Retin8a.txt

Dear Jon,

Subject: A statetemnt of intense bias against prevention
with the plus.


Men live by their routines; and when these are called into
question, they lose all power of normal judgment. They will
listen to nothing save the echo of their own voices; all else
becomes dangerous thoughts.

Harold Laski


Here majority-opinion Retinula OD explains that a the natural
eye is not dynamic, and therefore a minus lens can not have any
effect of the refractive state of the eye. Further he explains
that a minus lens is "perfectly safe" and does not create
stair-case myopia (of -1/2 diopter per year) in young children.
Further, he explains that anyone who "objects" to his singular
opinion, must simple be "wrong".

Here is an analysis of his statements protecting the
traditional method of the last 400 years.

Best,

Otis

______________


Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Retinula again expresses his "office" majority opinion.


"You cannot by reasoning correct a man of an ill opinion
which by reasoning he never acquired. We can also say that
neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts,
can you convince some people that an opinion which they have
accepted on authority is wrong."

William Bates


Just remember that the second opinion is that the minus is
"risky", and every effort should be made so you understand the
scientific reasons for this second opinion. Just be aware, that
even the second-opinion ODs will NOT use a minus on their own
children, because of their scientific knowledge of the proven
effect it has on the natural eye. You would have to put your head
in a bucket to not preceive these objective facts. But Retinula
manages to do it. I simply can not trust a man who does not
understand nor offer me an informed second opinion. You on i-see
can make your own decision on this matter.


From: "retinula" <retinula@...>

To: <i-see-owner@yahoogroups.com>

Subject: A second second post from our friend the shy Retinula.

Date: Monday, October 24, 2005 10:50 AM

--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@p...> wrote:

> Dear Friends,

> Subject: Prevention minded optometrists versus
the "conventional opinion".

> The primate data is clear on that point.
That must be THEIR decision -- not YOUR decision.

Ret > ...and the human data is clear also. "stair-step" is not an
issue for humans.

Otis> Your preferred ignorance of it is a truly profound problem.

Ret > ...you live in a world populated only by chickens and
monkeys i guess

Otis> I live in a world of intelligent open-minded scientists who
preceive that a negative refractive state can be avoided --
if the "near" environment is elliminated by a
proper-strength plus at the threshold. "Stair-case"
response of the natural eye is PROVEN by the Oakley-Young
study. By stair-case myopia I mean that the single-minus
group when "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter average.
(Clearly some went "down" as a faster rate than this. The
"plus" group did not go down.)


> Ret> you like to refer to data from earlier experiments in
chickens and monkeys that support your view.

> Otis> They shure as hell do not support YOUR VIEW.

Ret > ...true. i live and work in world of humans. i do not fit
glasses or contacts on chickens or monkeys.

Otis> If you wish to make the argument that the great mass of
un-informed humanity wil only "accept" an impressive
quick-fix, then I can accept that from you. But that is the
"blind" tradition of the last 100 years at work. On i-see
we try to develop these insights that you do not have.


Ret > ...you need to start a discussion group on animals. there
is no data to support your approach on humans.

Otis> Again, complete "shop" bull s___. People who examine BOTH
the primate data AND the Oakley-Young scientific research
can BEGIN to get the correct idea concerning the natural
eye's behavior. I only hope they get the better
"preventive" idea before YOU put them in an excessively
strong minus lens, and create stair-case myopia in them.


> Ret> the data in humans gives different results. isn't
> it humans that we all care about in this forum anyway?

> Otis> You can draw your own conclusions about
> the bias of this statement. I certainly have.


Ret > ...apparently you draw your conclusions from something else
other than scientific evidence. you are a man of true faith
otis.


Otis> This is incredible. He sweeps ALL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH off
the table for his "office" reasons, and then declares
"...their is no scientific data"! I am a man of faith IN
THE DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL DATA. If that means that I have no
faith (an now trust) in this man's technical ability -- then
you got that right.


> > 2. A more-confined environment has
> > NO EFFECT on a population of primates.

> Ret> i never said anything about this.

> Otis> You keep on insisting that a minus
> is "perfectly safe". Further, your majority
> opinion friends keep on saying this against
> the direct and explicit experimental data.
> As before the i-see people can draw
> their own conclusions -- just do not
> patrionize them.


> Ret> why are you trying to state that i
> argued against this point?

