Vision - @@@ OTIS BROWN WARNING @@@

Author

@@@ OTIS BROWN WARNING @@@

Neil Brooks

2005-09-30, 1:12 pm

Dear Reader,

Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
(otisbrown@pa.net) writes, I invite you to review all of his previous
posts.

Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy,
but there IS plenty that proves him wrong.

Otis gets the basis of his warped, disproved ideas from concepts
written a century ago and one study done on CHICKENS!

Any of you folks chickens ?

Otis Brown is more than simply bizarre. He's wrong. See the weekly
(Mondays) "welcome to sci.med.vision" for information on how to
block his ramblings.

If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof
of the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression
of myopia in humans then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so
only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist.

"Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted
within the "scientific method" explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Otis's posts can be reviewed at:

http://snipurl.com/e77s
http://snipurl.com/fe3d

The results of clinical trials of using plus lens therapy to prevent
the progression of myopia can be found at (hint: it did not work):

http://snipurl.com/fij0

http://snipurl.com/fimq

http://snipurl.com/fimr

The details of a proper, controlled test have been proposed and can be
reviewed at the following site, beginning with Page 40, Section 7(A)
and continuing through Page 42:

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/40.html

The remainder of this text
(http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html) provides significant
information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory.
Much, in fact, directly contradicts it.

otisbrown@pa.net

2005-09-30, 1:12 pm

Dear Reader,

Subject: Keep an open mind about the OBJECTIVE FACTS
concerning the PROVEN dynamic behavior of the eye.

The subject of SCIENCE is part of this discussion.

Science means repeatable objective facts.

I have just posted facts proving that the natural eye
is dynamic (see differential testing) if you
have a "mathematical mind", and are willing to
think for yourself.

Neil has his "opinion" which he expresses forcefully.

But he never presents any objective facts to support it.

It is true that prevention is difficult, and takes
a "will" to do it. But others have done it.

The mindless "lock-step" is clear from the statistics
published in China. If you wish have your children
become part of this lock-step process -- then be
my guest. Do it.

But if you are prepared to recognize the need for
fundamental change, then recognized that you can
not "lead" a person -- until that person learns
leadership for himself.

You should understand that none of this is
cut-and-dried, but rather, times and methods
do change. So why not read the "second opnion"
by Steve Leung OD, and give you kids a break.

www.chinamyopia.org

Just remember, there are some intellectually
stunted people on sci.med.vision -- who
haven't a clue.

Best,

Otis

Dr. Leukoma

2005-09-30, 1:12 pm

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

>
> Just remember, there are some intellectually
> stunted people on sci.med.vision -- who
> haven't a clue.

Just what I was thinking.

By the way, you apparently have not figured out how to do a search on
PubMed yet, becuase you still haven't found the study about how Alaskan
Eskimos become more hyperopic with age, and that 70 percent of Alaskan
Eskimos over the age of 80 are hyperopic.

In fact, I don't think you've ready any studies published since the
1970's.

Is that what you meant by being intellectually stunted?

DrG

otisbrown@pa.net

2005-09-30, 1:12 pm

Dear DrG,

Apparently you go intellectually blind to all posts
on sci.med.vision.

The posts on "stair-case" myopia produced by
an over-prescribed minus are on sci.med.vision
and have dates AFTER 1970.

But then you choose to ignore ALL SCIENTIFC
FACTS YOU DON'T LIKE.

Sounds like systematic bias to me.

Best,

Otis

LarryDoc

2005-09-30, 1:12 pm

In article <1128102482.802625.95970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote:

Sorry, Otis. We've already proved that you are a nut-case, a single
minded zealot with an agenda. An agenda based on century-old drivel long
since disproved. Once in a while you dig up something more recent, like
from a few decades ago, but likewise useless and easily disproved. Once
in a while you come up with something that might make some sense---and
then we show you how it actually disproves your theory.

Three years of daily posting of the same garbage that has been carefully
and scientifically shown to you to be nonsense and you don't give up.

I think that qualifies you as a nut-case, if not a moron.

Neil Brooks

2005-09-30, 1:12 pm

LarryDoc <larrybic@yahoo.remove.com> wrote:

>In article <1128102482.802625.95970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> "otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote:
>
>Sorry, Otis. We've already proved that you are a nut-case, a single
>minded zealot with an agenda. An agenda based on century-old drivel long
>since disproved. Once in a while you dig up something more recent, like
>from a few decades ago, but likewise useless and easily disproved. Once
>in a while you come up with something that might make some sense---and
>then we show you how it actually disproves your theory.
>
>Three years of daily posting of the same garbage that has been carefully
>and scientifically shown to you to be nonsense and you don't give up.
>
>I think that qualifies you as a nut-case, if not a moron.

Larry,

Please remember that those two are--clearly, in this case--not
mutually exclusive.

Neil

Dr. Leukoma

2005-09-30, 9:52 pm

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

>
> The posts on "stair-case" myopia produced by
> an over-prescribed minus are on sci.med.vision
> and have dates AFTER 1970.

Well, HELLO. They were all posted by you.

You've just proven Neil to be correct.

DrG

Mike Tyner

2005-09-30, 9:52 pm

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

> The posts on "stair-case" myopia produced by
> an over-prescribed minus are on sci.med.vision
> and have dates AFTER 1970.

Where are the published comparisons between myopes who wear glasses versus
those who don't?

> But then you choose to ignore ALL SCIENTIFC
> FACTS YOU DON'T LIKE.

I'd LOVE to publish a study showing that myopes who wear glasses get myopic
faster.

