Dear Keith,


Subjects

1. A Parent's report on his child's reading habits.

2. My report on my "bad" reading habits.

3. The majority-opinion evlauates "science" as THEY see it.

a. Primate studies.

b. Plus, or bi-focal studies, and the "trashing" thereof.

4. Various "weight" placed on the scientific data.

5. Failure to separate medical issues from scientific facts.

Again, I this it to "provoke" you to think.

Please enjoy these discussions as I do.

Best,

Otis

=================

31. Mike Tyner OD

> MikeOD> While you're believing, tell us where you find good
evidence that human myopes get more nearsighted because
they wear [minus lens] glasses.

> Otis> But of course, Mike. In the Oakley Young study, the kids
in a full-strength minus went "down" at a rate of -1/2
diopter per year for the four years of the study, while the
kids in the "plus" when down at a rate of almost zero
diopters per year (-0.025 diopters).

MikeOD> No, I wasn't comparing minus and plus. That's another
question.

Mike> I asked where you find that human myopes who wear minus get
more nearsighted than human myopes who don't.

Mike> You constantly blame minus lenses for accelerating myopia
but you've never told us where you find studies that show
it happens.

> Otis> With your ears stopped up and your eyes closed, and the
lights off in your office, I doubt if you see much of
anything.

Mike> I don't refract in the dark. That's another question. I
asked where you find that human myopes who wear minus get
more nearsighted than humans who don't.

[Comment: I guess Mike missed the point. It referred to HIS
"intellectual" darkness about the natural eye's proven
behavior. OSB]

> Otis> But that has always been the nature of majority-opinion
versus second-opinion arguments.

Mike> It's the nature of blind faith versus evidence-based
medicine. Where do you find evidence that human myopes who
wear minus get more nearsighted than humans who don't?

> Otis> The one thing we both agree on is this. (Or I agree
with.) And that is from the Oakley-Young study -- that if
there is going to be any "preventing" is MUST start before
that minus lens is worn -- otherwise the "preventive cause"
is indeed lost.

Mike> You put so much faith in the Oakley-Young study. Maybe one
day you'll learn what "esophoria" means and how it applies
to myopia.

> Otis> As I recall, Ignaze Simelwitz went through this same
struggle for a period of 30 years with his fellow MDs about
"washing hands" and death rates of 30 percent in women
delivering babies. Ignaz got the rate down to 1 percent --
but that did not seem to make any difference.

Mike> The evidence proved him right. All I'm asking for is
evidence that human myopes who wear minus get more
nearsighted than humans who don't.

Otis> But then, these "debates" always come down to the matter of what
the second-opinion OD parent will do with his own child.

Mike> I don't want to debate. I want to know where you find the
evidence that gives you such faith in disproven theories.

-MT

32. RT (Layman parent)

Mike> I asked where you find that human myopes who wear minus get
more nearsighted than human myopes who don't.

RT> That's actually an interesting point. Say (for the sake of
argument only) you, Otis, can prove that plus lenses can
prevent myopia if used aggressively and early.

RT> That doesn't prove that the uses of minus lenses causes or
accelerates myopia. False logic.


=============================

Dear RT,

Subject: Will the natural eye "go down" when you place a minus
lens on it. (As a autofocused camera.)

Otis> The "plus" studies can be screwed up -- no doubt about it.

Otis> But testing the primate eye for its dynamic quality (which
you expect) is a profoundly different question -- and
answer.

Otis> I do not restrict my question to EXCLUSIVELY the
human-primate eye, but test on the monkey-primate eye.

Otis> Under that circumstances -- science and factual results are
always the same.

Otis> The "model" is not Kepler's original assumptions, but a
model of the living eye as a dynamic system.

Otis> This does change the semantics used to talk about the eye.

Otis> If that constitutes "false logic" for you -- then so be it.

Best,

Otis


34. p.clar (Majority opinion OD)

Otis> I do not restrict my question to EXCLUSIVELY the
human-primate eye, but test on the monkey-primate eye.

PClar> no otis, to be more clear you restrict your question
exclusively to the monkey primate eye and EXCLUDE any
information about the human primate eye.

PClar> as you have been informed ad nauseum, with the appropriate
scientific references presented to you over and over again,
the data clearly shows that plus lenses do not influence
myopia progression in humans. i am sorry otis.

