Dear Keith,

Subject: The "second opinion" on prevention.

Re: Some "conversations" with the "majority opinion" ODs on
sci.med.vision

Re: The incredible denials by the "conventional" ODs on
sci.med.vision -- and why.

Re: The future -- watching and protecting your children.

It was clear to me from talking to Raphaelson (when you were
4) that effective "prevention" could not be delivered to a person
-- in 20 minutes in an office. I think that both DEFINES
optometry -- and limits it profoundly.

From long experience (now) I know that they will take a child
(with 20/40 vision, legal to fly a plane in the USA airspace) and
PRESCRIBE a -2.0 diopter lens. The is a gross over-prescription.
Yet few "find out" about this very bad "habit". This is why I
suggest you check you kid's eye chart. There are those who think
"I can't do that -- that's medical". This is false. In some
ways, this is like finding out how much you weigh. Just a
rational check.

Here is some response of some ODs. This is to "warn" you of
both there arrogance, and their over-prescription policy, and the
fatal effect it has on the eye.

I realize how difficult it is to "stay motivated" to do your
own "preventive" work -- but after reading this, I think you have
little choice.

I prefer direct-science. i.e., my and your direct-testing.
This is the real importance of science (thinking, reviewing, being
objective, being decisive) and optometry, that must deal with the
great mass of ignorant, none motivated people walking in "off the
street".

If the ODs stated that they have only ONE method of dealing
with the public in 20 minutes I would agree with them. If they
insist that I deal with this great "un-washed", I would agree that
I could do nothing.

But when it comes to reason, logic and science, then the
facts do become clear. They are as I state them. In no sense can
effective prevention ever be reduced to "something" you do with a
person in 20 minutes. The "rub" comes when these ODs think that
they are "Gods", and "scientists".

Eventually you will deal with this issue -- as will your
children.

I have no problem with an OD exam -- broken into a MEDICAL
part (detached retina, and anything of that nature.) I think that
should be clearly spelled out to you. But if, by your own
checking, you find your child is at 20/40, and you are give a -2.0
diopter (or greater) prescription then look out.

Success favors a prepared mind. You have gone through this
"preventive" process -- and so you know what it takes. Very few
people have been able to do this. I fact, by my accounting, only
about 20 in this world have been able to grasp the concept -- and
make it work!

Here is the discussion. Life is short -- so for some of us,
we must "enjoy it" but also "stand and fight" where we think that
we are working to "protect" each other.

Neil Books is a "layman" at about +6 diopters. He has taken
on the job of "defending the faith", i.e., "protecting the public"
against what is not the "preventive" second opinion. In this life
you will run into this type of person.

That is why the understanding the objective facts concerning
the behavior of the fundamental eye are so important.

Love,

Otie

___________________________________


Dear Prevention minded friends,

There are many in the medical profession who recognize the
need for change -- new ideas, better review of the experimental
data.

We all recognize that a great many people perhaps prefer an
instant "fix" with a lens -- that might have a secondary problem
with it.

Neil Brooks is an unusual person in a number of ways:

1. He his a chauvinist for the "majority opinion".

2. He is acting more like a "defender of the faith" than a
"thinking, rational person".

3. His knowledge of fundamental scientific facts, that RESPECTS
the natural eye's proven behavior -- is a complete failure.

It is true that you can not "reduce" an accurate
understanding of the natural eye's behavior -- into a "quick-fix"
for the general public walking in off the street. That is what
optometry must do. (That is the medical approach.) But a person
who is not "caught up" in this tradition of the last 400 years,
MIGHT be able to understand and perhaps USE the preventive method
on their own children -- before the situation gets out-of-hand.

There are many in the OD profession who will argue that the
"public" lacks the understanding of these issues, or that the lack
the time to discuss these issues with you -- for the benefit of
your own children.

But then, this would be the "scientific" place to entertain
this preventive idea for your own children. This does take time,
and your thoughtful review might encourage you to consider the
preventive method if offered to you by a "prevention minded" OD
like Steve Leung OD.

NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER -- YET.

Therefore your wise review of the objective facts as then
concern the natural eye's response to:

1. The average visual environment, and

2. An applied mild minus lens, would be a wise "starting-point"
for a discussion of true prevention.

Again, as stated by a number of OD, this would be a wise
step.

This is a learning experience for your -- which Neil Brooks
would deny, because he is a "slave" to the traditional method.
and practice.

Take Mr. Brooks touching beliefs for what they are worth.

Best,


Otis

________________________

3. Mike Tyner Sep 26, 1:30 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision From: "Mike Tyner"

Subject: Re: ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

<otisbr...@...> wrote

Otis> There are many in the medical profession who recognize the
need for change -- new ideas, better review of the
experimental data.

That's why optometrists quit using plus to control myopia.

-MT

_____________________

4. otisbrown@... Sep 26, 4:46 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision From: "otisbr...@..."

Subject: Re: ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

Dear Mike,

That is because if YOU are involved the process would be very
expensive. Further we are taking about PREVENTION, which MUST
involve the parent's understanding of the implication of the
Oakley-Young study, where the minus-lens group went down at a rate
of -1/2 diopter per year.

Therefore if ANYTHING effective is to be done -- it must
START before that first minus lens is applied.

After that minus lens is applied, both the "battle" and "war"
are lost.