> Otis> Because you have. Again, let
> the readership on i-see draw their own
> conclusions. If they totally support
> your thesis, maybe they will post
> in YOUR FAVOR. As per "chinamyopia",
> even your fellow ODs thing your
> "position" is wrong, and is harmful
> to the public's long-term visual
> welfare.

Ret > ...once again, an otism. never have i said that a confined
environment has no impact on human vision development. the
data shows it does.

Otis> Good, then let us continue to work on effective prevention
by agreeing that a person has the right to an informed
"second opinion" on this matter. But I am virtually certain
you will never honor a person's intelligence in this matter
by offering them that kind of discussion.

Ret> ...the human data also shows that plus lenses, bifocals, even
excessive minus lenses make no difference.

Otis> I hate to be so brutal, but this is complete "office" bull
s___. Anyone NOT IN YOUR "PROFESSION" will see the intense
bias of your statement. I DO AGREE that you can not reduce
an accurate understanding of the natural eye's dynamic
behavior into a "quick fix" you provide for the public
walking in off-the-street. But that is the difference
between perpetuating a grinding tradition from pure
scientific persuits.


Ret > ...but you have been told that. why don't you openly
discuss these scientific studies to your friends in this
forum.

Otis> This Retinula is incredible. Quite frankly I have not met a
man quite this "dense". What in the world do they teach in
OD school?

Ret > ...are you afraid that they might begin to make up their own
mind that you are simply an old engineer.

Otis> They can work on their understanding of a preventive second
opinion to the best of their ability. They can judge both
of our opinions to the best of their ability. If they have
children, I hope that they are better informed of this
"preventive" second opinion. There children MIGHT have a
live free of stair-case myopia for that reson -- if they get
it right. But that suggests that they have both the
intelligence and motivation to do this work "correctly".
The purpose of i-see it to fully explore the scientifif
basis, and reasons for this second opinion.

> Ret> there is actually some
> scientific data to support this notion. its just that plus lenses
> that you propose has been proven not to work!

> Otis> Not so. Although I do agree that it
> must be used on the threshold -- as
> per the scientifc study by Oakley-Young.
> Once you even START with an over-prescribed
> minus you will lose your distant vision
> PERMANENTLY.

Ret > ...as you know, this is not true.

Otis> I would suggest that the person review the Oakley-Young
study himself to decide with is "true" and "not-true" about
the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. That is the real
goal of science.

Ret > ...the study of Goss showed that overminusing young children
(humans otis) had not affect on myopia development.

Otis> Your "majority opinion" at work. You cite EXCLUSIVELY the
studies you WANT TO BELIEVE while totally ignoring the
implications of the studies you hate. Yes, Retinula, I
understand your "majority opinion". The second opinion is
as stated by the scientists who understand this issue with
greater clarity than you do.


> Otis> The report by "Jon" shows what a highly
> motaved person can dd -- if he has the
> resolve to do it. But he MUST avoid
> you and your habitually over-prescribed
> minus lens -- which you insist must
> be worn all the time.


Ret > another 1 rat study (=testimonial) from otis.

Otis> "Jon" is a very intelligent person, and paid
attention to the second opinion, and understood
the scientific facts about the behavior of the
primate eye. By intelligently working with the
second-opinion, he gradually cleared his distant
vision himself. It is obvious that had he
not done this (under his OWN CONTROL) his eyes
would have "adapted" to that minus -- and he
would have lost his distant vision -- permanently.

Ret > ...people reported 20 years ago that peach pits could cure
cancer too -- didn't pan out did it otis. you should be
sued along with the other idiots from "eye see clearly" for
making false claims.

Otis> I-see is an "open form", and you can say what you wish. I
report facts accuratly as the concern the dynamic behavior
of the fundamental eye -- when correctly tested. The very
nature of this work is protected by the "freedom of speech"
clause of the U.S. constitution. But further, Jon, has a
right to be informed of the nature of his choice, and the
fact that the ODs themselves support prevention as the
second opinion. I assume that you wish to sue ALL OD WHO
DON'T AGREE WITH YOU. Is that your "cause" and purpose?

Ret > ...the only difference is that they are trying to defraud
people to make money and you just have some kind of wacko
agenda.


