I can't post a link -- but here is a partial reference:
.doyletics. com/arj/nomyopia.htm
If you can, read it. This is a doctor with 30 years experience supporting Don's position. This is the true meaning of a second-opinion in medicine. She had been denied publication -- to the shame of the medical estabilishment. We must learn together.
@theendlesssuffering In my long research, you find a few MDs who "wake up" to the problem of the over-prescribed minus lens. They try to "get published", but since their idea (that myopia can be prevented) -- the proposed discussion is always rejected. Here is a ophthlmologist who states the obvious. That the "medical mind" is the "tank" that blocks scientific progress (in true prevention with the plus). .doyletics. com/arj/nomyopia.htm
@otissumnerbrown Agreed. There are even many leading optometrists and ophthalmologists now that share Rehm's and our beliefs about myopia. The best way to distinguish between good and bad is to see whether they are both passionate and educated. I'm sure as we bring more exposure to this research, many more will follow. There will always be unreasonable people like Andrew opposing scientific change. There are countless US govt. clinical trials proving efficacy of bifocals as well
@andrewbarnall Glad to see you acknowledged the role of the environment in myopia. IF genetics play a role, it is about 5%. You also can be commended on the fact that you are commenting on this video (where are the other "optometrists"?). It seems you like the amount of money your making from Ortho-K sales, so you continue to dismiss the other available treatment methods for myopia. Everything me and otis say is to genuinely help others, where do your intentions lie?
Correction: I meant myopic blur for OK. Typo. At least I'm willing to accept my mistakes, like any rational person would. I stand by everything else I've said. Pseudomyopes can be helped with plus. True myopes not. OK does reduce myopia progression by up to 55%. Bifocals can reduce myopia progression in near esophores. Cycloplegia and retinoscopy are diagnostic tools to differentiate between myopes and pseudomyopes. Myopia has both a genetic and an environmental component. Here ends my posts.
@theendlesssuffering The scientific studies show (despite Andrew OD denials) a high relationship between a CHANGE in environment, with a CHANGE in refractive state. But these "blind" ODs just IGNORE ALL SCIENCE, if the hate the IMPLICATIONS to their "office position". It is just easier to tell the public "stories", than to face scientific truth. Where the study is excellent, the results are HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT.
@andrewbarnall In fact, leading research is leading to virtual unconditional acceptance by many leading OD's and myopia researchers around the world of the environmental influence of myopia. Your just behind intellectually 30-40 years, which is no surprise because you contradict yourself often. If you still believe myopia is "genetic" then your a lost cause and an obvious retard, go do some basic research and go fuck yourself.
@andrewbarnall I think you need to do far more than 2 years of further research, since it's painfully obvious you've barely put in a year or a few months. All the studies I've read have been published by TRULY passionate OD's who've had their works published in BMJ and the like, not written by greedy, lazy, and ignorant optometrists like yourself. We're not saying plus lenses are a magical cure, but they can halt progression and be used as prophylaxis.
@andrewbarnall ortho k is a cash grab. At least you prescribe plus lenses for pseudomyopes which is far more than I can say about other optometrists. Bifocals can reduce low levels of myopia and can prevent further myopia progression, not just for esoporia patients. .
@andrewbarnall Again, you failed to understand the significance of twin studies. You seem to be either extremely ignorant, like some religious fanatic, or just simply can't read between the lines. Since myopia IS environmental, the correlation found in twin studies is meaningless UNLESS THEY CAN CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT.
I can't post a link -- but here is a partial reference:
.doyletics. com/arj/nomyopia.htm
If you can, read it. This is a doctor with 30 years experience supporting Don's position. This is the true meaning of a second-opinion in medicine. She had been denied publication -- to the shame of the medical estabilishment. We must learn together.
otissumnerbrown 1 month ago
@theendlesssuffering In my long research, you find a few MDs who "wake up" to the problem of the over-prescribed minus lens. They try to "get published", but since their idea (that myopia can be prevented) -- the proposed discussion is always rejected. Here is a ophthlmologist who states the obvious. That the "medical mind" is the "tank" that blocks scientific progress (in true prevention with the plus). .doyletics. com/arj/nomyopia.htm
otissumnerbrown 1 month ago
@otissumnerbrown Agreed. There are even many leading optometrists and ophthalmologists now that share Rehm's and our beliefs about myopia. The best way to distinguish between good and bad is to see whether they are both passionate and educated. I'm sure as we bring more exposure to this research, many more will follow. There will always be unreasonable people like Andrew opposing scientific change. There are countless US govt. clinical trials proving efficacy of bifocals as well
theendlesssuffering 1 month ago
@andrewbarnall Glad to see you acknowledged the role of the environment in myopia. IF genetics play a role, it is about 5%. You also can be commended on the fact that you are commenting on this video (where are the other "optometrists"?). It seems you like the amount of money your making from Ortho-K sales, so you continue to dismiss the other available treatment methods for myopia. Everything me and otis say is to genuinely help others, where do your intentions lie?
theendlesssuffering 1 month ago
Correction: I meant myopic blur for OK. Typo. At least I'm willing to accept my mistakes, like any rational person would. I stand by everything else I've said. Pseudomyopes can be helped with plus. True myopes not. OK does reduce myopia progression by up to 55%. Bifocals can reduce myopia progression in near esophores. Cycloplegia and retinoscopy are diagnostic tools to differentiate between myopes and pseudomyopes. Myopia has both a genetic and an environmental component. Here ends my posts.
andrewbarnall 1 month ago
@theendlesssuffering The scientific studies show (despite Andrew OD denials) a high relationship between a CHANGE in environment, with a CHANGE in refractive state. But these "blind" ODs just IGNORE ALL SCIENCE, if the hate the IMPLICATIONS to their "office position". It is just easier to tell the public "stories", than to face scientific truth. Where the study is excellent, the results are HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT.
otissumnerbrown 1 month ago
@andrewbarnall In fact, leading research is leading to virtual unconditional acceptance by many leading OD's and myopia researchers around the world of the environmental influence of myopia. Your just behind intellectually 30-40 years, which is no surprise because you contradict yourself often. If you still believe myopia is "genetic" then your a lost cause and an obvious retard, go do some basic research and go fuck yourself.
theendlesssuffering 1 month ago
@andrewbarnall I think you need to do far more than 2 years of further research, since it's painfully obvious you've barely put in a year or a few months. All the studies I've read have been published by TRULY passionate OD's who've had their works published in BMJ and the like, not written by greedy, lazy, and ignorant optometrists like yourself. We're not saying plus lenses are a magical cure, but they can halt progression and be used as prophylaxis.
theendlesssuffering 1 month ago
@andrewbarnall ortho k is a cash grab. At least you prescribe plus lenses for pseudomyopes which is far more than I can say about other optometrists. Bifocals can reduce low levels of myopia and can prevent further myopia progression, not just for esoporia patients. .
theendlesssuffering 1 month ago
@andrewbarnall Again, you failed to understand the significance of twin studies. You seem to be either extremely ignorant, like some religious fanatic, or just simply can't read between the lines. Since myopia IS environmental, the correlation found in twin studies is meaningless UNLESS THEY CAN CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT.
theendlesssuffering 1 month ago