The "cost" of prevention is therefore a person's knowledge of
these truths. The "warning" is that the parents should begin to
understand these issues BEFORE they wind up in your office.

Clearly the "bifocal" is not the intent -- but rather to
learn how to use a strong plus "correctly" by the individual who
can master the "art" of self-control of his long-term distant
vision.

If he "wakes up" to this issue, the "vision clearing" under
HIS CONTROL can be effective. The cost of a strong plus $8 is
trivial. The knowledge, and "will-power" counts for everything.

The knowledge of the proven behavior of the natural eye
(primate) can be a factor in that person's choice. But true
prevention means that a person receives a "warning" about the
existence of the "second-opinion" as stated by Steve Leung OD and
others.

Ultimate responsibility for "choice" must rest with the
person's concern with this issue.

Posting "warnings" about a person's right to a fully informed
competent second opinion is NOT how you go about resolving the
scientific and personal issue.

Best,

Otis

_______________________

5. LarryDoc Sep 26, 5:34 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision From: LarryDoc

Subject: Re: ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

"otisbr...@..." <otisbr...@...> wrote:

Otis> Posting "warnings" about a person's right to a fully
informed competent second opinion is NOT how you go about
resolving the scientific and personal issue.

Otis has truly "gone over the edge", a useful USA expression
which translates as "he's lost it", a useful USA expression which
means he doesn't understand anything.

1. The "warnings" having nothing to do with informed second
opinion, only a caution to unsuspecting readers that you're
a fool, a nutcase, a zealot with an agenda. I suspect that
the warnings are unnecessary as you have made your situation
quite clear.

Otis> I do not know of any "wimps" who are effective at solving
very difficult problems of this nature. Naturally I will be
called "names". But this issue is your visual welfare, and
that of your children. That is the ONLY THING that matters.

2. Resolving scientific issues requires the acceptance of facts,
something Otis not capable of achieving from "over the
edge." His is a mission---don't confuse him with facts.

Otis> The "facts" concerning the behavior of the natural eye are
very clear -- and as are as I stated them. Your
implementing them (i.e., prevention) in indeed very
difficult. But you have a very solid basis for doing so.

______________

Nothing personal, either, just reaching for honesty and
truth.

Otis> Indeed that is EXACTLY what I report. But I respect the
natural eye as a dynamic system -- and this man does not.
Further, I respect both your intelligence and motivation --
and right-of-choice, which again this man does not. "The
TRUTH is more powerful than THE PLUS"

Otis> Scientific truth is more than quick-fixing the public in and
office with a strong minus lens. But that is this man's
"truth". A very "shallow" approach. He only continues the
"quick fix" method of the last 400 years, and insists that
what is does is "science".


--LB, O.D>

_____________________


6. Dr. Leukoma Sep 26, 6:32 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision From: "Dr. Leukoma"

Subject: Re: ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

otisbr...@... wrote:

Otis> Dear Mike,

Otis> That is because if YOU are involved the process would be
very expensive. Further we are taking about PREVENTION,
which MUST involve the parents understanding of the
implication of the Oakley-Young study, where the minus-lens
group went down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.

The implication of the Oakley-Young study, as other studies
have demonstrated, is that bifocals will not stop myopic
progression.

Otis> Young was forced to use a weak +1.5 diopter lens. The
"down" rate was about zero diopters over 4 years. Had he
been able to give instruction to use a stronger plus -- and
the instructions FOLLOWED at the 20/50 level (about -1.5
diopters) I have no doubt that the person could have cleared
his vision to pass the 20/40 line -- or better. But this
would be full transference of authority and control to the
person concerned with "protecting" his distant vision
through the school years.

The true implication is that bifocals are useful in slowing
down the rate of myopic progression in the presence of large
accommodative lag and esophoria....basically pseudo-myopia.

Otis> It does not matter what his "words" are. It matters that
you understand the necessity of this "alternative" and that
you do it successfully -- as you have done it.

Unfortunately, Otis has hung his reputation on this one old
study, which appears not to agree with him at all.

Otis> Keith, what matters is what YOU did -- to protect your
distant vision. You are the ONLY important person in this
discussion -- and your children.

DrG
____________________

7. Mike Tyner Sep 26, 8:01 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision From: "Mike Tyner"

Subject: Re: ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

<otisbr...@...> wrote

Otis> Posting "warnings" about a person's right to a fully
informed competent second opinion is NOT how you go about
resolving the scientific and personal issue.

So why do you keep trying?

-MT

Otis> For your sake, Keith. Maybe others can learn.

_______________________

8. Dr. Leukoma Sep 26, 6:29 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision From: "Dr. Leukoma"

Subject: Re: ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

otisbr...@... wrote:

Otis> Dear Prevention minded friends,

Otis> There are many in the medical profession who recognize the
need for change -- new ideas, better review of the
experimental data.

That is why we have "moved on" from a discussion of plus
lenses.

Otis> We all recognize that a great many people perhaps prefer an
instant "fix" with a lens -- that might have a secondary
problem with it.

People wish for and have a right to clear vision.

Otis> 1. The average visual environment, and

Otis> 2. An applied mild minus lens, would be a wise
"starting-point" for a discussion of true prevention.

Basically, you want to discuss the issues on your terms, no
matter how irrelevant they are.

DrG

Otis> Keith, you must recognize that this "attitude" is very
destructive. This man can't care about your long-term
vision -- at all.