> <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote
> > You keep on insisting that the minus "is perfectly safe", and
> > that is your OPINION. I happen to disagree with your OPINION.
> No, you disagree with studies that compared children wearing glasses with
> children who don't. They got nearsighted at the same rate.
> > You tell me that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the
> > refractive STATE of the fundamental eye. I take your
> > word -- but I run the scientific test.
> Fraudulent assertion. You have not run any tests. Instead, you ignore the
> scientific tests that HAVE been done.
> > In fact, when you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye, it will
> > respond by changing its refractive STATE by an averge
> > of -2 diopters in less than six months.
> Fraudulent assertion. -3 myopes who wear lenses do NOT become -5 myopes in
> less than six months. When you claim that they do, you sound foolish.
> > So the subject remain a matter of your BELIEF that a population
> > of natural eyes are NOT DYNAMIC, and the minus is "perfectly safe".
> Strawman argument.
> > Sorry you are disconnected from the second opinion regarding
> > the proven behavior of the natural eye.
> And you are disconnected from the facts.
> -MT

> You keep on insisting that the minus "is perfectly safe", and
> that is your OPINION. I happen to disagree with your OPINION.

> You tell me that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the
> refractive STATE of the fundamental eye. I take your
> word -- but I run the scientific test.

> In fact, when you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye, it will
> respond by changing its refractive STATE by an averge
> of -2 diopters in less than six months.

> So the subject remain a matter of your BELIEF that a population
> of natural eyes are NOT DYNAMIC, and the minus is "perfectly safe".

> Sorry you are disconnected from the second opinion regarding
> the proven behavior of the natural eye.

> You tell me that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the
> refractive STATE of the fundamental eye. I take your
> word -- but I run the scientific test.

> So the subject remain a matter of your BELIEF that a population
> of natural eyes are NOT DYNAMIC, and the minus is "perfectly safe".

> Sorry you are disconnected from the second opinion regarding
> the proven behavior of the natural eye.

> On Apr 29, 10:00 pm, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > You ignored my previous response to your messages, perhaps you can
> > respond to this one?
> Ms. Brainy:
> Otis doesn't ever respond to direct questions, particularly those that
> area legitimate, relevant, coherent, or threaten to highlight his
> idiocy ... like yours.
> As you were....

> You ignored my previous response to your messages, perhaps you can
> respond to this one?

