The quality of "proof" -- the quality of support for prevention.

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Pure scientific proof versus pseudo-medical proof

RM > I know better than all of you.

When you run experiments yourself concerning the
behavior of the natural eye, and verify that
the refractive state of the natural eye "tracks"
its average visual environment -- then you
have SCIENTIFIC (but not medical) proof.

When a young man, Shawn, starting with 20/60
-1.5 diopters, clears his vision to 20/20, the
it is Shawn who has used a preception of
SCIENTIFIC proof -- to clear his distant vision.

Final proof is that he verified the results
himself -- as any excellent scientist
or engineer would do.

RW's attituted is such that, "if you don't like
the minus lens quick-fix that I provide -- then
you will have to do it youself -- under your
own control. That is RW's real message -- that
comes across loud-and-clear.




Dear Shawn,

Here is a example of:

1. Total arrogance.

2. Complete blindness created by the arrogance.

3. An "in you face" attitude towards those who would
like to honestly work to clear their distant vision
with the plus from 20/60.

After 30 years of seeing the effect of this "attitude", I just give up.

Learning to clear your distant vision -- on your own -- is
the only way that "nearsighedness" can be ever be prevented

Best,



Otis



BadAtt.txt


Dear Prevention Minded Friends,


Subject: Profound "attitude" arrogance of RM and the long-term
destructive effect it must have on the public's vision.


I can deal with experimental data. I can run expermiments
that demonstrate the true behavior of the natural eye (as a
dynamic system).

I can acknowledge that most people have scant interest in
true-prevention at the threshold -- and lack to motivation to do
the work "correctly". But I can not "take" RM who declares the
following:


RM > All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never
help anyone with myopia. If you don't believe it then
that's YOUR PROBLEM. I don't care what any of you say, or
how cogent and reasonable your arguments are. No matter how
many of you there are, or what level of training and
experience you have, I know better than all of you. I will
never listen and I will argue with you until you give up.
Because it's YOUR PROBLEM.

RM > Yours truly, RM, Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat


[Tragically I have the sense that these OD-Boards are staffed
by optometrists who explicitly hold or maintain RM's
point-of-view. Or as a minimum, an OD of this nature on a board
can "black ball" any OD who would seek to "change the system".
OSB]

I guess "our problem" is this man's total, self-imposed
ignorance of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye.

I regret the consequences for everyone who enters his office
and gets that "first" strong minus lens -- and NO DISCUSSION of
the second-opinion. We all owe a person at least a "fighting
chance" at prevention -- even if he turns it down.

While I do not particularly support "Bates", at least he had
the good-heart to discuss alternatives -- as the second opinion.

Here are remarks to "Rishi" who is a Bates-supporter.

____________________


Dear Rishi,

While "Bates", may get "beat-up", at least you and I have the
good grace to maintain a sense of humor about the issues.

When a man is defending a "professional position" you can
expect the type of response we are getting.

Please remember -- there are ODs, MDs and scientists who are
willing to take a major step towards effective PREVENTION.

We can only work towards that "better world", even though it
is difficult.

It is hard to see how a "quick-fix" procedure -- put in place
400 year ago -- could be based on much that is scientific. It can
be based on the fact that is works immediately -- and the public
will reject the preventive alternative at this time.

But let us "calm down" our language, respect each other and
work as democrats (small "d") to achieve a better "preventive"
solution to this world-wide problem.

Best,

Otis

 

(Otis Brown) wrote in @posting.google.com:

Except that those who know better have suggested a mechanism for the result
(assuming the result is even real and verifiable) that blows away the
methodology as an intervention for most forms of myopia. You haven't
addressed this concern, and that is flawed science

Scott

 

Otis,
In case you didn't understand me, I was trying to be sarcastic by making the
below statements (however the case report I presented is true). If you will
go back to your own remarks in your postings at the time that message
appeared you will see that the phrase "YOUR PROBLEM" was what YOU said to
me. I thought if I presented your types of arguments back to you that you
might see the way you were coming off to everyone reading this newsgroup.
Apparently it was lost on you.

Your whole tone in replying to questions that others direct to you is to
simply to avoid them and just blurt out your own rhetoric. For instance, go
back to a post by the lay-person named Ann. She points out your problem of
avoiding direct answers to questions, and in turn your reply to her was some
oblique difficult-to-comprehend blabbing.

Enough.

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

 

"> RW's attituted is such that, "if you don't like

Tell me where is this message is stated, either directly or implied
indirectly? Does this argument add more sympathetic drama to your point of
view? Otis, you poor martyr!