PClar> i know that you wish that human myopia could be easily
prevented by such a simple optical intervention as plus
lenses. 30 years ago some vision researchers thought so
too but the data has disproved it. wishing it were so does
not make it so.

============================


35. otisbrown

Dear PClar,

PClar> i know that you wish that human myopia could be easily
prevented

Otis> That is the one statement I object to. Prevention is truly
difficult, and is never going to be "easy". It is
difficult and takes rather intense motivation in the person
to accomplish. Only when you state that is it IMPOSSIBLE
TO PREVENT -- do I object.

Otis> If you said that it is "tedious" and most people would not
"like" to do it -- I would agree with you! This becomes an
"understanding" the individual must have about the relative
importance his distant vision has for him. No interest?
End of story -- use the minus. No skin off my nose if the
kid gets staircase myopia from the combination of he
"induced" environment made nearer by that minus lens. And
I do commiserate with you about the Neil Brooks effect.
Just say that and I understand why you can do nothing --
perfectly.

PClar> by such a simple optical intervention as plus lenses.

Otis> Let use be clear about this. The plus (and the concept) are
indeed an intrusion in a person's life. You can not "push"
this into a person. But he may, eventually, after
reviewing the primate data, reach the conclusion that is
distant vision is "worth it". But that implies a person
that greatly values his distant vision. And consideration
of these issues does take time.

PClar> 30 years ago some vision researchers thought so too but the
data has disproved it.

Otis> That is your "majority opinion" speaking. The
second-opinion says the direct opposite -- with the caveats
I stated above. It is going to be the person himself who
decides these issues -- based on the facts of the primate
data -- which is truly OBJECTIVE SCIENCE.

PClar> wishing it were so does not make it so.

Otis> That is why it is very important that the person himself
understand these issues, and (with no medical issues) work
to keep his eye-chart clear through the school years.

Otis> Like scurvey, if he is successful, he never fails the DMV,
and he never sees you at all (except for the "medical" part
of the check.)

Best,

Otis

============================

37. Mike Tyner OD

<otisbr...@...> wrote

Otis> I do not restrict my question to EXCLUSIVELY the
human-primate eye, but test on the monkey-primate eye.

MikeOD> We do not put vastly overcorrecting minus lenses on
immature monkeys.

MikeOD> Where do you find that appropriate correction causes human
myopia to accelerate?

Otis> Under that circumstances -- science and factual results are
always the same.

MikeOD> Immature monkeys and chickens with vast overcorrection do
not qualify as examplars for appropriate correction in
humans.

MikeOD> Where do you find studies comparing humans wearing glasses
with humans who don't? What do those studies show?

Otis> The "model" is not Kepler's original assumptions, but a
model of the living eye as a dynamic system -- as altered
with a better understanding of the primate data.

MikeOD> Conceptual and theoretical models do not trump actual
human measurements. Where do you find comparisons of
humans wearing glasses with humans who don't? What do
those studies show?

Otis> This does change the semantics used to talk about the eye.

MikeOD> Semantics (sp) do not influence actual human measurements.
Where do you find actual measurements of humans wearing
appropriate correction for myopia? What do those
measurements show?

Otis> If that constitutes "false logic" for you -- then so be it.

MikeOD> It does. Put up or shut up.

-MT

=========================

38. otisbrown@... Feb 7, 3:52 pm show options

Dear RT,

[Comment: RT is a layman with a -2 diotper myopic child. OSB]

Subject: Just curious

Otis> I hope that we can exchange information. If interested,
could you make an estimate of your child's use of his eyes
for me. I would appreciate it.

1. When did you teach your child to read.

2. Approximately what is the distance (eye to book) that he
reads. (18 inches? 15 inches? 8 inches?0

3. How much time does he spend "reading".

4. Do you know what he sees on his Snellen? If so, could you
check.

[PLEASE! There is no argument here. I am just curious for
background information.]

Thanks,

Otis

===========================

39. RT Feb 7, 5:39 pm show options

Otis> Subject: Just curious

Otis> I hope that we can exchange information. If interested,
could you make an estimate of your child's use of his eyes
for me. I would appreciate it.

Otis> 1. When did you teach your child to read.

RT> He taught himself to read at age 3.5. He's been looking at
books and "reading" since he was 6 months old.