> Dear Majority-opinion PClar,
> > From long experience with ODs and MDs, I learned to
> RESPECT the second-opinion regarding the minus.
> I understand how EASY it is to impress a person with it.
> Be equally, avoiding the minus has a long history.
> Here is a recommendation by Dr. David Guyton,
> about avoiding the use of the minus:
> "For my young patients with simple myopia, I suggest they
> leave their distance glasses off while reading, something I have
> always done myself. A child who cannot see the board at school,
> for example, should wear glasses to see the board, but remove them
> when reading a book or writing."
> You keep on insisting that the minus "is perfectly safe", and
> that is your OPINION. I happen to disagree with your OPINION.
> You tell me that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the
> refractive STATE of the fundamental eye. I take your
> word -- but I run the scientific test.
> In fact, when you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye, it will
> respond by changing its refractive STATE by an averge
> of -2 diopters in less than six months.
> So the subject remain a matter of your BELIEF that a population
> of natural eyes are NOT DYNAMIC, and the minus is "perfectly safe".
> Sorry you are disconnected from the second opinion regarding
> the proven behavior of the natural eye.
> Otis
> On Apr 29, 11:08 pm, p.clar...[at]gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 1:28 pm, odtobe <ODt...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As I always say: you can't have it both ways. If you claim to have
> > > > CAUSED your nephew, Keith's, emmetropia then you must also claim to
> > > > have CAUSED your niece's myopia.
> > yes indeed otis! I agree whole-heartedly. if you try to stand-up and
> > lay claim to Keith as being an example of "plus prevention" then you
> > must also stand-up and provide an explanation of why is DIDN'T work
> > for your niece who became myopic despite your treatment! the reason
> > for your niece's failure is that refractive outcomes are not affected
> > in the least by using plus lenses. that result has been proven in
> > multiple scientific studies which you seem to ignor. i'm sure you'll
> > think of some kind of bullcrap excuse, or perhaps you'll just refuse
> > to address the question like you always do when you are proven wrong.
> > a real scientist wouldn't do that, and indeed an honest objective
> > person of any professional background wouldn't do that-- but Otis
> > Brown does. that speaks volumes about your character.
> > > But I was under the impression that a DOCTOR has a liscense
> > > to practice medicine. Shouldn't doctors be in the habit of providing
> > > solutions that are going to be the most benifetial to the patient?
> > hello odtobe! perhaps you are not familiar with our resident troll
> > Otis Brown, engineer.
> > Otis believes he is an expert in physiological optics and
> > myopiagenesis even though he has no training, research, or clinical
> > experience in the topic. he claims that he has gained insight into
> > these topics because of a life-long involvement in the field which
> > includes friendships with many experts. in fact, when you check up on
> > his claims by talking to some of these so called "friends", like Dr.
> > Ted Grosvenor, they have never heard of Otis Brown and furthermore
> > they do not believe in any of the outdated concepts that Otis adheres
> > to. curious, is it? Otis likes to name-drop. perhaps once these
> > experts studied the possibility that plus lenses might reduce
> > accommodative strain and minimize myopia development, or that
> > excessive minus lens prescriptions might increase myopia, but being
> > objective men of science they have discarded that theory because it
> > was disproven decades ago. But Otis is stuck in the past and will not
> > accept the pile of research data that clearly demonstrates that myopia
> > development is a little more involved than his simple-minded scheme.
> > And when you confront Otis with straight-out scientific proof that his
> > theory is wrong he ignors you or either he instead offers an anecdotal
> > story about "Mike" or "Jane" or some such other person he has talked
> > to that relays a personal story that for some reason he holds in
> > higher esteem to real objective scientic studies. in the past, one of
> > his so-called personal success stories actually saw what he was
> > writing and confronted Otis on this newsgroup. He relayed that Otis
> > was misrepresenting his personal experience as proof that plus lens
> > therapy actually worked in his case when in fact the opposite was
> > really true-- his myopia persisted.
> > yet still, despite public humiliation, otis fights on. he is nothing
> > if not persistent. he tries to describe a difference between
> > "medical" scientific studies and "engineering" scientific studies that
> > is puzzling and ridiculous.
> > as clueless as Otis is he is actually a kind of fixture around this
> > newsgroup. don't try to reason with him-- his mind is made up and he
> > doesn't want to be confused by the facts.
> > > Also this person is a rather poor CL candidate, at least for softs.
> > > Might think about RGPs if the K's look correct, but the SE for a spec
> > > lens just doesn't make any sense. They have already chosen the
> > > cylinder lenses in the "SUBJECTIVE" portion of the refration, that's
> > > generally how an RX is finally determined. I understand that giving a
> > > person the SE in a sphere SCL would be nice, BUT NOT IN THIS CASE.
> > actually I am not in complete agreement with this statement. many
> > patients with this low level of astigmatism don't really notice a
> > significant improvement in their VA when you correct their
> > astigmatism. the patient may achieve 20/20- with a spherical
> > correction and get only a slight boost from additionally correcting
> > the cylinder component. sometimes that boost is visually insignificant
> > to the patient. -0.75 cyl just isn't that much.
> > and it is obvious that RGPs are going to be less successful than
> > disposable SCL. not due to any optical considerations but due to the
> > fact that 80-90% of patients who first put in an RGP and not happy
> > with the comfort of the lens regardless of whether they can see a
> > sharp image or not. trying to fit such a patient in an RGP is a good
> > way to ensure that the patient will not return to your office for
> > their next appointment, or for any appointments, in the future.
> > in this case I would usually give the patient a trial pair (disposable
> > SCL) of spherical lenses and a trial pair of toric lenses and ask them
> > to compare them at home for approximately a week and then return to my
> > office for a check appointment wearing their favorite pair.
> > this is just my way of doing it, and what my personal experiences are.
> > cheers.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