My point to you is simply that your plus-lens prevention fix can indeed work
but only for a subgroup of younger people with accommodative dysfunction.
When I tried over and over again to explain it to you, you avoided direct
replying and kept giving me equations that you seem to believe apply to all
myopes. You do not understand what I say because you do not know the
structure and function of the eye. You quote a study where primates were
vastly overcorrected and then draw conclusions to all human myopes.

And finally I will restate what I said to you the bottom-line issue I have
with this.
What really irks me is that people who propose this kind of
snake-oil fix for vision problems can mislead people. I have had patients
who told me that they heard this kind of voodoo stuff on the radio from Paul
Harvey or bought some cassette tapes after seeing television
advertisements starring Marriet Hartley. I respect your right to think
whatever you want to think. But by blurting out unproven theories
(and in some cases even disproven theories) you are misleading people
and possibly doing some harm to lay-persons reading this newsgroup.

 

Dear Scott,

I did not suggest "intervention" in "myopia" -- except
to state that a person should be informed of the
"preventive" alternative -- before ANY minus lens
was used.

This places responsiblity for a decision on the
pilot himself (assuming a complete tutorial)
on the subject -- when the plus can be
potentially effective. If the pilot
(who is informed of the -1/3 diopter per
year -- average "down" rate at college)
chooses to REJECT the use of the plus -- there
would be no further discussion of PREVENTION.

Shawn is well-aware of this choice by now.
He reports sustained 20/20. He knows that
if he should stop using the plus -- his vision
will start "down" as per these military-college
statistics.

Since he will be personally verifing his eye-chart
20/20 -- the issue is no longer a medical issue.

I think that is the best solution possible for hims,
and other mature pilots who wish to "take over control"
and clear their distant vision the way that Dr. Colgate
did.

This is a scientific issue involving the wise understaning
of ojbective facts about the behavior of all primate
eyes. It is also the "second opinion" if you wish
to make a "medical" statement.

But it does depend completely on the resolve and
motivation of the person who does it successfully.

The scientific facts do not "prevent" prevention -- if
you "see" it that way.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

(Otis Brown) wrote in

But, it's not really an alternative. It's a 'sham' of an alternative.

DrG

 

So are you saying that instead of him wearing a minus lens he now
wears a plus lens? And with the consequent diminished vision at that.
I can't see the point of that.

Ann

 

Dear DrL,

This depends on how the engineer judges objective
science as it concerns the dynamic behavior
of the primate eye (all eyes -- science -- not medicine).

A person (pilot) has a right to examine this
type of data, and decide for himself what
course of action fits is own personal requirements.

That means transfer of control to the person
(in this case "Shawn") to do the work necessary
to change his refractive state by +1.5 diopters.

That is not a "sham". That is scientific honesty
my friend.

Best

Otis

 

Dear RM,

I deeply regret that we can not communicate
effectively about the dynamic nature of the
natural eye FIRST.

It is true that I believe that a person who
previously had 20/20, andi recently reads
the chart at 20/40 or 20/50, could gradually
work his way out of it. This is because
of objective facts concerning the behavior
of the natural primate eye.

This is established by direct "input" versus
"output" testing. This establishes that a
population of natural eyes will move "down"
from the wearing of a minus lens. The same
result is obtained from a step-change in
visual enviroment. You deny this behavior
of the natural eye. The above experiment
could be repeated by a competent experimenter,
thus the requirement for "repeatable consistent
results" is achieved. There can be
no doubt about this essential an fundamental
characteristic of the natural eye.

Since I would supply this information to
an intelligent person with 20/50,
(like a "entering" college student)
and you would deny it -- whe do have
an argument about what constitutes
fundamental scientific truth about
the natural eye's behavior.

Shawn used these objective facts, and
intense motivation with a strong plus
lens to clear his vision.

I believe that students who are older
that he is, would have the "smarts" to
examine the objective facts themselves
and decide the issue. Their
long-term visual future depends
on their judgment -- and not on you.

I they choose to reject the analysis,
and the plus lens, then they can expect
their vision to go down by -1.3 diopters
per year. And indeed that is an
honest choice -- and they should
not complain about the consequence of
their neglect.

Best,

Otis

cc Shawn, and prevention minded pilots
and students-of-science

 

We can do this

OK, now that you are qualifying your statement some then we have some
opportunity for agreement. A person who was 20/20 and very quickly becomes
20/40 or 20/50 is likely not an anatomical myope. This type of person is
likely an accommodative myope. The myopia is caused by inappropriate
contraction of the ciliary muscle. Such a person might develop this
increased muscle tone due to lots of recent near work (e.g. "student
myopia"). Such a person is likely young. The diagnosis can be made by
cycloplegic refraction which involves pharmaceutical agents that paralyze
the ciliary muscle. Yes-- such a person could be treated with plus lenses
and should try to avoid using their minus lenses. However, their distance
blur is real and since they have to function (like drive, etc.) they may, on
a practical basis, need to wear minus lenses to accomplish critical tasks
like getting back and forth to work, see whats going on in school, etc.