Oti> 2. Approximately what is the distance (eye to book) that he
reads. (18 inches? 15 inches? 8 inches?0

RT> Without glasses, very close. With his glasses on he tends to
read close but can read further away if prompted.

Otis> 3. How much time does he spend "reading".

RT> In school, a lot I imagine although I am not there so I can't
say with certainty. Outside of school, several hours a
day.

Otis> 4. Do you know what he sees on his Snellen? If so, could
you check.

RT> You mean uncorrected? I don't know. I imagine counting
fingers. with correction? I don't know. He doesn't ever
complain about seeing far and he can see things pretty much
as well as I can and I'm 20/15.

Otis> [PLEASE! There is no argument here. I am just curious for
background information.]

RT> This is a serious suggestion. In addition to time spent
reading, you should consider how much time they spend
playing gameboy, text messaging on cell phones, inputing
data on PDAs, surfing the net and watching videos on their
psps and video ipods.

RT> You might be curious to know that high myopia and retinal
detachments run in my family. I started wearing glasses at
8. My younger sibling at 6.

RT> Not quite sure what conclusions you are going to draw from
your RT Son Study.


-- ~RT

===========================

40. otisbrown

Dear RT,

Otis> Thanks for your sincere answers.

Otis> Quite frankly -- I did similar things with my eyes --
although I started about age 6 -- I believe.

Otis> I hold myself responsible -- and no one is to "blame" at
all.

Otis> But as an engineer, studying the dynamic behavior of the
primate eye, I concluded that I induced a negative
refractive state in my eyes -- same as the primates.
(Although it is very difficult to force a primate to do
what I did with my eyes.)

Otis> The issue is for both of us. I would have had to profoundly
change "my ways" if "prevention were to be possible. I
will forward this to my nephew so that he can be careful
and maybe "forceful" if he sees his children do what I was
doing.

Otis> But our "judgments" lie with us -- and in my opinion the OD
or MD could only react to the consequence of my (admitted)
bad visual habit.

Otis> Tragically, these majority-opinion ODs take my curiosity
about these issues as an "attack" on them -- which it is
not. It is a desire to start a "preventive" process where
they can help "lead" that process.

Otis> But the "show stopper" is us -- to be honest.

Otis> But I do appreciate the information. How the people on
sci.med.vision understand these issues must be up to them.

Sincerely,


Otis

========================

41. p.clar

PClar> don't persecute yourself otis. it wouldn't have made any
difference if you tried "the plus", or bifocals, or any
other preventative scheme when you were a kid. the data is
clear-- those approaches have no influence on myopia
development. so take it easy on yourself.

================

42. RT Feb 7, 10:11 pm show options

Otis> But as an engineer, studying the dynamic behavior of the
primate eye, I concluded that I induced a negative
refractive state in my eyes -- same as the primates.

RT> Clearly then we are different species. I am not a primate,
ergo neither is my son.

RT> Interesting that engineers study the primate eye. Did you
build zoo cages or something? Is that why you know so much
about ape eyes?

-- ~RT


===================

43. otisbrown@... Feb 7, 10:27 pm show options

Dear RT,

RT> Interesting that engineers study the primate eye. Did you
build zoo cages or something? Is that why you know so much
about ape eyes?


Otis> Actually, the data was developed by Francis Young -- who I
met through the good offices of a supportive optometrist.
Francis had a great wealth of data on the primate eye (from
an "input" versus "output") perspective, and I found the
analysis of the natural eye to be very valuable to me.

Otis> Using that data, and many other sources I did write and
publish papers on this type of analysis.

Otis> It can be of value to "push" yourself to write the papers
and submit them to engineering groups. It is just good
discipline.

Otis> So that is part of my "perspective".

~RT

===============

44. otisbrown@... Feb 7, 12:56 pm show options

Dear Mike,

Otis> I am CERTAIN that you will figure out how to "trash" every
item of fact and science that I might present concerning
the natural eye's proven behavior.

Otis> I expect it -- and I expect your majority blindness to
continue.

Otis> If I were in your position (threatened by the "Neil Brooks"
effect) I also would ignore all data proving the dynamic
behavior of all natural eye.

Otis> To admit ANY scientific truth here -- would be profoundly
destructive for you.

Otis> But for any scientist who asks, not the "cause" of "defects"
but the broad based behavior of all natural primate eyes --
judged on an "input" versus "output" basis, the answer is
profoundly different.