> Dear Majority-opinion PClar,
> > From long experience with ODs and MDs, I learned to
> RESPECT the second-opinion regarding the minus.
> I understand how EASY it is to impress a person with it.
> Be equally, avoiding the minus has a long history.
> Here is a recommendation by Dr. David Guyton,
> about avoiding the use of the minus:
> "For my young patients with simple myopia, I suggest they
> leave their distance glasses off while reading, something I have
> always done myself. A child who cannot see the board at school,
> for example, should wear glasses to see the board, but remove them
> when reading a book or writing."
> You keep on insisting that the minus "is perfectly safe", and
> that is your OPINION. I happen to disagree with your OPINION.
> You tell me that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the
> refractive STATE of the fundamental eye. I take your
> word -- but I run the scientific test.
> In fact, when you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye, it will
> respond by changing its refractive STATE by an averge
> of -2 diopters in less than six months.
> So the subject remain a matter of your BELIEF that a population
> of natural eyes are NOT DYNAMIC, and the minus is "perfectly safe".
> Sorry you are disconnected from the second opinion regarding
> the proven behavior of the natural eye.
> Otis
> On Apr 29, 11:08 pm, p.clar...[at]gmail.com wrote:
> > On Apr 29, 1:28 pm, odtobe <ODt...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As I always say: you can't have it both ways. If you claim to have
> > > > CAUSED your nephew, Keith's, emmetropia then you must also claim to
> > > > have CAUSED your niece's myopia.
> > yes indeed otis! I agree whole-heartedly. if you try to stand-up and
> > lay claim to Keith as being an example of "plus prevention" then you
> > must also stand-up and provide an explanation of why is DIDN'T work
> > for your niece who became myopic despite your treatment! the reason
> > for your niece's failure is that refractive outcomes are not affected
> > in the least by using plus lenses. that result has been proven in
> > multiple scientific studies which you seem to ignor. i'm sure you'll
> > think of some kind of bullcrap excuse, or perhaps you'll just refuse
> > to address the question like you always do when you are proven wrong.
> > a real scientist wouldn't do that, and indeed an honest objective
> > person of any professional background wouldn't do that-- but Otis
> > Brown does. that speaks volumes about your character.
> > > But I was under the impression that a DOCTOR has a liscense
> > > to practice medicine. Shouldn't doctors be in the habit of providing
> > > solutions that are going to be the most benifetial to the patient?
> > hello odtobe! perhaps you are not familiar with our resident troll
> > Otis Brown, engineer.
> > Otis believes he is an expert in physiological optics and
> > myopiagenesis even though he has no training, research, or clinical
> > experience in the topic. he claims that he has gained insight into
> > these topics because of a life-long involvement in the field which
> > includes friendships with many experts. in fact, when you check up on
> > his claims by talking to some of these so called "friends", like Dr.
> > Ted Grosvenor, they have never heard of Otis Brown and furthermore
> > they do not believe in any of the outdated concepts that Otis adheres
> > to. curious, is it? Otis likes to name-drop. perhaps once these