This group of people is the MINORITY of myopes that you encounter in the
world. Your technique could work for this subgroup of people but not for
the majority of myopes. You try to extrapolate your case reports and
theories about these people to everybody.

Here you go extrapolating this observation to the entire "population of
natural eyes" again. This is an error in your reasoning that you keep
repeating.

No, this could happen in some patients but not all of them. For examply,
some patients are inadvertently overminused in an eye exam and when you
recheck them it's apparent they are overcorrected and they prefer the lower
prescription (i.e. reduced minus). You are extrapolating your beliefs on
the whole population of myopes again.

I would not deny it. If I find an accommodative myope I inform them they
should wear their minus correction sparingly and consider using plus at
near. There's just not that many of these types of myopes.

Are you saying that all myopes will "go down" (I assume you mean become more
myopic) by -1.3 D per year. No way. Again you are extrapolating your
theory to the whole population.

Otis, get objective. Who has seen more myopes in their careers. The docs
who post in this forum or you.

Here is a question for you that does not involve an understanding of the
anatomy/physiology of the eye- right down your alley. It's been posed
before but you haven't responded---- Why does a young myope (-1.50
to -2.00) who goes around totally uncorrected (meaning they never have used
a minus lens) not revert to emmetropia (or at least less myopia)? These
individuals essentially have a plus optical correction on their natural eye
which they wear 24/7. They have a constant plus blur. This is equivalent
to aggressive plus lens therapy. Why do they not improve and why is it that
they oftentimes become more myopic?


==========

 

But, engineering is not the appropriate discipline to be giving advice on
"prevention." As an engineer, you are free to make judgements concerning
your own health, but you should not be diagnosing and prescribing for
others. Otherwise you are practicing medicine without a license, and I
think you are.

DrG

(Otis Brown) wrote in

 

One can make a point without being so verbose. Do you like to read your
own prose?

DrG


(Otis Brown) wrote in

 

Otis >Shawn is well-aware of this choice by now.
Ann> So are you saying that instead of him wearing a minus lens he now
wears a plus lens?

Otis> What Shawn does is the following.
He monitors his vision and confirms 20/20.
When he sits down to read, or use the computer
he uses a "correct strength" plus lens.
His vision is clear all the time -- for distance,
and clear for near through the plus. The plus
"moves" the near objects out to "infinity", so
it is as though he is living out-doors all the
time.


Ann > And with the consequent diminished vision at that.

Otis> Absolutly NOT. His distant vision is clear -- now
he does not "need" a minus lens. He near
vision is clear through a correct-strength plus lens.
There is no blur at all.

Otis> Sorry you don't understand the issues. But
Shawn does, and that is the only person
concerned with it.


Best,

Otis

 

So he doesn't have perfect vision. He is now long sighted and needs a
plus for reading. Was he always long sighted or is it that he changed
from short to long in the process? If he started out both short and
long sighted I would think he is not at all typical of your everyday
myope who is not long sighted.

Ann

 

OK, now that you are qualifying your statement some then we have some

Dear sir,
there is much hope even for real myopic people.

When I see my clients who have perfect sight clear flashes, or more
than flashes, there is no doubt that their eyes return in the normal
emmetropic shape.

There is no doubt at all.

Mostly this happens in the beginning in the outdoor light of the sun.

But lately it happens indoors, with the eyechart illumined by a good
light.

When you work with -9 or -11 myopic people, and they have discarded
glasses and get well without them and then on the eyechart they read
half the chart with no effort or trouble, what do you say?

What is your comment of these cases?

Simply saying that these do not exist or are just make-ups, is not a
scientific answer.


But you talking about accomodative myopia is fraudolent, because you
DO NOT TREAT that kind of myopia by inducing a sense of rest from the
accomodative strain: you SELL GLASSES, in the hope of inducing more
strain and the inception of NON accomodative myopia, when the eye
really starts to elongate definitely, and the poor patient starts to
wear stronger glasses (and you SELL them).

What to do?

The world is such a dirty thing, as you professionals have devised it
to be, that the sense of vomit is really very hard and painful.



Intelligent readers may find useful my webpage on the true cure of
imperfect sight: http://TheCentralFixation.com

 

Dear RM,

Subject: PREVENTION of a negative refractive
state at the 20/40 (-1/2 diopter) level.

As you probably know, most 5 year-olds have
a positive refractive state -- of some degree,
and 20/20.

Most "myopes" enter nearsighedness by having
their refractive state move from a positive
value to a negative value.

I stipulate that an a highly motivated
pilot, who has just entered into nearsightedness
could clear his vision bact to a positive
value -- IF HE HAD THE MOTIVATION FOR IT.

