Care2.txt

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Warnings against the preventive second-opinion from the
ODs on Google -- sci.med.vision for your enjoyment.

Re: Scientific proof of the natural eye's dynamic behavior.

I advocate personal "empowerment" -- with due caution and
information.

Here are statement against your right to an informed,
competent second opinion and, against your ability to "take
control" and clear your vision with the plus -- if possible.

You can take this as you wish. I ALWAYS want the true-facts
presented to your and I. I do not need the OD arrogance for this
subject.

Make your own judgment here. This is the reason you received
an excessively strong minus in the first place -- and received NO
information on prevention when you needed it.

The scientific facts (as stated below) are what I rely on.

Otis

__________________________


Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: When a basic question is asked, and a opinion expressed
-- there is a huge explosion of denial by the ODs on
sci.med.vision.

Why is that? Think about it.

Was Dick asking the "wrong" question?

What is wrong with the correct answer? (That the eye is
"dynamic" as proven in pure-science?

Otis

______________

Dick> What are the causes of progressive myopia?

Dear Dick,

The correct answer is:

1. A confined environment -- confirmed with primate eyes.

2. An over-prescribed minus.

That is also the "second-opinion".

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

From: Dr. Leukoma


Subject: WARNING AGAINST THE PREVENTIVE SECOND OPINION.


DrG > According to Otis, there is no appropriate use of a minus
lens for the treatment of myopia. Therefore, every instance
of minus lens use is considered "over-prescribing."

DrG > According to Otis, myopic children are forced to live in
closets with dim lighting.

DrG

[Comment: Obviously I NEVER said anything like this. What you
see on my site is some kids with this "bad visual habit" of
pulling the "work" into about 4 inches (-10 diopters). No
child is "forced" to do this -- it is a very bad habit that
must be "broken" by the parents. OSB]


==========================


From: RM

Otis> Dear Prevention minded friends,

Otis> Subject: When a basic question is asked, and a opinion
expressed -- there is a huge explosion of denial against the
effect that a minus lens has on the primate eye.

Otis> Why is that? Think about it.

Otis> Was Dick asking the "wrong" question? What is wrong with
the correct answer concerning the proven behavior of the
natural eye?

RM > There is nothing wrong with giving a learned response to
someone's questions. You, however, just belch out your own
unfounded point-of-view which IS NOT based upon any good
science and which has been repeatedly debunked time after
time.

RM > And what's worse, YOU DON'T CARE!

[Comment: I OBJECT! The problem is that I care "too much", and
not the other way around. OSB]

RM> You have either no respect for the scientific process,

[Comment: I have just posted the nature of a scientific study of
the natural eye. RM insists that EVERYONE totally ignore the
implications of scientific truth, and states that "science"
is not science. OSB]

RM> or no sense of ethics about what you say, as evidenced by you
continuing to repeat your same "theory"

[Comment: It is RMs theory that a minus lens has no effect on the
refractive state of the natural eye. He offers NO DATA AT
ALL to prove his idea. See the review below. I personally
HATE being patronized. OSB}

RM> in the face of the withering proofs presented against it by
people who know much more than you.

[Comment: An example of TOTAL ARROGANCE by a two-week "Doctor".
You make your own judgment about RM -- is he a "God" that you
should worship him? I suggest keeping an "open" scientific
mind -- and understand preventive alternatives that ARE based
on direct scientific proof. OSB]


RM> You are an outrageous old fool Otis Brown. Go away troll.

[Comment: A statement of profound arrogance. I suggest that
anyone who loves there distant vision and wishes to keep is
must figure out how to AVOID this man's profound arrogance.
OSB]

RM> PS-- A note to all the other eyedocs: The next meeting of the
"Minus Lens Conspiracy Committee" of the American Optometric
Association will be held at our secret location in the
Bahamas on November 5th.

[Comment: A statement of further arrogance. But I would suggest
that there are many a truth spoken in jest. I would just
suggest that is it a conspiracy of profound ignorance about
the natural eye's behavior spoken by RM who is truly ignorant
of that proven behavior. OSB]

============================

Subject: WARNING AGAINST YOUR RIGHT TO AN INFORMED SECOND-OPINION
ON PREVENTION.

Dear RM,

I have met many HUMBLE ODs who were open-and-honest about the
PROVEN behavior of the NATURAL eye.

If you ask -- what will happen if I place a -3 diopter lens
on a population of natural primate eyes -- with measured
REFRACTIVE STATES, then on a scientific level, we can provide and
accurate answer.

Please use the term "refractive" state to describe the natural
eye that can (and does) have refractive states that can be
positive or negative.

So the only issue is to confirm this dynamic attribute of the
fundamental eye. A population of primates living in the "wild"
will have an average refractive state of about +0.75 diopters,
with a gaussian distribution of REFRACTIVE STATES.

So the PURE scientific question is this. Does this natural
eye "follow" the applied -3 diopter lens -- or not.

(Again, this is pure science, not to be construed as a
"medical test" or a "medical statement". The natural eye must be
credited as a sophisticated control system, and we are just
verifying that scientific truth. You keep on attempting to make my
statements in to "medical" statements -- and that is simply not
the case.)

Now, if we take 1/2 the (adolescent) monkeys and place them
in a -3 diopter lens, and the other remain in the wild, the we can
predict one of to things will happen (by direct measurement).

1. Your theory -- the refractive state of the wild and (-3
diopter) monkeys will remain the same, i.e., both groups will
had a refractive status of +0.75 diopters.

2. The "dynamic" concept (respecting the natural eye as a control
system.) The monkeys with the -3 diopter lens on will change
their REFRACTIVE STATE by about -2.75 diopters (or more) in 1
year. Thus the "wild" monkeys will remain at +0.75 diopters,
while the -3.0 diopter monkeys will change their REFRACTIVE
STATE to -2.0 diopters.

This test proves NOTHING about "error" or "nearsightedness" at
all. (I hope you can "conceptualize" the behavior of the natural
eye as a dynamic system.)

Science simply predicts the behavior of the natural eye (as a
dynamic system) when accurately and correctly tested. I have not
made ANY MEDICAL STATEMENT HERE -- only reported scientific facts
accurately.

That is the basis of my answer to Dick on his question as to
why the natural eye moves in a negative direction from:

1. A prolonged "confined" environment followed by

2. An over-prescribed minus lens.

Difficult to understand perhaps but this is a natural process
not a "error" process.

Best,

Otis