> > experts studied the possibility that plus lenses might reduce
> > accommodative strain and minimize myopia development, or that
> > excessive minus lens prescriptions might increase myopia, but being
> > objective men of science they have discarded that theory because it
> > was disproven decades ago. But Otis is stuck in the past and will not
> > accept the pile of research data that clearly demonstrates that myopia
> > development is a little more involved than his simple-minded scheme.
> > And when you confront Otis with straight-out scientific proof that his
> > theory is wrong he ignors you or either he instead offers an anecdotal
> > story about "Mike" or "Jane" or some such other person he has talked
> > to that relays a personal story that for some reason he holds in
> > higher esteem to real objective scientic studies. in the past, one of
> > his so-called personal success stories actually saw what he was
> > writing and confronted Otis on this newsgroup. He relayed that Otis
> > was misrepresenting his personal experience as proof that plus lens
> > therapy actually worked in his case when in fact the opposite was
> > really true-- his myopia persisted.
> > yet still, despite public humiliation, otis fights on. he is nothing
> > if not persistent. he tries to describe a difference between
> > "medical" scientific studies and "engineering" scientific studies that
> > is puzzling and ridiculous.
> > as clueless as Otis is he is actually a kind of fixture around this
> > newsgroup. don't try to reason with him-- his mind is made up and he
> > doesn't want to be confused by the facts.
> > > Also this person is a rather poor CL candidate, at least for softs.
> > > Might think about RGPs if the K's look correct, but the SE for a spec
> > > lens just doesn't make any sense. They have already chosen the
> > > cylinder lenses in the "SUBJECTIVE" portion of the refration, that's
> > > generally how an RX is finally determined. I understand that giving a
> > > person the SE in a sphere SCL would be nice, BUT NOT IN THIS CASE.
> > actually I am not in complete agreement with this statement. many
> > patients with this low level of astigmatism don't really notice a
> > significant improvement in their VA when you correct their
> > astigmatism. the patient may achieve 20/20- with a spherical
> > correction and get only a slight boost from additionally correcting
> > the cylinder component. sometimes that boost is visually insignificant
> > to the patient. -0.75 cyl just isn't that much.
> > and it is obvious that RGPs are going to be less successful than
> > disposable SCL. not due to any optical considerations but due to the
> > fact that 80-90% of patients who first put in an RGP and not happy
> > with the comfort of the lens regardless of whether they can see a
> > sharp image or not. trying to fit such a patient in an RGP is a good
> > way to ensure that the patient will not return to your office for
> > their next appointment, or for any appointments, in the future.
> > in this case I would usually give the patient a trial pair (disposable
> > SCL) of spherical lenses and a trial pair of toric lenses and ask them
> > to compare them at home for approximately a week and then return to my
> > office for a check appointment wearing their favorite pair.
> > this is just my way of doing it, and what my personal experiences are.
> > cheers.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

