From: Otis Brown

To: Alex

Subject: Message not approved: The Nature of the
(preventive) second-opinion.

Dear Alex,

You are the leader of i-see -- and have that right to
a discussion of the preventive second-opinion.

It is patently obvious that what an OD thinks -- becomes what
he will do. Thus the majority/second opinion assessment on my
part.

For me -- I want to know this -- and WHY people think the way
they do. That tends to be analytical -- on my part.

I realize that (as an engineer) how totally screwed up this
"system" is.

I also realize, from the SCIENTIFIC primate studies that I
induced a negative refractive STATE in my natural eyes by "habits"
that should have been broken in me. But it is too late for that.

But I do look to the future, to people like Steve Leung, and
Alfred, to start an "informational" effort. With Steve simply
offering a DISCUSSION of plus-prevention BEFORE that minus lens
is applied.

And this certainly does fall under the "majority/second
opinion" aegis.

Further, I would have considered it a blessing if my parents
had been induced to "kick" me in every way possible about this
nose-on-toy habit some children develop. Far more important than
than plus-prevention -- that "habit" is a true "killer". But that
is a parent's responsibility -- not the responsibility of an
optometrist.

It is the child himself that ultimately controls his visual
future.

I will keep this semi-private and send it to those "free
spirits" who are challenging "conventional thinking" on the
subject.

I have no "hard feelings" about this. Only because I "wish"
for a better future for our children.

Sincerely,

Otis

+++++++++

----- Original Message -----

From: "Alex Eulenberg"


I consider this beating a dead horse and inviting flames. I
hope you understand. By the way, I am rejecting Judy's posts on
this topic (each misrepresenting what the other thinks) as well.
I don't want to get bogged down in this tit-for-tat my science is
better than your science.

--Alex


From Otis:

I certainly know how "easy" that minus lens is.

You have a person sit in the chair, show a Snellen, see that
he reads 20/60, and the find a -1.5 to -2.0 that will clear the
20/20 line. That takes about 5 minutes. What is wrong with that?

The problem is the verified stair-case myopia that is going
to follow the use of that first-minus.

That is Bates opinion, and must be considered the
second-opinion, while Judy's honest opinion is that:

1. A lens has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STAE OF ANY EYE --
UNDER ANY TEST -- AND NEVER HAPPENS, AND

2. Environment (in diopters) has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE
STATE OF ALL PRIMATE EYES.

That is Judy's majority opinion.

I happen to disagree with her for reasons of DIRECT
scientific test.

But the real "crux point" is not what Judy must say -- but
what a second-opinion optometrist will do FOR HIS OWN CHILDREN.

If you truly want a second-opinion optometrist to help YOU
WITH PREVENTION, then ask him about the effect of a -3 diopter
lens on the fundamental, and natural eye.

If he insists that the natural eye is not a dynamic system,
and that the natural eye WILL NOT CHANGE ITS REFRACTIVE STATE BY
-2 DIOPTERS IN 6 MONTHS -- then I suggest you find a
second-opinion who agrees that the natural eye WILL CHANGE its
refractive STATE from that applied minus.

You do need leadership in this effort. But you must
determine your own "leadership" also.

That is why I juxtapose Judy's majority-opinion against Steve
Leung's second-opinion.

Is Judy "right"? Is Steve "right". The real issue is how
they value their children's distant vision trough the school
years.

If Judy has children, there is no doubt in my mind that she
will put them is a -1.5 "minus" to clear a 20/60 line -- or what
ever is required.

But equally, I know that second-opinion ODs truly doubt the
Donders-Helmoltz "party line", and will endeavor to protect their
kids distant vision by insisting that they START wearing that plus
and soon as the Snellen goes below 20/20, and the refractive STATE
goes negative.

http://www.chinamyopia.org/

These are the issues that a "concerned" parent must
understand BEFORE his child is put into a strong minus.

He should also understand the requirement that his verify
vision-clearing for his own child, when that child starts wearing
a plus.

If he sees his child's Snellen "clear" whilst using the plus
-- then that should be an "encouragement" to continue using the
preventive-plus.

Obviously we can not tell ANYONE what method to follow.

We can only present a "balanced" choice in this matter.

Best,

Otis