: The Oakley-Young study versus the Shotwell study.

I have all the publications of Francis Young -- that he sent
me.

Only by long experience did I fully respect that ability. He
should receive a "life time achievement" award -- even from the
people who do not "like" his work.

What Francis did for his bi-focal study was to
"under-prescribe" by about 1/2 diopter (20/40), and use a +1.5
diopter lens. For a "blind study" I think he got "true
compliance".

Under the difficult "blind study" conditions he basically
PROVED that you could prevent the development of a negative
refractive state by use of a strong plus on the threshold.

After this study, these "blind" ODs have been attempting to
DIS-PROVE what Francis and Oakley proved. However the real
implication is that true-prevention must be done BEFORE the eye
gets beyond 20/70, and tragically, most people only want the
"minus" at that point.

With this understood, here is my commentary on the "Shotwell"
study.

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

From: "Don"

To: "Otis Brown"

Subject: Re: Would you like a copy of the "Shotwell" report?

Date: Sunday, December 25, 2005 3:38 PM

Otis.

Don > Report arrived. The most amazing thing about this is he
says at the bottom of p 114 that he would like to use +2.5
add but this power is difficult for the subject.

Otis> That SUGGESTS the need for a thorough discussion of WHY the
stronger +2.5 diopter lens must be used. Without that
honest discussion about the PURPOSE of the study -- all
honest effort is "lost".

Don > So they used +1.5 add. What about all the people who buy +3
lenses from the drug store.

Otis> If the person himself realizes the to keep his distant
vision through four years of college -- and keeps up the
effort -- then the results could be profoundly different.

Don > Are they having difficulty? And as you have pointed out,
what good is +1.5 going to do when the kid puts his nose in
the book and isn't told otherwise?

Otis> That is EXACTLY the issue. These OD never attempt an
intelligent conversation with the "public" that walks in off
the street. They can argue that they "don't have the time".
But then who does have the time?

Don > This is not the way to prevent a ciliary spasm.

Otis> Right! If you want FULL EFFECTIVENESS you must completely
end the near environment. And that does require a +2 to +2.5
diopter plus lens -- to be under the complete control of the
person who wishes to keep his distant vision clear through
the college years.

Don > And speaking of ciliary spasm, it seems logical to me that
cycloplegics, as used in this study or in routine exams, do
not eliminate the spasm unless the drops are used daily for
days or weeks.

Otis> I think this "cycloplegia" is just a crock -- to hide the
deeper issue. I hate the stuff. It gives me headaches and
is not necessary.

Don > So what purpose do they serve?

Otis> For prevention, or "prescription" absolutely no purpose at
all. If you wish to examine the retina, then it is of value
to "open up" the aperture -- but that has nothing to do with
"prevention" or anything else.


Don -----

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

Subject: Re: Would you like a copy of the
"Shotwell" report?


Dear Don,

I will Xerox a copy and send it to you PA address.

The "funny" part of this issue is that the study was not
conducted a THE Naval Academy (at Annapolis!)

Thus they lend a "false" idea in the very title of the
document! And I do object to that kind of flim-flam. I believe
the study was conducted at Kings Point at the Merchant Marine
Academy.

The reason I know this is because Karel Montor and myself
were attempting to get a "preventive" study started at the
Annapolis Naval Academy, and David Guyton sent me this Shotwell
"Naval Academy" report!

In any event these majority-opinion ODs are indeed very
slippery with their "blind studies". But they have "total
control" of this situation -- and "control" it to their own
professional advantage.

At least a few ODs like Steve Leung wake up to it.

Best,

Otis

 

Dear vision prevention friends.

It appears that Otis is giving medical advice above.

Please disregard his postings as he is not in the medical profession and
not in any position to give medical advice.

Thank you!

Allen

 

Someone should tell Otis that his symptoms may indicate a serious
condition. Headache immediately after cycloplegia can indicate a
serious spike in IOP on pupil dilation, and pressures must be measured
during the headache to rule out a secondary glaucoma attack or even a
previously undetected glaucoma.

He may ignore any warnings on this, since he thinks the procedure is a
crock (even though it is well accepted by 99.99% of all ophthalmologists
and optometrists), but he does so to his own peril. If he can and does
find that .01% nutcase who agrees with him, oh well, I hope the guy's
malpractice insurance is paid up...

w.stacy, o.d.

 

your stupid posting is not even close to a comparison of these two
studies. its just a dialogue between a couple of untrained amateur
vision-improvement stooges. your entire discussion centers on whether
the reading add is appropriate or inappropriate. how would you know?
then you add some ridiculous comment about the study trying to mislead
people because it wasn't done at Annapolis.

take it from someone with training in optometry and physiological
optics- Shotwell is a credible scientist who advocated myopia
prevention and sought to investigate possible methods for it.
however, unlike you, he was objective in his approach and reported the
data as he got it and soon abandoned the "plus lens" approach because
it DOESN'T WORK.

while you and your brain surgeon friend are criticizing other's
research reports, chew on this one too. just keep you ridiculous
comments to yourselves. for some reason you seem to think we really
care about what kind of thought processes go through your pathetic
little pea-brains.

----------

The Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study: Study Design and
Main Findings
Marion Hastings Edwards, Roger Wing-hong Li, Carly Siu-yin Lam, John
Kwok-fai Lew and Bibianna Sin-ying Yu; Investigative Ophthalmology and
Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858.

University, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

Abstract:
PURPOSE. To determine whether the use of progressive addition spectacle
lenses reduced the progression of myopia, over a 2-year period, in Hong
Kong children between the ages of 7 and 10.5 years.