Otis> I also agree that it is virtually impossible to "explain"
any of this when the public wants 20/20, 20/18, 20/15 and
20/10 vision, i.e., Best Visual Acuity. I certainly will
not stand in their way, although it is clear that a number
of ODs and MDs shudder at the consequences of that type of
over-prescription.

Otis> But is does depend on whether you learn to respect the
behavior of all natural eyes as "dynamic".

Otis> And that is the nature of a scientific paradigm, that Thomas
Kuhn described so effectively.

Otis> I look to the future, when "forward looking" ODs will
automatically broach the subject of true-prevention as
Steve Leung is now doing it.

Otis> I WOULD PAY YOU FOR THAT DISCUSSION, AND CONSIDER YOU A
TRUE-PROFESSIONAL for respecting my right to know and
choose.

Otis> The "difficulties" could then be discussed. But that will
not happen with your majority opinion.

Otis> So that means that I must find a second-opinion OD who has
his own child in a "plus" at the threshold.

Otis> True, prevention is a "fighting chance" and must be
understood that way -- but it is far better than the
stair-case myopia that will develop and is proven by the
Oakley-Young study.

Best,


Otis

===================

45. Mike Tyner

Otis> True, prevention is a "fighting chance" and must be
understood that way -- but it is far better than the
stair-case myopia that will develop and is proven by the
Oakley-Young study.

MikeOD> After all the blather, you assume facts not in evidence.

MikeOD> Please tell us where you find measured evidence of
"stair-case" myopia in humans.

MikeOD> Oakley-Young does not prove "stair-case" myopia, even
aside from the fact that it's been refuted by later studies
with better samples.

MikeOD> Otherwise we'd all be prescribing bifocals. We used to.
Why did we quit?

MikeOD> But that's another topic. Please tell us where you find
evidence of "stair-case" myopia.

MikeOD> Every study I can find that compares humans wearing
glasses with humans who don't shows no difference between
the two groups.

MikeOD> Please tell us where you find otherwise. Until then
you're spouting myth and calling it "scientific fact". We
question your understanding of science. We question your
definition of "fact".

-MT

====================

46. p.clar

Otis> If I were in your position (threatened by the "Neil Brooks"
effect) I also would ignore all data proving the dynamic
behavior of all natural eye.

PClar> it looks like this oft-mentioned new phrase, the "neil
brooks" effect, has been elevated to a high status with
otis. right up their with the other blah blah like
raphaelson, the printers son, the second-opinion, the
wretched minus, etc etc.

PClar> a dubious measure of immortality for neil


Otis> I look to the future, when "forward looking" ODs will
automatically broach the subject of true-prevention as
Steve Leung is now doing it.

PClar> i guess you indeed will have to look to the future since
the present and the past hold NO support for you foolish
disproven prevention scheme.

Otis> I WOULD PAY YOU FOR THAT DISCUSSION, AND CONSIDER YOU A
TRUE-PROFESSIONAL for respecting my right to know and
choose.

PClar> most normal citizens would be angry if we charged them for
using a disproven preventative method for which numerous
studies pointed show no efficacy. hint-- otis, theres some
good late night infomercials describing some products you'd
likely pay some good money for too. there's Relacore that
burns off unwanted belly fat, the Abdominizer that will
have you looking trim and fit in just a few weeks, etc.

Otis> The "difficulties" could then be discussed. But that will
not happen with your majority opinion.

PClar> no. the majority of the eye care profession relies on
scientific studies to define appropriate therapies. when
the outcome of those studies shows no improvement, then we
don't use them.

Otis> True, prevention is a "fighting chance" and must be
understood that way -- but it is far better than the
stair-case myopia that will develop and is proven by the
Oakley-Young study.

PClar> did oakley young show staircase myopia? what part of the
study showed that.

PClar> Dave Goss' study
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve
&db=pubmed&...) showed no increase in myopia with excessive
minus being used.

PClar> Chung et al (Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9) showed myopia
progression decreased when the patient was given full minus
correction compared to undercorrecting them (i.e. adding
plus).

PClar> Shotwell (Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1984 Feb;61(2):112-7)
showed no difference in the progression of myopia in
military academy students who wore the full correction,
plus reading glasses, or bifocals.

PClar> why do all these studies contradict your statements otis?
are they all wrong and you are right? is there a
conspiracy afoot?