Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Who is telling scientific "lies" about the
dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye?

Retinula is a "majority-opinion" OD. I am certain he believes
everything he says. But it is "right" in pure science? As the
very minimum, science at least supports the concept of
prevention-at-threshold. But Retinula will NEVER volunteer that
type of information. That is what I "object" to.

This is an "exchange" on the i-see (second-opinion) news
group.

Otis

___________________________


The Philosophy of true-prevention.


Dear Retinula,

Subject: The majority-opinion versus the second-opinion
concerning the dynamic behavior of all natural eyes.

I am certain that you BELIEVE that:

1. The natural eye is not a dynamic system and therefore it,

2. The eye will NEVER change its refractive state -- as the
visual environment is changed.


OR, in other words, you believe that the natural eye is a
frozen box-camera.

In fact, for purpose of analysis and discussion, I also will
"freeze" the eye for technical evaluation. But I NEVER FORGET
that the "frozen eye" (paradigm) NEVER actually represents the
proven behavior of the living eye.

But I am always pleased that you clearly state the "majority
opinion" to the effect that a negative refractive state CAN NEVER
BE PREVENTED.

This is were we agree to DISAGREE. But you can also point
out another effect (from sci.med.vision) that if you were even to
SUGGEST prevention, or attempted to "prescribe" it, some bone-head
like "Neil Brooks" would attack and destroy you completely. No,
you do not need analysis, here -- you just need to state that you
are threatened by people who would sue you in an instant if you
even attempted to "prescribe" the plus for prevention. That is
all it takes.

But, of course, if done under the person's control -- who
pays attention to scientific proof, the result can be "vision
clearing" as stated by Dr. Prentice.

I will post those remarks to show that vision-clearing is
possible from 20/70 -- if the person himself have the motivation
to do it.

Best,

Otis


+++++++++

Some further commentary by Retinula OD on why Otis is totally
wrong about the natural living eye being "dynamic".


Otis > I do support the following:

Otis > > 1. If you are on the threshold of nearsightedness, READ
YOUR OWN EYE CHART. If you find 20/40 to 20/70, you can
avoid wearing a minus MOST OF THE TIME. NEVER wear a minus
unless absolutely necessary.

Ret > minus lenses do not harm anyone. there is NO EVIDENCE to
support this. as you said, the physicians credo is "do no
harm" and no eye care professional would do anything to
harm any patient.

Ret > Otis, however, believes there is a conspiracy among eyecare
professionals to cover-up the "truth" about the wretched
minus. he believes we all want everyone to wear glasses so
we can enrich ourselves. ha. been watching too many B
movies Otis.

Otis > > 2. Read the literature -- but with a grain of salt.

Ret > so otis supports the notion of "ignoring the facts"

Otis > > Remember, there are now ODs who support
true-prevention with the plus,

Ret > actually there are a dwindling number of doctors who attempt
myopia prevention because controlled studies have shown
that treatment methods have no effect.

Ret > i think its a valiant goal to prevent myopia, and as an eye
care professional i would like nothing more than to offer a
method to my patients. trouble is, what should i suggest?

Otis > > 3. Be aware of an "over-prescription policy", of the
majority-opinion ODs. He believes that you want, or "must
have" very, VERY sharp vision -- even when you pass the
20/40 line. Assuming you personally read this line, you
may find yourself prescribed for a -2 diopter lens.

Ret > this is one of otis' bigger lies. no eye doctor would give
a patient who is 20/40 a -2.00 diopter lens. assuming the
20/40 blur is caused by simple myopia and not astigmatism
or other problems (i don't think otis knows the difference)
then a -0.75D prescription is most appropriate. and
regardless, overcorrecting myopia with an excessively
strong lens DOES NOT CAUSE STAIRSTEP MYOPIA. IT HAS BEEN
TESTED AND FOUND TO BE WRONG.

[Comment: This is a lie, a false statement. Retinula should be
technically honest here -- and he is not! The Oakly-Young
study showed that across 250 kids, over four years, that
the "plus" group when down at approximately ZERO DIOPTERS
PER YEAR, while the "single-minus" when down at a rate of
-1/2 DIOPTERS PER YEAR. Basic honesty would be
appreciated here. This implies that the plus must always
START BEFORE that over-prescribed minus is applied. But
that is the nature of the argument -- that the parents
(and child) must be sufficiently clear in their mind about
this issue, before a minus is put on that child. It must
also be said, that "prevention" basically transfers
"control" to the person himself -- which makes it an issue
for the person -- and NOT THE OD. OSB]


Otis > > 4. I NEVER say throw away your minus lens -- until you
pass the LEGAL VA required in your state. Thus the
goal is not "perfect vision", it is legal, practical
vision.

Ret > so i suppose everyone wants to drive at night with blurry
distance vision. no thank you. normal human acuity is
20/20, and if it takes glasses to get me to 20/20 when i'm
driving at night with my kids in the car i'm going to do
it. and so should everyone else unless their stupid! as
i've said before, there IS NO evidence that wearing minus
lenses accelerates myopia in humans (not baby chickens or
monkeys Otis-- real live humans). its been proven not to
be true otis!

Ret > Otis, if i made misstatements and false claims the way you
do i would be sued for malpractice and have my license to
practice optometry revolked. you however operate on the
fringe and never have to stand behind your suggestions.

Ret > as some politicians say, lies that go unopposed have a way
of becoming confused with the truth -- and so i cannot stand
by and have Otis post his crap without pointing out the
inaccuracies. and everyone here should know that just last
week someone reported Otis Brown to the Attorney Generals
Office in the State of Pennsylvania for practicing without
a license.

[Comment: It was Neil Brooks -- who seems to be semi-psychotic.
(I believe Neil has no job and is living in a "sheltered"
environment. This is indeed the reason why I help my
"blood-relatives" avoid nearsightedness. It is clear that
only in that context can a person work on prevention -
with - plus. I have posted a "legal disclaimer". I also
state that I wish I had personally been provided with this
information (and strong parental support) when I was on
the threshold -- and my "academic freedom" site is
developed for exactly that purpose. I have also posted my
auto-biography so that no one can mistake my engineering
judgment and experience as "optometry". Jeeze. OSB]

Ret > Otis, I think many of the regulars here understand you well
enough that they take what you say with a grain of salt
anyway. the next question is why do you continue to post
it anyway? it must provide you with some misguided inner
fulfillment.

Otis> [Comment: Helping others avoid an over-prescribed minus,
stair-case myopia, and detached retinas later in life
because of that initial over-prescribed minus? That seems
to be my "misguided inner fulfillment". Jeeze!]

Otis


Retinula OD