Subject: The excessive arrogance and blindness of an optomterist.

Re: Remember this -- there are optomterist who are now working on
plus-prevention. Jan only represents his OPINION, that has little basis in
science and fact.

Re: Given his "attitude", and intelligent review of objetive science and facts
would be impossible.


I believe in being honest with scientific facts -- and the analysis of these
facts.

I believe in being fair-minded about the difficulties of prevention (at the
threshold.

There should and must be an fair-minded discussion of these issues WITH THE
PERSON CONCERNED WITH AVOIDING ENTRY INTO NEARSIGHEDNESS.

Tragically, there are ODs who are so blind that they wish to ATTACK engineers
who advocate fundamental change.

Here are additional remarks by majority-opinion Jan:

=========
Posted by Jan on sci.med.vision

Jan> Every time you see a posting made by the laymen Otis keep in mind he is
hurting people, not helping.


Jan> He is trying to sell you a useless book about how to avoid myopia even
if it isn't there and not ever shall be.


Jan> He (Otis), never ever has giving straight and direct answers on very
simple questions asked by the real eyecare professionals in this newsgroup.


Jan>He is definitely a quackery person.


Jan>Several times you see new posting from this horrible man because he has
to if a thread becomes to hot under his feet (pardon me for this Dutch
language)


Jan>He never show real scientifically reports, the only thing he produce is
old stuff most time full of not controllable anecdotes.


Jan (normally Dutch spoken)



Otis> Reference: Majority-opinion Post by Majority-opinion "Jan"


Jan> It is not a matter of opinion it's about knowledge in this field,
knowledge you obvious don't have laymen Otis.


Otis> The opinion I express, that a negative refractive STATE of the eye can
be prevented, is not exclusively my judgment.



Jan> Just another way you're showing your lack of knowledge in this field
concerning the optical matters in the human eye.

Jan> Because you make your own definitions (one of the reasons you may be
called a laymen) you are making big mistakes.


Jan> TMHO, a so called by you "negative refractive STATE", asume a lack of
plus power in the opticalsystem power of the eye necessary to get the
best vision acuity not accomodating for the far distance, real
professionals cal this hyperopia instead of myopia (I asume this myopia
is what you really meant)


Otis > Since this is an open site, you should have the benifit of the
second-opinion, that nearsighedness can be prevented with wise use of the plus
at the threshold.



Jan> There is no benefit and nearsightedness can not be changed with the "help"
of a second opinion.
You know it but still want to sell your book about this worthless second
opinion.


Otis> In the interests of fair play, and open exchange of scientific
information, I suggest reading this site by Steve Leung OD, and



Jan> Fair play Otis is not the thing YOU are showing here.


Otis> I also suggest watching this video, prior to allowing your child to be put
into an excessively strong minus, which will only produce further "adaptation"
of the natural eye to that minus lens.

[ Reference Don Rehm's video on you-tube. ]


Jan> And here Otis starts to hurting people in the end.

[ How exactly, does a informative video "hurt people"?? ]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuC7a1lkrk


Otis> But this choice must be an informed one -- and you should seek out the
optometrist who has your child's long-term visual welfare at heart.

Otis> There is no "perfect" answers, only a wise choice.

Jan> You Otis are giving no perfect answers at all, not even simple answers.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)


****************

My response:

Dear Jan,


Subject: Please DO NOT TELL LIES ABOUT ME!!!


You pick up an un-substantiated statement by one nit-wit posting here
-- and repeat it.


Jan> Every time you see a posting made by the laymen Otis keep in
mind he is
hurting people, not helping.


[ Jan, this is YOUR OPINION. It is obviously the opinion of second-
opinion ODs and MDs, that the minus does not "help" -- except in a
superficial sense -- and in fact makes the eye go DOWN at a more rapid
pace. As far as "hurt" goes, you should try understanding the second- opinion
on the scientific subject of the eye's proven dynamic
behavior. OSB ]


Jan> He is trying to sell you a useless book


Otis> I sold the last book about five years ago. In the sense of
scientific freedom, and a person's right to an informed adequate
second-opinion, I am in the process of placing the book, "How to Avoid
Nearsightedness" on the net FOR FREE. As far a "useless book", that
must be a function of the engineer or scientist WHO ACTUALLY READS IT
AN UNDERSTAND IS. Since you are not an engineer, and have not read
the book, I don't see how you could even make ANY JUDGMENT OF THE BOOK OR ITS
THESIS. An Jan, in the sense of engineering analysis and design, you are a
layman on the subject matter of the book.


Jan> ....about how to avoid myopia even
if it isn't there and not ever shall be.


Otis> What are you saying here??? That is will ALWAYS BE IMPOSSIBLE
TO AVOID ENTRY INTO A NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE STATE??? That the natural
eye does not change as a function of an applied -3 diotper lens (under
true objective scientific control). Or are you attempting to close
you mind to science and fact.


Otis> In any even, you project intellectual blindness to newly
emerging scientific and experimental concepts.


Otis> Since this is a scientific site, we should certainly review your
opinion, even though having little support in objective science of the
dynamic performance of the natural eye.


Second-opinion (and preventive) best,

Otis