Jan OD calls Otis a liar. By implication he is calling all second-opinion ODs
who now support use of the preventive plus -- liars.

Effective communication ALWAYS requires respect. If you ask for a preventive
study, using the plus, and this is the "thinking" of a "leader" (Jan) in the
study -- your study will FAIL BEFORE IT STARTS.

Because he has apriori declared THAT IT MUST FAIL, and all who suggest wise
method of prevetion are "liars".

Here is the majority-opinion statement by Jan OD

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

Otis> Dear Jan,

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

Jan> Feel free to show me where I did Otis and please forget "dear Jan",
simply "Jan" will do.

Otis> You pick up an unsubstantiated statement by one nit-wit posting here --
and repeat it.

Jan> What I stated about you is not a copy and paste Otis, it is just how I
think about you.

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


Otis> [ 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> Still you are hurting people Otis, that's not a lie but simply the truth.
You make parents believe that they are to blame if there children eyes become
myopic, in that way you are hurting people Otis, that's a shame.

Jan> You blame, indirectly, youngster who's eyes getting myopic, they aren't
eager enough in following your method to avoid myopia despite the fact
your system doesn't work.

Jan> That's the dark side of your personality Otis.


Jan> He is trying to sell you a useless book


Otis> I sold the last book about five years ago.



Jan> Probably that's due to mine and other statements here Otis about you and
your method, nice to hear.



Otis> 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.


Jan> Haha, scientific?, adequate?, dream on Otis...


Otis> As far a "useless book", that
must be a function of the engineer or scientist WHO ACTUALLY READS IT AND
UNDERSTAND IS.


Jan> This frase is often used in quackery.
In other words, if the method you prescribed don't give the correct
results don't blame the method or Otis, just blame yourself.


Otis> 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.

Jan> So your saying your method only works for engineers and engineers only?
hahahahaha...............

Jan> And you are right I'm not an engineer, I'm an eyecare professional,
nothing more nothing less..

Jan> And Otis you might be an engineer but you know nothing, really nothing
about eyes, you simply are a laymen in this field Otis and even worse , a quack.


Jan> And futhermore, you are mistaken if you think I'm not familiar with your
so called "second opinion".
As others have done over several years I have tried to get direct and
straight answers from you which we never ever received from you Otis, on the
contrary, if our questions are to direct you simply started a new thread as you
shall do now I suppose.


> 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.



Jan> Let say it this way Otis.
Most youngster don't get myopic and if you use your method on these same
youngster you are a quack.


Jan> Why?
With or without the use of your second opinion these youngsters don't
get myopic.
Some one else in this newsgroup (Mike Tyner) told a funny story about
keeping elephants out of the yard, sounds familiar Otis?


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


Jan> I'll take that as a compliment coming out of your mouth Otis.


> 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.

Jan> Funny you, Otis, using the words "scientific" and "objective" the same
time......

Jan> Never ever I saw objective and/or scientifically data coming out of your
mouth Otis.


Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

===========

Subject: Putting a minus lens in front of an eye -- and asking, is one better
... is two better?

I have a set of trial lenses, and use them correctly.

After this display of mindless arrogance, I am certain I will never trust a
majority-opinion OD like Jan again.

My interest is in engineering/science, and second-opinion ODs like Raphaelson.

It is important that you understand this issue, before some arrogant OD
over-prescribed your child with a -2 diotper lens when the child passse the DMV
test.

There is little doubt about what will happen to your child's refractive STATE
from that point onward.

It will be stair-case nearsightedness, and permanent myopia.

Science and second-opinion best,

Otis