Otis> Spoken by a man who truly has his head buried in the sand.
In fact, the staements of Dr. Raphaelson convinced me that
he would be a "leader" for prevention. But that requires
that the person WISHING for prevention begin to understand
the nature of this second-opinion. But you are right -- I
make no money in this effort -- becuse true prevention costs
almost nothing. How much does your minus-lens quick-fix
cost the un-susecting public? Staring at $200 to $400 for
that FIRST minus lens for their kids? Not to mention the
stair-case myopia they will get into, requiring another $300
for EACH LENS CHANGE? And YOU accuse ME of attemping to
defraud people by informing of them of a second-opinion?
Where is your head my man? You have no compassion for these
people.


> > I have seen these experiments -- and the
> > results. I have no doubt that the
> > results are repeatable -- as required
> in pure science.

> Ret> as Dr. Judy already said in this newsgroup, and i pointed out
> to you
> in my posting-mistakenly-sent-as-an-e-mail, your references are 20-
30
> years old.

> Otis> Proof that you learn NOTHING from objective
> science.

Ret > ...proof that YOU don't listen to science. you have been
passed by otis.

Otis> Retinula's bindness to scientific truth continues.

> Hell, the method you are using
> was put in place 400 years ago.

Ret > ...true, minus lenses help myopes see better. nothing else
works better. if something is proven to work, i will do it.

Otis> Said as you chronically over-prescribe the public by -2.0
diopters, with the obvious consequences.

[Comment: Over-prescription. You read the eye-chart at 20/40 and
go pass the DMV. You then go to the OD and by "accident" he
prescribes a -2.0 diopter lens. You are over-perscribed by
2 diopters. OSB]

Ret > if something is disproven i will not do it. apparently not
for you otis

Otis> It is impossible to prove anything for a man who is
conducting "shop practice" and never grows to understand
that the natural eye is a sophisticated system that changes
it refractive state to changes in its average
visual-enviroment. But that is science -- not "medicine"
and you want no part of that.


> Ret> otis, if you test your theory and it doesn't hold true,

> Otis> The conept that the fundamental eye
> is dynamic is confirmed on a scientif level.
> It is your "box camera" theory that is "broken".


Ret > ...this box-camera phrase that you throw around is yours and
yours alone. you have already admitted that you do not know
the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of the eye.

Otis> I made no such statement. Yet another Retinula fib.

Ret > ...your simplistic notions are that the eye is some kind of
input-output diagram. your approach is simply like leaches
and herbal remedies.

Otis> And over-prescribed minus lens based on a shop-theory is
like the "leaches" you describe. You habitual ignorance of
the dynamic nature of the fundamently eye is truly
incredible.

Ret > Read otis. learn otis.

Otis> I learned what the effect of your over-prescribed minus is
on the natural human eye. A truly profound disaster.


Ret > ...from what i have seen you have some kind of axe to grind.

Otis> Not at all. I just suggest that a person on the threshold
be accurately informed of his choice, and the fact that a
minus lens will create stair-case myopia if nothing is done
to prevent it.

Ret > ...regardless of all the objective evidence that has piled
up against your theory you just plow ahead with your
single-minded approach.

Otis> The evidence is that you totally ignore all scientific
research -- when you don't like the implications of
scientific truth and techincal accuracy.


Ret > ...readers of this forum beware. otis is no "expert" in
vision.

Otis> The readers on i-see are shaking in their boots. Maybe you
can kick them into submission.


Ret > ...his "second" opinion isn't even a close fifth.

Otis> Yet anoter Retinula fib. This is so obvious that it is
pathetic that he would even attempt it. Read:

www.chinamyopia.org

Ret > ...visual science and the field of myopia development has
moved way beyond his approach.

Otis> So, according to Retinula, just wear that over-prescribed
minus, and when you develop stair-case myoipa, why that is
not Retinula's fault is it? Of course YOU ARE PERMANTELY
STUCK WITH THE RESULT OF HIS SELF-IMPOSED IGNORANCE.

Ret > ...but i guess there are still some who think the world is
flat.

Otis> Yes, and that person is Retinula.

Otis> I have absolut respect for Dr. Raphaelson, Steve Leung and
all other second-opinion ODs who are working on true
prevention. It is obvious that I have lost all respect for
Retinula's "majority opinion" for scientific reasons.
I-see is a place where we examine this type of bias -- so we
can understand it, and deal with it.

Best,

Otis