D'ya think it's ever been tried?

> Sounds like systematic bias to me.

As if you'd ever entertained a competing thought....

-MT

Robert Kopp

2005-09-30, 9:52 pm

"Neil Brooks" <Neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9kqj1p0la8vu81cccs4lruf356o6frbaa@4ax.com...
> Dear Reader,
>
> Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
> (otisbrown@pa.net) writes, I invite you to review all of his previous
> posts.

His interest seems to be directed mainly or entirely to low myopes (or those
who are worried about becoming such) with no medical eye problems. For this
reason, they would probably be of little interest to most in this group
anyhow.

aaaJoe

2005-09-30, 9:52 pm

Sorry - but Otis's opinions completely correlate with my experience.
And lots of others.
But I've got to commend you on your literary ability. Very humourous
choice of words. You write with the authority of a lawyer. I'm sure
your post cracked up a lot of people, whether they agree or not with
poor ol' Otis.

Sorry, Otis. We've already proved that you are a nut-case, a single
minded zealot with an agenda. An agenda based on century-old drivel
long since disproved. Once in a while you dig up something more
recent, like from a few decades ago, but likewise useless and easily
disproved. Once in a while you come up with something that might make
some sense---and then we show you how it actually disproves your theory.
>
> Three years of daily posting of the same garbage that has been
> carefully and scientifically shown to you to be nonsense and you don't
> give up.
>
> I think that qualifies you as a nut-case, if not a moron.
>

aaaJoe

2005-09-30, 9:52 pm

>> Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
>
> His interest seems to be directed mainly or entirely to low myopes (or
> those who are worried about becoming such) with no medical eye
> problems. For this reason, they would probably be of little interest to
> most in this group anyhow.
>
That's a very good point. Otis you should mention that right in the
beginning of your posts. There are an awful lot of people that are
worse than -2 and would find it very restrictive doing much without
correction.

otisbrown@pa.net

2005-09-30, 9:52 pm

Dear Trip-a Joe,

Subject: Prevention at the threshold -- avoid stair-case myiopa.

>From long experience of interviewing optometrists (prevention minded)
it was
clear that effective prevention was difficult -- and the person himself
would have to make a decision about "taking control" and using the plus
agressively and successfully. The goal is to "stop it" before you get
too deep into it.

Robert Kopp is correct -- that I am interested in helping the person
(on the threshold) understand these various issues, an ultimately
sufficently motivated to use the plus agressively (checking his own eye
chart) and clearing his vision by that process.

Obviously I believe (from the direct experimental data) that the
natural eye will go "down" when you place a minus lens on it. (As a
NATURAL PROCESS not a "defective" process".)

So I do set a limit on what I believe can be "effective" for the person
-- i.e., start using the plus before you begin wearing the minus --
with a great deal of responsibility and "control" transferred to the
person to do it "right".

I have developed a "preventive" site:

www.myopiafree.com

to provide assistance to the optometrist who wishes to "suggest"
prevetion to the parents whose children are at
that threshold.

www.chinamyopia.org

I obviously believe that the parents should understand that this is an
"either-or" choice, and a "second-opinion".

I also believe that an optometrist is completely empowered to practice
BOTH methods, and that the preventive method can only be effective if
the parents understand it -- and support it.

Clearly the "statistics" suggest that the combination of a "near"
environment, made "nearer" by a minus lens, is creating massive
stair-case myopia for these Chinese. But when you talk to them they
always think that "someone else should do something".

But equally I understand the "position" of these ODs. Most people ONLY
want there vision made very-sharp with an excessively strong minus lens
-- and would be "upset" if the ODs stated that there were "risks" to
wearing an excessive minus -- all the time.

But as always, enjoy our thoughtful analysis of the eye's behavior
concerning prevention.

Best,

Otis

otisbrown@pa.net

2005-09-30, 9:52 pm

Dear Robert,

A fair comment.

This issue might also be of interest to parents who are seriously
myopic, who MIGHT be interested in a preventive method
offered by an optometrist who has his own children
systematically wearing the plus for all close work -- to
help them avoid getting into it.

But you never know. Some parents are concerned with
prevention -- others have no interest.

But at least they should have enought knowledge to
understand "prevention" as the second-opinion.

That way when there kids get stair-case myopia
(i.e., -1/2 dipoter per year) they will be under
no illusions about who was responsible.

Best,

Otis

Dr. Leukoma

2005-10-01, 8:35 am

otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

> Robert Kopp is correct -- that I am interested in helping the person
> (on the threshold) understand these various issues, an ultimately
> sufficently motivated to use the plus agressively (checking his own eye
> chart) and clearing his vision by that process.
>

It seems more to me that you are on a rather single-minded mission
rummaging through the garbage dumpster of discarded and failed ideas to
find a scapegoat for your own myopic genes.

DrG

Ann

2005-10-01, 8:35 am

On 30 Sep 2005 08:41:12 -0700, "otisbrown@pa.net" <otisbrown@pa.net>
wrote:

>
>Dear Reader,
>
>Subject: Keep an open mind about the OBJECTIVE FACTS
>concerning the PROVEN dynamic behavior of the eye.

This is what your pal Fred Deakins has to say

"Remember that my system uses the power of leverage to improve your
eyesight naturally, similar to using weights at the gym. Can you
imagine working out at the gym and not using weights? Certainly you
would improve your strength and tone, but I think you'd agree that
your results would be significantly less than if you had used weights
in your workouts."

I love the image.. ROFL.

Ann