> From long experience with ODs and MDs, I learned to
RESPECT the second-opinion regarding the minus.

> On Apr 29, 1:28 pm, odtobe <ODt...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As I always say: you can't have it both ways. If you claim to have
> > > CAUSED your nephew, Keith's, emmetropia then you must also claim to
> > > have CAUSED your niece's myopia.
> yes indeed otis! I agree whole-heartedly. if you try to stand-up and
> lay claim to Keith as being an example of "plus prevention" then you
> must also stand-up and provide an explanation of why is DIDN'T work
> for your niece who became myopic despite your treatment! the reason
> for your niece's failure is that refractive outcomes are not affected
> in the least by using plus lenses. that result has been proven in
> multiple scientific studies which you seem to ignor. i'm sure you'll
> think of some kind of bullcrap excuse, or perhaps you'll just refuse
> to address the question like you always do when you are proven wrong.
> a real scientist wouldn't do that, and indeed an honest objective
> person of any professional background wouldn't do that-- but Otis
> Brown does. that speaks volumes about your character.
> > But I was under the impression that a DOCTOR has a liscense
> > to practice medicine. Shouldn't doctors be in the habit of providing
> > solutions that are going to be the most benifetial to the patient?
> hello odtobe! perhaps you are not familiar with our resident troll
> Otis Brown, engineer.
> Otis believes he is an expert in physiological optics and
> myopiagenesis even though he has no training, research, or clinical
> experience in the topic. he claims that he has gained insight into
> these topics because of a life-long involvement in the field which
> includes friendships with many experts. in fact, when you check up on
> his claims by talking to some of these so called "friends", like Dr.
> Ted Grosvenor, they have never heard of Otis Brown and furthermore
> they do not believe in any of the outdated concepts that Otis adheres
> to. curious, is it? Otis likes to name-drop. perhaps once these
> experts studied the possibility that plus lenses might reduce
> accommodative strain and minimize myopia development, or that
> excessive minus lens prescriptions might increase myopia, but being
> objective men of science they have discarded that theory because it
> was disproven decades ago. But Otis is stuck in the past and will not
> accept the pile of research data that clearly demonstrates that myopia
> development is a little more involved than his simple-minded scheme.
> And when you confront Otis with straight-out scientific proof that his
> theory is wrong he ignors you or either he instead offers an anecdotal
> story about "Mike" or "Jane" or some such other person he has talked
> to that relays a personal story that for some reason he holds in
> higher esteem to real objective scientic studies. in the past, one of
> his so-called personal success stories actually saw what he was
> writing and confronted Otis on this newsgroup. He relayed that Otis
> was misrepresenting his personal experience as proof that plus lens
> therapy actually worked in his case when in fact the opposite was
> really true-- his myopia persisted.
> yet still, despite public humiliation, otis fights on. he is nothing
> if not persistent. he tries to describe a difference between
> "medical" scientific studies and "engineering" scientific studies that
> is puzzling and ridiculous.
> as clueless as Otis is he is actually a kind of fixture around this
> newsgroup. don't try to reason with him-- his mind is made up and he
> doesn't want to be confused by the facts.
> > Also this person is a rather poor CL candidate, at least for softs.
> > Might think about RGPs if the K's look correct, but the SE for a spec
> > lens just doesn't make any sense. They have already chosen the
> > cylinder lenses in the "SUBJECTIVE" portion of the refration, that's
> > generally how an RX is finally determined. I understand that giving a
> > person the SE in a sphere SCL would be nice, BUT NOT IN THIS CASE.
> actually I am not in complete agreement with this statement. many
> patients with this low level of astigmatism don't really notice a
> significant improvement in their VA when you correct their
> astigmatism. the patient may achieve 20/20- with a spherical
> correction and get only a slight boost from additionally correcting
> the cylinder component. sometimes that boost is visually insignificant
> to the patient. -0.75 cyl just isn't that much.
> and it is obvious that RGPs are going to be less successful than
> disposable SCL. not due to any optical considerations but due to the
> fact that 80-90% of patients who first put in an RGP and not happy
> with the comfort of the lens regardless of whether they can see a
> sharp image or not. trying to fit such a patient in an RGP is a good
> way to ensure that the patient will not return to your office for
> their next appointment, or for any appointments, in the future.
> in this case I would usually give the patient a trial pair (disposable
> SCL) of spherical lenses and a trial pair of toric lenses and ask them
> to compare them at home for approximately a week and then return to my
> office for a check appointment wearing their favorite pair.
> this is just my way of doing it, and what my personal experiences are.
> cheers.

> > As I always say: you can't have it both ways. If you claim to have
> > CAUSED your nephew, Keith's, emmetropia then you must also claim to
> > have CAUSED your niece's myopia.

> But I was under the impression that a DOCTOR has a liscense
> to practice medicine. Shouldn't doctors be in the habit of providing
> solutions that are going to be the most benifetial to the patient?

> Also this person is a rather poor CL candidate, at least for softs.
> Might think about RGPs if the K's look correct, but the SE for a spec
> lens just doesn't make any sense. They have already chosen the
> cylinder lenses in the "SUBJECTIVE" portion of the refration, that's
> generally how an RX is finally determined. I understand that giving a
> person the SE in a sphere SCL would be nice, BUT NOT IN THIS CASE.

> On Apr 27, 7:39 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > The information is provided. The choice is hers. If she
> > wishes -- she will follow your advice.
> Speaking of providing information ...
> Why not provide the information about how you turned your niece into a
> myope with a restricted driver's license?
> As I always say: you can't have it both ways. If you claim to have
> CAUSED your nephew, Keith's, emmetropia then you must also claim to
> have CAUSED your niece's myopia.
> Full information really IS a good thing, isn't it?