METHODS. A clinical trial was carried out to compare the progression in
myopia in a treatment group of 138 (121 retained) subjects wearing
progressive lenses (PAL; add +1.50 D) and in a control group of 160
(133 retained) subjects wearing single vision lenses (SV). The research
design was masked with random allocation to groups. Primary
measurements outcomes were spherical equivalent refractive error and
axial length (both measured using a cycloplegic agent).

RESULTS. There were no statistically significant differences between
the PAL and the SV groups for of any of the baseline outcome measures.
After 2 years there had been statistically significant increases in
myopia and axial length in both groups; however, there was no
difference in the increases that occurred between the two groups.

 

The Oakley-Young bifocal study was done not on a random sample of
myopes, but on a selected group of myopes who had nearpoint esophoria.
In other words, they had an accommodative/convergence problem for which
bifocals are often indicated. Most myopes do not have nearpoint
esophoria.

Of course, Otis really doesn't know enough visual science to know the
difference, and so continues to promote the study as "proof" that
myopia can be prevented.

DrG

 

You are really dumb.

Have you actually read the study? The results were that myopia was
reduced by 50% in ESOPHORIC MYOPES. There was no mention of stopping
myopia, halting regression or reversal of myopia, which are 3 things
you constantly allude to.

The only myth your friend Don knows about is the myth he knows anything
about myopia.

WHy don't you read up on Roy Rengstorf? His research showed regression
of myopia in his test subjects. Young never achieved this.

dr grant

 

Dear Dumbass,

The Young study is not comparable to the Shotwell study. You and your
amateur buddy are such fools that its laughable. Bifocals indeed do slow
myopia progression in nearpoint esophores. Do you know what nearpoint
esophores are Otis? Why don't you and your buddy discuss it and post the
conversation. I need a late-night laugh before I go to bed.

========

 

ROFLMAO

cheers RM

dr grant

 

Dear majority-opinion ODs,

So you call anyone who does not agree with you "dumb-ass"?

This must include other ODs who have successfuly
cleared off -3 diopters of myopia uinder their
own intensive work.

No, my friends, the second-opinion ODs have it
correctly -- nearsighedgness is preventable -- certainly -- because
Orfield cleared her vision by dint of her hard
scientific work.

See:

http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html

It would be nice if you leaned at least a little
about this second-opinion. Your clients might
like to hear about it.

But, as usual, hell will freeze over before you develop
that kind of open-mind.

Best,

Otis

 

Interestingly enough, she exhibits all the characteristics of an anal
retentive, which is exactly the sort of person that this will work for.
She was not a true myope as she had accommodative spasm, not axial
elongation. Also, it took 14 years to resolve. That IS anal
retentiveness.

Sorry Otis, you still haven't convinced anyone of anything.

dr grant

 

I agree. She's a fake with etherial credentials and a penchant for the
fantastic. A cursory search reveals that she is NOT on staff at Harvard
tho' it looks like she might have married a Harvard man who gives her
some credit where it isn't due...

w.stacy, o.d.

 

WTF is a second opinion OD?

Is it one that can't make up their mind about something and gives two
opinions?

Orfield works at Harvard Uni Health Services so she is not on the
university staff, she works as an optometrist in their eye clinic.
http://www.covd.org/membersearch.asp type the surname and see her
practice addresses.

This is not a scientist, this is a pseudomyope that has been
incorrectly prescribed for from a young age.

dr grant

 

CatmanX wrote:

Are you sure? I couldn't even find an eye clinic or anything vision
related there or any mention of her name on their staff. Try looking
around at

http://huhs.harvard.edu/

 

and if you go here:

http://www.optometrists.org/therapists_teachers/Harvard_study_literacy.html

you'll see where her old man tries to help her out, and she gets credit
for working at the:

"Harvard University Health Services Eye Clinic"

which if you paste to google, you get referred back only to her own
self-serving trash. It doesn't even exist, which I why I called her
credentials "etherial".

Will we ever be rid of these snake oil salespersons???

w.stacy, o.d.

 

Dear Grant,

DrGrant> WTF is a second opinion OD?

You claim to be "medical" and you
do not understand the concept
of the "second-opinion".

Where exactly did you get
your degree???

Otis

 

"second opinion" = consulting a first rate expert on the
advice/treatment received from another in the field of the expert.

"second opinion OD" = a second rate o.d. who disagrees with mainstream
optometry, ophthalmology, and ophthalmic scientists

w.stacy, o.d.

 

I'm really confused here. I have no clue what "nearpoint esophoria" is.
I don't really care, either, since I am no longer myopic.

Still, if a bifocal can prevent myopia, then perhaps Otis isn't quite
lying, it just needs to be qualified that it doesn't work for most
people.

Of course, that isn't what Otis is claiming, so he needs to be called on
this.

 

Hey Cletis,

which degree did you want to know about?

2 from Melbourne Uni, ranked in the top 20 universitirs in the worls,
another from UNSW. Also a few fellowsjhips, and another half dozen post
graduate courses. Specialist in contact lenses, paediatric and
behavioural optometry, certification in sports optometry and
therapeutics, senior optometrist at the Sydney Olympics and 2 Special
Olympics just for starters.

Where were your degrees from again?

dr grant

 

Actually, I do know what it is, but you obviously don't.

You claim that if we see one of your second opinion OD's then they are
right and whoever they saw originally were wrong.

The reason these people stand on the outside of the profession is that
they have no valid basis for what they are doing. If they did, they
would be the mainstream ones.

dr grant

 

....who seeks monetary gain by offering alternative treatments/cures
while exploiting the fears of the gullible.

DrG