| otisbrown@pa.net 2006-02-27, 11:01 am |
| Dear RT,
Subject: Both of us are have strong opinions.
Re: I see myself has having your son's "habit"
Re: No "criticism" is intended -- just a desire
to learn how to "accept" preventive measures".
Re: Others, like Yan, are willing to accept
support from second-opinion preventive minded ODs.
Some more commentary:
Do you really think that prevention isn't the first thought of every
parent the moment they realize their child is myopic? In fact, LONG
before I had ever heard of you I was consulting DOCTORS about
prevention. In fact there is a DOCTOR who has pediatric patients on
this
list with whom I corresponded before I ever read this NG. Despite our
penchant for engaging in debate, I respect his medical opinion and
experience and truly appreciate his medical advice.
Otis> And I do also. I also appreciate that kids do not want
"interference" like having their nose PRYED off that book. (I WILL
PLEAD GUILTY TO THAT SIN PERSONALLY. Some one should have kicked me
very hard on that issue. That is very critical. Tragically, there is
this "assumption" that there is no relationship beween "environment"
and refractive state of all natural eye. It is a "failed" assumption.)
I KNOW how
difficult it is to get a child to MODIFY his behavior in this manner.
We are having an HONEST DISCUSSION of this issue -- and we BOTH feel
strongly about it. It does not make either of us "wrong" to hold these
contratdictory judgments.
I wonder if you read what I write.
Otis> I do! I had your child's "bad" habit. In my opinion (based
on the primate studies) I induced a slight negative refractive state in
my natural eyes. I should have had my XXX kicked, or my head swatted
EVERYTIME I PULLED MY EYES CLOSER THAN 20 inches. As an engineer, with
exhaustive review of the proven behavior of all natural primate eyes --
I do reach that conclusion. That is indeed the second opinion, but is
becomes a parents choice to implement the preventive methods. I know
"kids" and how stubborn they are about this. And I hold NO ONE
responsible for the consequences.
Otis> But I do believe these issues must be understood before that
first minus is appled.
But that is just one man's (second) opinion.
RT> You and Aceman have the same reading
comprehension problems.
Otis> Aceman can speak for himself. I pay assidious
attention to the proven dynamic behavior of the
natural eye -- as a matter of engineering analysis.
Otis> I have no problem with a person who
chucks all primate data out the window, and
chooses the minus lens. He just should
NEVER complain about the expected
consequences. When the do, my comment
will be that you made your "bed",
now lie in it. I attempted to help
you undrstand the second-opinion
(as expressed by Steve Leung OD)
and you rejected it. Now do not
complain about the consequences.
RT> No wonder you get along.
Otis> Ace, and your child had the right
of "informed choice" at the threshold.
This could be stated for what it is -- the
second-opinion. Even as you "trash" what
I present, I still say you have that right.
Best,
Otis
--
~RT
|