Dear Keith,

Subject: Medical insistance that "environment" has NO EFFECT on
the refractive state of the fundamental eye.

If you wonder why no one will help you with prevention, then
here are some of the reasons -- based on the statement of this
"medical" person.

I get tired of hearing this ignorance stated as "fact". I
hate to think of all the stair-case myopia that is being created
by this systematic ignorance -- and the appliation there of.

This is the reason for "stair-case" myopia as far as I am
concerned. When and how can this tragic situation change?

Otis

____________________


To "Don"

Subject: new studies?

Don > Otis. here's something I got from a very ignorant MD. Have
you heard of these "studies"?

Otis> There have been a large number of studies to "counter"
Francis Young's studies of the dynamic nature of the
fundamental eye. I have not read these specific studies. At
some point you must make a judgment about scientific facts
concerning the eye's behavoir, and work on true-prevention on
the basis of these scientific facts.


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

From the Ignorant MD,

MD > After reading information on your website, I could not stop
shaking my head at how ridiculously false your reasonings are
for the cause of myopia.

Otis> It is hard to believe this statement. This is why I use the
term "refractive state" and talk about the result of direct
testing of the fundamental eye. This man as truly been
taught myths about the behavior of the natural eye that has
been profoundly disproven by the primate data itself. There
is no "cause" for the natural eye's behavior.

MD > Studies have specifically disproven the theory of
environmental etiologies as a cause of orbital elongation.
(Schama, 2001; Hinckley, 2004, and more)

Otis> I have never said anything like this. I simply reported
that actual behavior of the fundamental eye accuratly on an
"input" versus "output" basis. "Length" an the like are
conjectures of an ASSUMED box camera model of the eye.
Clearly the natural eye can and does change its refractive
state as the environment in changed in a negative direction.
This man implies this proven behavior DOES NOT HAPPEN. He is
not only confused -- he is just plain wrong.

MD > More ridiculous is what your theory implies: Refrain from
focusing on close objects, and you won't be myopic.

Otis> Given that proven behavior of the primate eye (when placed
in a more-confined environment) then the person himself must
make the (second-opinion) choice of "ending" that near
environment with a plus. The person who can ignore this bad
advice, can use the plus "effectively" and clear his distant
vision from 20/60 to 20/40 or better. This man has no
concept of scientific proof.

MD > If people listened to you, and they won't, then our country
would be ridiculed as the nation where everyone squints to
see...

Otis> How tragic that an MD would be so ignorant and make so many
false assumptions. Keith saw is distant vision getting
"blurry" in college and "woke up" to the need for prevention.
While it was difficult and took great presonal resolve -- he
cleared his distant vision with the plus. If this MD's
advice is followed, we will indeed become a nation of myopes
-- starting with this man's intellectual and scientific
myopia.

MD > ...and poeple hold things as far away from there eyes as
possible, even though things may appear blurry.

Otis> This is further extension of this man's ignorance of the dynamic
behavior of the fundamental eye. Correct use of the plus
produces only SLIGHT blur, and had the effect of moving ALL
CLOSE WORK out to optical-infinity.

MD > Maybe you are trying to promote botox therapy to counter all
the orbital wrinkles people would develop trying to squint to
see anything!

Otis> Yet another bizzare statement based on this MD's profound
arrogance and ignorance of the proven behavior of the
fundamental eye.

Otis> This is why I paid total attention to the scientific facts
themselves as a counter to this man's brutal ignorance.


Otis