Dear Keith,

Subject: Incredible blindness of the "majority opinion".

When you were young it would have been difficult to explain
these issues to you.

Now that you are older, you can begin to understand the
blindness of this man.

You would have lost your distant vision permanently if you
had come under the "control" of this arrogant and ignorant person.

Otis

___________

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

Subject: Why I object to the "trashing" of scientific truth

Otis> Maybe you do not want to "work" with prevention?

Ret > the only myopia "prevention" schemes that have been shown to
work are anti-muscarinic compounds that are currently the
subject of scientific investigation. everything else has
pretty much been disproven in scientific studies. it is you
otis who is trashing scientific truth. your hypothesis is
based upon stubborn faith only.

Otis> Maybe you do not "mind" stair-case myopia?

Ret > this does not occur in humans.

Otis> The Oakley-Young proved the -1/2 diopter per year versus the
zero diopter per year of the plus group. Retinula is truly
blind to what he does not wish to understand. Try to avoid
this type of thinking. But the primate eye provides exact
proof. So they then ridicule the primate scientific data --
because they have no "science" behind what they are doing.
Only the fact that the minus is instantly "effective" and
impresses the ignorant and non-motiavated person walking in
off the street. What a price we pay for our ignorance --
and THEIR IGNORANCE, driven by arrogance.

Otis> I personally prefer and informed, honest choice in this
matter.

Ret > i do too. thats why someone has to be the voice of reason
to contradict your false claims. everyone must know that,
honestly, there is no scientific or medical data to support
your claims.

Otis> It is obvious that "Ret" can "control" the medical issues --
to your detriment. But he can not control objective
scientific proof (of the direct type) that proves the
dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. Just remember that
the second-opinion supports prevention and denies Rets
arrogance and ignorance about the scientific issue.

Otis> I am often told that I should work "with" these people. I
would ask, "how"?

Ret > you have given us a long list of supposed friends who are
eye doctors-- thats how you can work with someone to prove
what you claim. and anyway, why don't your doctor friends
come forward and post their support? or why don't they
publish any findings that support you?

Otis> Keith, the person who needs the scientific proof, or
sufficient regard for it, must be the person who decides to
use the plus agressively, and potentially successfully -- as
you have done it. It certainly is not "easy", but the
science behind it says that it is possible.

^^^^^^^^^^^

From: Otis

Subject: Re: Eye adaptation to lenses?

> > Dear Mike and DrG,

Otis> I am pleased that you think that developing stair-case
myopia in children with an over-prescribed minus lens such a
joke. I do not. But that is the difference between us.
Best, Otis

Ret > otis, in case you don't understand, they are mocking you.

Otis> I hope that I have the guts to "stand tall" and take their
"mocking". The only person who "wins" this battle is you,
Keith.

Ret > you keep trying to act like its proven that staircase myopia
exists but it doesn't.

Otis> This becomes a Ret's scientific lie -- if you read the
Oakley-Young study. But since this is Ret's belief, I
will call it a fib. (A fib is a lie you tell youself long
enough so you believe it.)

Ret > mike and drG are eye doctors and they know from the research
and from their clinical experience that you are wrong.

Otis> They forget the concept of the "second-opinion" -- truly raw
majority-opinion arrogance of the worst sort.

Ret > why not open your mind to a different way of thinking?

Otis> Truly bizzare, since analytic thinking about the dynamic
nature of the fundamental eye is truly "different". It is
Ret's clinging to that box-camera (dead eye) picture of the
eye that is truly a matter of a profoundly "closed" mind.

Ret > maybe you have something to learn from people with more
experience and training than you. why be so stubborn and
repetitive.

Otis> I learned a long time ago that I "think alone". We all do.
Only when you realize this and think for yourself -- is
fundamental change possible, i.e., prevention under your own
control.

Ret > perhap myopia prevention is really possible just in a
different way than you believe.

Otis> The issue is your choice -- how you think, and what you
believe is "right" for yourself. I can not see Ret ever
being involved in prevention on the threshold -- when it
must be instituted to be successful.

Ret > if so, you will be the last to see it.

Otis> No, Ret will be the last to understand it, after
creating an incredible amount of stair-case myopia in the
people he over-perscribes for.

Otis