Dear Lisa,

Subject: The verified success by Dr. Orfield, and the majority-
opinion judgment of that success.

Let us say you act as an "experiment" and you have all these
costly measurements that Dr. Judy suggests.

You then work very hard an pass the DMV test (20/40) and give
"high 5ves" all around. Now, you are very proud of your efforts,
and have achieved EXACTLY what Dr. Antonia Orfield has achieved
-- return to normal vision under your control.

Here is the reaction of the "majority-opinion" ODs on
sci.med.vision.

Are they researching how Dr. Orfield cleared her vision? Or
they are thinking up endless reasons to ignore her obvious
success.

You must be the judge of this. Here are the remarks.

To avoid this "in-fighting" I would just describe successful
vision clearing as the "second-opinion" and hostility towards
distant-vision protection as the "majority opinion".

Best,

Otis

==========


From: "otis


Subject: Re: The Oakley-Young Study versus the Shotwell Study

Dear majority-opinion ODs,

So you call anyone who does not agree with you a "dumb-ass"?

This must include other ODs who have successfuly cleared off
-3 diopters of myopia uinder their own intensive work.

No, my friends, the second-opinion ODs have it correctly --
nearsighedgness is preventable -- certainly -- because Orfield
cleared her vision by dint of her hard scientific work.

See:

http://www.optometrists.org/Boston/articles.html

It would be nice if you leaned at least a little about this
second-opinion. Your clients might like to hear about it.

But, as usual, hell will freeze over before you develop that
kind of open "medical" mind.

Best,

Otis

And now, send in the "majority opinion" clowns...


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision

From: "Mike Tyner"

Subject: Re: The Oakley-Young Study versus the Shotwell Study

Otis > No, my friends, the second-opinion ODs have it correctly --
nearsighedgness is preventable -- certainly -- because
Orfield cleared her vision by dint of her hard scientific
work.

MikeOD> You are free to set your standards as low as you like.

-MT

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

From: William Stacy

Subject: Re: The Oakley-Young Study versus the Shotwell Study

Mike Tyner wrote:

Mike> You are free to set your standards as low as you like.

StacyOD> I agree. She's a fake with etherial credentials and a
penchant for the fantastic. A cursory search reveals that
she is NOT on staff at Harvard tho' it looks like she
might have married a Harvard man who gives her some credit
where it isn't due...

w.stacy, o.d.

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

From: "CatmanX" <grant

Subject: Otis still doesn't know what myopia is.

WTF is a second-opinion OD?

Is it one that can't make up their mind about something and
gives two opinions?

Orfield works at Harvard Uni Health Services so she is not on
the university staff, she works as an optometrist in their eye
clinic. http://www.covd.org/membersearch.asp type the surname and
see her practice addresses.

This is not a scientist, this is a pseudomyope that has been
incorrectly prescribed for from a young age.

dr grant

+++++++++++++++++++++++

William Stacy

From: William Stacy

Subject: Re: Otis still doesn't know what myopia is.

CatmanX wrote:

GrantOD > Orfield works at Harvard Uni Health Services so she is
not on the university staff, she works as an optometrist
in their eye clinic.

Stacy> Are you sure? I couldn't even find an eye clinic or
anything vision related there or any mention of her name
on their staff. Try looking around at

Stacy> http://huhs.harvard.edu/

Stacy> and if you go here:

http://www.optometrists.org/therapists_teachers/Harvard_study_lite
rac...

Stacy> you'll see where her old man tries to help her out, and she
gets credit for working at the:

Stacy> "Harvard University Health Services Eye Clinic"

Stacy> which if you paste to google, you get referred back only to
her own self-serving trash. It doesn't even exist, which
I why I called her credentials "etherial".

Stacy> Will we ever be rid of these snake oil salespersons???

w.stacy, o.d.

[Comment: So ANY REPORTED SUCCESS will always be classed as
"pseudo-myopia", or muscle-spasm myopia, but not "real
myopia". So Lisa, if you get out of nearsighedness, you
did not have "real myopa", no you had "muscle spasm"
mypoia all the time and did not know it. OSB]

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

The Oakley-Young Study versus the Shotwell Study

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision

From: "CatmanX" (Dr. Grant)

Subject: Re: The Oakley-Young Study versus the Shotwell Study

Grant> Interestingly enough, she exhibits all the characteristics
of an anal retentive, which is exactly the sort of person
that this will work for. She was not a true myope as she
had accommodative spasm, not axial elongation. Also, it
took 14 years to resolve. That IS anal retentiveness.

Grant> Sorry Otis, you still haven't convinced anyone of anything.

dr grant

[Comment: No, I have not convinced the MAJORITY-OPINION ODs of
"anything". But the preventive second-opinion
optometrists are willing to work on the basis of the
scientific research of Dr. Francis Young and other
scientists. The "public" should be fully apprised of
these two "methods" BEFORE they are put into a strong
minus lens. OSB]

[Comment: So Lisa, if you do not clear your vision, why then you
had "real myopia", where as if you do "clear" and pass the
DMV, then by-gosh you just had "muscle spasm" myopia which
you could have avoided all this time. And if you claim
"success" then, of course you must be a "snake-oil"
salesman -- but of course. OSB]

%%%%%%%%%%

From: Lisa

Subject: Making measurements to verify vision clearing.

Judy

Lisa> Let's say I do these measurements.

Lisa> Can they be used with credibility by someone else who might
want to write up a case and publish it? or can they only
be used by the doctor who has done the measurements?

Lisa> I am willing to pay a certain amount to document my pre and
post measurements - if they can be useful.

Lisa> But I would like to know that they can in fact be useful.

Lisa> And I can't guarantee that anyone I saw here would be
interested in publicizing even unusual information

Lisa> Assuming I get these measurements and actcually make a
signifucant change in my vision - is thers someone on this
list - your or anyone else - who could and would publish
this information?

Lisa

drjudy65 wrote:

Judy> Documenting cycloplegic refraction is easy and should be
part of the cost of a regular exam.

Judy> You will need to see a surgeon who does cataract surgery for
the Ultrasound measures.

Judy> Lens density testing and very accurate pupil size measures
are not available outside of a research facility.

Judy> In Canada, an ultrasound/ scanning laser test of eye size
would be about $125.

Judy> If you explain that you are trying NVI and want to document
the eye and you offer to pay for the services, then you
should get co operation.

Judy