- quote -


Well, for what it's worth, I think he's thrown in the towel - as
evidenced by another thread from him today.

I remember when the KOOK of KOOKs started raising trouble in a local
buy/sell newsgroup in my town; started being obnixious, rude, and
annoying - and then he started posting people's home addresses in the
groups once they took him to task (including my own) - calling them at
home, lurking in front of residences, approaching children of posters
in the groups, bla bla bla (scary stuff). Turns out he had a weapons
charge in his history. I googled him, and he'd apparently been raising
a ruckus for years, in all sorts of 'legal' -oriented newsgroups.
Certifiable, this one.

Anyway - he started scaring people. That's when I decided it was in my
best interest to remain completely anonymous in all Usenet posting, no
matter how benign.

Point being - I'd recommend being very aware if you elect to 'follow
him' into other forums and try to undo the damage he's doing/done. You
can't be too sure of how much of a kook one really can be. Could well
be just dis-illusioned and otherwise harmless, but nowadays, you just
never know. You may well feel morally obliged to take on a mission like
that, and I can empathize with the satisfaction it would give - but do
consider just letting it all go, now that he _appears_ to have pulled
up and moved on.

Neil Brooks <Neil0502[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Here's yet another one. We'll call him Peter (English is not his
first language):

My question to Peter: Can you tell me whether you wound up using plus
lenses for your son? If so, how did things turn out?

Anwer:


At the very least, Our Silly Boy isn't helping anybody. At the very
most, he's hurting them. Desperate people, trying to help their kids,
mistakenly putting their faith in a person totally unqualified to
help.

I will attempt to contact the eye docs who are now handling the
patients who have been 'treated' based on advice given by our friend
here. If appropriate, I'll forward the information to the relevant
legal authorities.

Quick: this one doesn't count. I'm not _responding_ :-)

"Neil Brooks" <Neil0502[at]yahoo.com> wrote

- quote -

No, I was unclear on that but I still think the Wildsoet reference unfairly
trashes the Chung study. I don't care that the kids' bedtimes weren't
reported.

-MT

"Mike Tyner" <mtyner[at]mindspring.com> wrote:

- quote -

The Central Scrutinizer is in our camp here, Mike (I think you knew
that, but couldn't tell from the wording of your post).

"The Central Scrutinizer" <bobby_dread[at]hotmail.com> wrote

- quote -

They wore the UC spectacles. They didn't get better. They got worse.

What other information do you want? Do you believe undercorrection cures
myopia?

-MT

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:

- quote -

absolutely ignore the facts, and cling to old, outdated, and disproven
theories. Furthermore, your protests notwithstanding, you continually
disparage optometrist. You are doing so at this moment.


DrG

Dear Scrutinizer,

Each "party", i.e., the "majority-opinion" and the "second-opinion" can
cite studies -- to support there PREFERRED BELIEF SYSTEM.

While I apprecite the need for SOME blind studies in medicine, I
rather doubt there usefullness on a scientific level.

Most of these studies have the effect of PROVING that a single
minus placed on a child's face will result in his refractive state
moving "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. (There are few
execptions. I take these exceptions as the matter of the
foxes being in charge of the chicken coop.)

Even Francis Young's study was difficult for that matter. Francis
recognized that it is natural for a child to AVOID looking through
the "plus". Since this was a "blind" study -- there was no
way that even HE could check. But he did use a "high plus" which
forced the child to look THROUGH the plus -- but he still had
to ASSUME that they actually did so. Even with these difficulties
he showed that the "down" rate for the "plus" group was approximately
zero, while the single-minus went down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per
year.

These studies can be reported by the "bais" of the reporter. We can
draw several conclusions from this.

1. The second-opinion is valid -- but the Oakley-Young study suggests
that a stronger plus be started BEFORE any minus is applied.

2. Some optometrists must be drawing the correct conclusion from this
-- and
more importantly the "pure science" primate studies.

3. Prevention is indeed difficult for these reasons. It is my
understanding
the Steve Leung has his 5 year-old child alway put on a stronger plus
whenever she does any reading. (This is a matter of personal choice --
but
suggests the nature of the optometrist of the future.) I have
suggested
that we must learn to "change together", and that means you and I, and
the
parents understanding the need for this change.

4. I have personally acknowledged some of my own "bad habits" as
a 6 year old child. (Had I known then what I know now -- I would not
have done it.) For that reason, I judge that the parents should have
some of this scientific information presented to them. The worst
that they could do would be to totally ignore it. But then
they could hardly asign responsibilty elsewhere for the
consequences.

5. The difference between my "suggestions" and the "majority opinion"
is
that I check the facts -- the proven that a population of natural eyes
"follow" a negative change in there visual enviroment (as a
sophisticated
control system.) The purpose of the exhaustive review was not
to "disparage" the optometrist -- but rather to "open up" to new
concepts and preventive approaches.

6. Someone suggested that proving that a population of natural
eye are "dynamic" is "dishonest". That is of course false,
since anyone who wishes to check the scientifc facts
could verify the fact that the natural eye behaves as I
stated -- using NEUTRAL (not biased) words to describe
what is actually measured (i.e., refractive state).

7. I did make my sister's kids aware of the "preventive"
second-opinion, and specifically the Oakley-Young study,
and stated that they should be VERY CAREFUL with that
minus lens. Indeed a number of ophthalmologists have
suggested the same thing.

8. Thus, they (under their own control) used the plus and
always made certain they passed all legal visual
acuity standards required of them. I suggest that I
was honest with them -- and accurate concerning the
Oakley-Young study, and the "second opinion" that
develops from that understanding.

There are no "perfect" answers, and I do acknowledge
the difficulties of prevention. But I believe that
"new" optometrists will support it with there
own children, and the general public if they
wish that kind of support.

Best,

Otis

You implied that I loved to over-prescribe minus thereby causing
stair-step myopia.

I'll let you know what my attorney thinks.


DrG

Dear DrG,

Presenting objective, confirmed scientific facts?

No wonder we should doubt the "majority opinion",
not to mention your attitude.

Thank goodness there are optometrists like
Steve Leung OD who do not support you.

Best,

Otis

Otis: Just out of curiosity, I did a web search on the Chung study.

The first link I found was

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/...ingMyopia.html

In which the author of the article writes:

"The message that the Chung et al study should send to other would-be
clinical myopia researchers is that randomization and masking are good
but too little information about the participants can still render even
the most well-controlled study useless in terms of clinical
applicability."

Buuuut, I imagine you'll still quote the study.

More power to ya.