Dear Keith,

Subject: Scientific proof to support your effective
use of the plus for prevention.

It takes great personal resolve to use the plus to keep your distant
vision clear for life. No doubt about it.

While a great mass of ODs deny it -- some "wise" ODs support it.

But ultimatly, the question comes down to you -- as what
you need to do for yourself and you children.

Indeed, your children might "reject" prevention.
But then, there will be no doubt as to the
consequences for them.

The science behind prevention is very strong.
This type of sciencific proof only has developed
in the last 20 years. It is virtually impossible
to "reduce" scientific knowledge into
a quick-fix for the mass of humainity walking
in off-the-street.

Real wisdom is indeed involved.

Love,

Otie

________________


Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Learning to ask (and answer) the RIGHT questions
about the natural eye as a dynamic system.

In science you tend to simplify and clarify. A long time ago
I learned to RESPECT the natural eye as a very sophisticated and
competent system, i.e., an auto-focus camera that CONTROLS its
refractive state to its average-visual environment. (i.e.,
average value of the accommodation signal.) This is
broad-perspective testing of the ENTIRE population of natural
eyes.

In this test (do determine this dynamic characteristic of the
natural eye) you change the accommodation "signal" (of one eye)
with a minus lens. The other eye is not so changed.

Clasical theory (box camera) predicts that the refractive
state of the eye WILL NOT CHANGE because there is no relationship
between the refractive state of the eye, and its average value of
accommodation. (Note: Accommodaton signaly follows the minus
lens almost perfectly. With a minus 3 diopter lens applied, the
average-value of accommodation will be 3 diopters different that
the other eye.

Here is the analysis and discussion for your intellectual
curiousity.

Note: Only refractive state is measured. No "conjecture" at to
"size" is suggested. That would be "jumping to a
conclusion" that is not supported by the facts. Just stick
to engineering testing of the natural eye on an "input"
versus "output" basis and you will develop a very accurate
assessment of the behavior of the eye under repeatable,
testable conditions.



Best,

Otis

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: "Billy Gard" <email@...>

Subject: Effect of plus lens on normal eye.

I'd like to see them study the effect of putting plus lense
on normal sighted monkeys, and see if you can make them
farsighted. Then see if humans with normal vision would be
affected the same way. Very little is said about plus lenses and
their effects, and whether it would be the mere vice versa of the
effect of a minus.

Do you suppose that by wearing pluses of increasing strength,
one could induce hyperopia of +4 diopters?

My previous eye doctor said "no, it would have no effect,
because then it would be a cure for myopia." (and that is not to
be heard of)

Billy
__________________________

Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:03:10 -0000

From: "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>

Subject: Re: Effect of plus lens on normal eye.

Dear Billy,

Subject: You personally run the experiment. Only then will
you believe the results.

Re: I realize that the "logistics" will prevent this, but on
a scientiric level your should have no problem with repeatable
results as the concern the dynamic behavior of the natural or
normal eye.

Re: Also, please remember that the natural (primate) eye IN
THE WILD has a range of refractive states (COMPLETELY NORMAL)
running betwee zero to plus 2 diopters. (Bell shaped curve.)

Also remember we only seek to determin whether this eye is
"dynamic" in the sense that it will change its refractive state
when a plus lens is applied. With that understood, then:
________________________________

Billy> I'd like to see them study the effect of putting plus
lense on normal sighted monkeys, and see if you can make
them farsighted.

Otis> Using the above standard, we have already established that
the NATURAL eye, that has a plus 2 diopter lens on it will
move is a positive direction. The other eye's refractive
state (with no change in the accommodation signal will
remains where it was.) With a mild minus on one eye, the
refractive state moves in a negative direction.

Otis> This proves on a scientific level that the natural eye, at
least, is dynamic in the above sense.

Otis> Therefore placing a plus 1 diopter on a monkey with a normal
refractive state of +1 diopter would result in those
monkey's refractive states moving in the direction of the
applied plius lens. (This would be a population of monkeys
that all had a refractive state of +1 diopter to start with.
The other prediction (of the box camera theroy) would be
that there would be no positive change in refractive status.


Billy> Then see if humans with normal vision would be affected
the same way.

Otis> The primate study could be done (although expensive).
Further, we can predict the result from the "differential"
study that proves that the natural eye is "dynamic" as
previously stated.

Otis> The human study would be prohibited -- so you can speculate
-- but NEVER TEST.

Billy> Very little is said about plus lenses and their effects,
and whether it would be the mere vice versa of the effect
of a minus.

Otis> You establish the behivor of all natural primate eyes as
stated above. You will have to reach your own conclusions
about the behavior of the natural human-primate eye, versus
the natural monkey-primate eye.

Otis> Please remember we are keeping this on a pure "scientific"
level where YOU are the scintists and YOU make these
judgments. I can only present the obejctive facts to you.
You must draw your own conclusions.

Billy> Do you suppose that by wearing pluses of incurr easing
strength, one could induce hyperopia of +4 diopters?

Otis> Why not continue your first proposed study where you take a
population of eyes with a refractive state of +1 diopter,
and apply a plus one to it and verify that you can verify a
"plus" change of 0.8 diopters in 6 months. If you can do
that, then it would be logical that you could continue to
get this "dynamic" eye to continue to move is a positive
direction.

Billy> My previous eye doctor said "no, it would have no effect,
because then it would be a cure for myopia." (and that is
not to be heard of)

Otis> Your preveious doctor does not evaluate the dynamic behavior
of the natural eye, and knows nothing about evaluating
objective facts as the concern this proven behavior of the
natural eye.

Best,

Otis

> Billy