The Oakley-Young Study versus the Shotwell Study

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Dec 26, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, Dec 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    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
     
    A Lieberman, Dec 26, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.
     
    William Stacy, Dec 26, 2005
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    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.
     
    p.clarkii, Dec 26, 2005
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    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
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 26, 2005
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    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
     
    CatmanX, Dec 27, 2005
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    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.

    ========
     
    RM, Dec 27, 2005
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    ROFLMAO

    cheers RM

    dr grant
     
    CatmanX, Dec 27, 2005
    #8
  9. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, Dec 27, 2005
    #9
  10. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    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
     
    CatmanX, Dec 27, 2005
    #10
  11. 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.
     
    William Stacy, Dec 27, 2005
    #11
  12. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    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, Dec 27, 2005
    #12
  13. 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/
     
    William Stacy, Dec 27, 2005
    #13
  14. 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.
     
    William Stacy, Dec 27, 2005
    #14
  15. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    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
     
    otisbrown, Dec 27, 2005
    #15
  16. "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.
     
    William Stacy, Dec 27, 2005
    #16
  17. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest


    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.
     
    Dan Abel, Dec 27, 2005
    #17
  18. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    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
     
    CatmanX, Dec 27, 2005
    #18
  19. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    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
     
    CatmanX, Dec 27, 2005
    #19
  20. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

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

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 27, 2005
    #20
    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.