Dear Fred,

Subject: The tragic "attitude" of the majority-opinion

Re: How do we learn to "work together" on prevention,
if this is the "attitude" that we encounter?

I know how hard it is to use the plus "aggressively". I know
that most people have NO INTEREST in their distant vision,
and only want it "cleared" with the minus.

But that still does not "excuse" Retinula's attitude.

True-professionals (as the public) must begin to
understand this issue.

Here is the conversation for your enjoyment.

Best,

Otis
__________

Dear Keith,

Subject: Beware of the (majority-opinion) Retinulas of this
world, and their over-prescription of a minus lens.

Re: Remember the second-opinion ODs strongly support the plus for
prevention at the threshold. Retinula changes "mal-practice"
for the ODs who advocate change is NOT THE WAY YOU
SOLVE SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS.


Re: Power destroys. Absolute power destroys absolutely.


I am very pleased you had the intelligence, and more
importantly the FORTITUDE to "work" the preventive method in the
manner of Dr. Stirling Colate.

I know that "kids" are very stubborn about any preventive
method. But one of the jobs you will have as a parent it to help
them understand "issues" that are greatly for their own personal
benefit. If they "get the idea" then that is great. If they do
not -- then eventually you must let them go.

For your entertainment, here is an OD who now states that:

True-prevention is mal-practice. Retinula.

All I can suggest is that when your kids get older -- try to
avoid this type of OD. Just remember that second-opinion ODs like
Steve Leung have there own children into a plus as soon as their
eye chart is at 20/25 or 20/30, (refractive state -1/2 diopter).

As far as doing this intellectual analytic work is concerned,
I would say that most of the time I realize that I am "wasting my
time", but then I think of Raphaelson, and I say -- but someone
must "take heart" and provide you with a "fighting chance" to keep
your distant vision clear. After all, a decision of this
magnitude will "affect" you for most of your life. And that is too
important a decision to be made by a majority-opinion OD in 15
minutes because a minus lens works "instantly". Retinula is
hermetically sealed in his office and has no idea of the nature of
this issue. Just be careful.

Otie

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

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

Subject: Re: What type of "support" should an OD provide?

Ret > gees Otis, you post at least 50% of the messages on this
forum. do you think you really have something that
important to say? your stuff is so repetitive (Raphaelson,
"second opinion", Steve Leung, blah blah). you don't even
seem to be able to directly reply in a rational way to what
the topics are. its just repeating the some old "Otis'
favor cliches".

> Otis> Remember, some people who PASS the 20/40 line (DMV) wind
up with an over-prescribed -2.0 diopter lens (documented).

Ret > ...again, you keep repeating this crap over and over again.
if you tested 100 eye doctors who were prescribing lenses
for a simple myope who tests acuity at 20/40, 99 of them
would give the patient glasses in the range of -0.75 to
-1.25. someone once told you a story about getting a -2.00
prescription and its just stuck in your mind that every eye
doctor must do that. kind of like the way you embrace the
Young bifocal study but ignore all the others. kind of like
you embrace the chicken and monkey eye development studies
but ignore the human studies. one-track otis.

> Otis> I suggest that prevention be explained as the "second
opinion" with the person himself taking a much greater
degree of responsibility to IMPLEMENT vision-clearing from
20/50 to 20/40 or better. What do you think. What
suggestions can you give to an OD who would offer you
true-prevention of this nature? Andrew? Tom?

Ret > this is not true prevention. its true malpractice. plus
lenses have been studied and shown not to work.

[Comment: This is Retinula's intense majority-opinion bias. The
Oakley-Young study says otherwise. I have great confidence
in Francis Young, and on the validity of his data. But of
far greater importance is the result of the primate studies
that prove (on a scientific level) that the natural eye is a
dynamic (or auto-focused) camera that controls its
refractive state to its average visual environment. You can
prove NOTHING about the living eye until you actually test
it. Scientific testing and verification is everything to me.
OSB]

Ret > doctors and companies who propose such things end up in
trouble because people who believe them find out it doesn't
work and come back for justice (e.g. I See Clearly).
quacks and fools on the internet, like you otis, operate on
the fringes and are just out of reach of the authorities.

[Comment: Yes, I have been called "names" by the likes of
Retinula. But Keith, I ask, what is more important --
myself, or your long-term visual welfare. If I get the
science of the living-eye correctly, then the name-calling
Retinula does not hurt me. It only hurts the people he
deals with -- the creation of stair-case myopia. OSB]

Ret > ...what do you think otis? should someone in this forum
hold you accountable for the success of their vision
therapy?

[Comment: I have NEVER said "therapy". Preventing a negative
refractive state in the living eye is not "medicine", it is
basic science. So, Keith, I guess you can hold me
"accountable" for your success in clearing your vision in
college, and keeping it clear under your own scientific
control as Stirling Colate did. OSB]

Ret > ...should you be held accountable by your internet service
provider for the type of advice you give out to people?

[Comment: I believe the concept of scientific freedom of speech
applies here. But of even greater importance is this idea
that I wish some one would have gotten on my "case" when I
put my nose on the book. The "problem" starts with my "bad
habits" -- and that makes me responsible. This is the
"advice" is the advice I wish I had been provided with, by
my parents, and by a second-opinion OD. You do not "like"
the scientific advice? Then ignore it and accept the
consequences, which becomes stair-case myopia as proven by
the Oakley-Young study. OSB]

Ret > ...maybe, if that were the case, you would pause to think,
and be more certain of what you are saying!

Otis> Using NEUTRAL words (i.e., refractive state) to describe the
behavior of the living primate eye, I am virtually certain
that if YOU PERSONALLY ran the experiment you would get the
following results:

1. Place the primate eye in a more-confined environment.

Result: The refractive state moves in the direction and magnitude
of the "nearer" environment. (Direct science -- virtually
certain.)

2. Place a -3 diopter lens on 1/2 the primate eyes under test.

Result: The refractive state moves in the direction and magnitude
of the -3 diopter environment. (Direct science -- virtually
certain.)

[Comment: These tests have been performed too may times for there
to be any doubt about this type of behavior of the natural
eye. I think the individual needs to understand these
issue, (and perhaps they will not) but I am certain of the
above scientific results. OSB]

Ret > ...when you prove a prevention method exists, then eye
doctors will be more than happy to educate their patients
about it.

[Comment: Yes, and I can see Retinula explaining that he is
"sorry" that he created stair-case myopia in a child, but
"now" he is going to offer "prevention". And how, exactly,
is he going to do that? Keith, you are well advised to
understand this profound blindness of this man. At the
present time, it means that you must pay attention to the
objective facts and realize that Retinula is totally
"disconnected" from fundamental science. OSB]


[Comment: In science -- facts and truth are everything. I am
afraid that for Retinula, science and proof that the living
eye is dynamic means nothing at all. This is profoundly
tragic for all concerned -- but Retinula is never going to
"know" it. OSB]