I sounds like you are inclined to agree with
me on that point. The only requirement I would
have is that the PERSON be fully informed
of the standard "down" rate of -1/3 diopter per year,
or -1.3 dioters in four years. (Typo in
my post below. The "down" rate for children
is -1/2 diopter per year -- average of the
bi-focal studies -- of the single-minus group)

If it can not be "prevented" at the 20/40,
with the pilot IN CONTROL, then it can not
be preveted at all.

If you would use a scientific (not medical) protocol
then I believe a successful PREVENTIVE effort
could be conducted with a highly educated
engineer -- provided he gets the type of
scientific support he needs -- and makes
ALL THE MEASUREMENTS HIMSELF -- UNDER HIS OWN
CONTROL.

I believe that will work -- and will make
a personal commitment to work with that type
of person.

I will reply in later and in greater detail in a separate
post.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

www.myopiafree.com

 

Actually, 20/40 is more in the range of -0.75 to -1.00 range

No, usually 5 year olds are not 20/20. More likely in the range of 20/40 -
20/25.

Yes, as stated above most children are born farsighted and change from
there.

No Otis-- I am NOT inclined to agree to that. Only a highly motivated
ACCOMMODATIVE MYOPE stands any chance of reverting to 20/20 without any kind
of correction. The doctors keep stating this over and over to you.
Accommodative myopes, whose myopia is due to increased ciliary muscle tone,
can indeed revert if their ciliary muscle relaxes. And this can be done
using plus lens treatment. However, most myopes are NOT accommodative
myopes. As proof of this, when you paralyze their ciliary muscle forcing it
to relax, then they still remain myopic.

The majority of myopes are anatomical myopes who will not respond to
therapies aimed at relaxing their ciliary muscle (like plus lenses).

You keep trying to state that the entire population of myopes, or even
"highly-motivated pilot" myopes are all the same and are all treatable with
plus lenses. You are way overstating your point. Just because you have
seen a few accommodative myopes and you know that they can respond does not
mean that the whole population of them will. You are making the same
mistakes that older optometrists did decades ago-- it was tried and it
doesn't work!

OK-- so you admit that some of your group of myopes cannot be reverted to
emmetropia with plus lenses. I agree with you there. In fact most of them
cannot. They will need minus lenses to be able to see 20/20.

P.S.-- and when you reply please address this still unanswered questions
that was originally put to you by MT and restated by me twice:

Why does a young myope (-1.50 to -2.00) who goes around totally uncorrected
(meaning they never have used
a minus lens) not revert to emmetropia (or at least less myopia)? These
individuals essentially have a plus optical correction on their natural eye
which they wear 24/7. They have a constant plus blur. This is equivalent
to aggressive plus lens therapy. Why do they not improve and why is it
that
they oftentimes become more myopic?

 

Dear RM,

Subject: Profound disagreement about the need for
prevention -- and who can and should
be in "control".

Obviously we diagree in a profound an fundamental
way about the inherent behavior of the natural
eye.

It is clear that an "empowered" pilot, who
PREVIOUSLY had 20/20, has a good chance
of clearing his distant back to 20/20
UNDER HIS OWN CONTROL.

It is also clear that you do not wish
to be involved in this type of
engineering-scientific work -- and
no power on earth can force you to
be involved.

That is why there is a "seond opinion" in
your profession -- even though you ignore
it.

It is also why a "preventive" effor
will have to be run under scientific
(not medical) protocols).

You have made this situation very
clear to all of us.

I will forward your commentary to
those MOTIVATED pilot who are interested
in keeping their distant vision clear -- through
the school years.

Thanks for your commentary.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

cc: Shawn and others interested in true-prevention.

 

Dear Mike,

That fact that you teach yourself the method of the
minus lens -- does not surprise me.

Most people only "want" a quick fix anyway, and it
is not your job to "discuss" alternatives -- why
should you, the quick-fix works, and any one
who says anything "different" must be "wrong"
by your definition.

Fortunately I have friends in optometry. They tell
me a different story. That is called the SECOND OPINION,
because medicine (if that is what you are doing)
is never a "finished" business, and alternative
judgments do exist concerning the dynamic behavior
of the fundamental eye.

But obviously, at this point, if a person wishes
to avoid nearsighedness, he must learn to
use the plus (under his own control) and actually
review the safety of the minus lens.

If he learns enough (as Shawn did), and works systematically
with the plus, then he can clear his vision to the
required legal standard -- and keep it there.

But you -- by your definition -- can NEVER be part
of that process.

But some ODs (who will change this "system") do support
a person's right-of-choice, as Steve Leung OD does.

www.chinamyopia.org


Best,

Otis
Engineer