<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

Maybe you can tell us where the efficacy studies are published.

-MT

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
- quote -

You're such a blithering idiot. That's still one guy IN THE ENTIRE
WORLD--Steve Leung--and HE has no evidence that it works ... OR that
it's safe.

- quote -

Yeah, Mister President: we're either with you or we're with the
terrorists. Thanks for clearing that up.

Dear Mike,

I never described preventing the development
of a negative refractive STATE as "therapy",
nor, from these discussions, would
it ever be possible for you to "prescribe" prevention.

But as we have seen, when the educated
PARENT (who is an optometist) looks
as ALL THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, and
makes his own PERSONAL judgment about
PROTECTING his child's distant vision,
then the answer FOR HIM is that PROTECTIVE
PLUS.

That is why I described is the SECOND-OPINION.

Certainly not YOUR OPINION.

And from Quick's remarks about his own children, he
would effectively prohibit ANYONE from attempting
to help his kids with plus-prevention.

And I am certain that the parents of the 87 percent
of the Hong Kong students made the SAME JUDGMENT
as Quick has made -- with (in the future) exactly
the same result.


Best,

Otis

Dear Quick,

Good luck with your kids.

Oh, and one correction. I stated 85 percent Singapore kids.

It was 87 percent Hong-Kong kids -- entering the first
year of college.

But I am certain that the parents of those kids are thinking,
boy MY KIDS are NOT going to become part of
those 87 percent, not at all. That will always be
some one elses problem.

Think again -- with all due respect.

-----------------

4) Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S. and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive
trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39
years," Ophthal. Physiol. Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that
in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong,
the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%.

As in "Johnthan"

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
- quote -

But you still don't answer them.

Here they are again. I invite you to answer them.

1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely
differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in saying
that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard?
2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the
SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus
lens, the myopia was prevented?
3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?
4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you
call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
this in humans, can you cite your source for this claim?
5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
"proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but
Oakley-Young only establishes that-in some people-myopia can get
worse over time. It doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES
this. Please explain your position.
6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you aware
that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses
made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY
EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE
this convergence disorder?
7. You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades. I
presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition. In it, Mr. Rehm
states:
Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?
8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story.
Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is--in
truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and that his
"testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?
9. Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?
10. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I
provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address). You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?"
If so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last
copy was sold. If not, please state how long it has been since you
received any money for this book.
11. Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a
commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?
12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative
spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide
credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia,
or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia
13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views. Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD? Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make? Would you
please provide it?
14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book. Do you have any
economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung? Do you think it is
honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is
trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website,
and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to
sell both your and his book?
15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your
niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is,
at this time, a myope?

Dear Ace,

Subject: What do parents who are ODs do to PROTECT
their children's DISTANT vision?

Brooks occassionaly stumbles into a good question.
(Like 1,000 monkeys typing Hamlet.)

So let us evaluate it:

Brooks> And to my other major point: if this really were a vast ocular
conspiracy (think about the dental analogy),

Otis> This is of course simple bull S__t. The OD has the
requirement to make a person's vision very, very, sharp -- and
that is exactly what he does, no more and no less. That
is knee-jerk simple. We have reviewed the FUNCTIONAL
training it takes to do that. In fact, ANY OD who steps
out of "line" with that grinding routine will have "charges"
filed againt him, witness Neil D. Brooks, filing charges
against me -- because I recommended that you
be informed of a competent second-opinion on
prevention as suggested and supplied by:

www.chinamyopia.org

Brooks> then the Optometrists
would have to knowingly sacrifice their OWN children just to maintain
the cover story.

Otis> That is interesting -- and ASSUMES a great deal.

Otis> The reality is that the M.O. ODs on sci.med.vision will
put their own children into a strong minus -- because they BELIEVE
that a minus lens has no effect on the fundamental eye (monkey-primate,
or human-primate).

Otis> But there is a percentage (small) of ODs who recognize the
scientific truth in the primate studies, and will insist that
their own chidren BEGIN WEARING A STRONG PLUS
WHEN THE KIDS REFRACTIVE STATE GETS DOWN
TO ZERO DIOPTERS.

Otis> This, as it turns out, is how a second-opinion developes
in a field as "conventional" as medicine.

Otis> But I certainly agree as to the difficulties of true-prevention,
and it takes a strong will on the part of the parent and
child to properly implement this preventive method.

Best,

Otis



Likely? IDon'tThinkSo....

Mike Tyner wrote:
- quote -

....and a Swift reply....

Mike Tyner wrote:
- quote -

My boys are 6 and 7. I'm thinking of taking off the
blind folds next year...

-Quick

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

A modest proposal.

-MT