Dear Jon,

I learned a hard lesson -- that the only person who cares
about your long-term vision -- is yourself.

The profound arrogance and ignorance of these majority-opinion
ODs is staggering.

It is well to understand this in any decisions you make in the
for your vision in the future.

Best,

Otis

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


Subject: My own "errors of action and judgment" as a young child



Dear Keith,

Subject: Making mistakes in one generation -- fixing them in
the next.

I personally do not like making mistakes. But, having made a
mistake -- I do not like to repeat it in a second generation.
This is why "families" solve problems of this nature.

The "mistake" I made is described below. Had I been "warned"
about this issue then perhaps very forceful means could have been
used for prevention. (I did not do it quite as bad as this child is
doing it. But the effect of receiving no warning at all -- are
still the same.)

I am convinced as the scientific facts concerning the
behavior of all primate eyes. You do this to the primate eye --
and its refractive state will move in the negative direction --
consistent with scientific proof. But the majority-opinion OD is
in total denial of this -- so they offer no warning at all,
effectively saying that your child can read all day at 3 inches
(-13 diopters) and it has no effect on the natural eye's
refractive state.

Here is both the statement of the problem, and then TOTAL
DENIAL of scientific proof by the sci.med.vision group. It is
good to know the "mind" of a majority-opinion OD, suggests that
you should have knowledge of the preventive choice -- at the
threshold as you have used it.

I know your own children have not yet gotten in to the
terrible "habit", but I think you know how serious ignorance is,
and the long-term consequence it must have for this poor child.

I will post the remarks by Liberman (a layman) and then by
three ODs. They are profoundly "dumb" and reflect the mind of men
whose entire "world" is only in their office. The effect on young
children WHO SHOULD BE STOPPED FROM THIS 3-INCH HABIT are simply
catastrophic.


Best,

Otis


_______________________________


Dear Friends,

Subject: The effect of denying scientific proof and
truth


This issue is about the father not noticing that his kid was
putting his nose almost ON THE PAGE in the first place.

Of all the "bad" things a young child could do -- that is
about the worst.

If any OD encounters a child (at age 5) at -3/4 diopters
(about 20/50) it is my strong opinion that the OD should talk to
the parents about this specific issue, and have the child read
some things to verify this. Very few ODs will even pay ANY
ATTENTION to what the child is doing.

This is obviously not optometry (or these ODs "think" that
way) -- and it is very hard to "stop" the child -- but my personal
opinion is that we should start this preventive process with that
kind of interview and discussion with the parent.

Best,

Otis

____________________________________


From: Alan Lieberman <liebe...@...>

Subject: Re: The effect of denying scientific proof and truth

Otis> (But anyone attempting to provide that type of information
will be "sued" for telling scientific truth.)

Otis> Does anyone give a damn?

Alan > Nobody gives a damn.

Alan > You are getting sued because you are not in a position to
give medical advice since you are not in the medical
profession.

[Comment: A complaint has been filed by Neil Brooks, claiming
that my report that the natural eye "follows" an imposed
confined environment constitutes a "medical" statement.
OSB]

Alan > Have you not gotten this yet???

Allen

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

Mike Tyner OD

Subject: Re: The effect of denying scientific proof and truth

Otis> Re: Failure to provide ANY warning about this bad habit to
the parents. The important thing would be to stop the
kid's bad habit FIRST -- before the situation gets
out-of-control.

Mike-OD> So if we _do_ warn about close working distances, would
you shut up and go away?

-MT

[Comment: This is of course total abnegation of ANY
RESPONSIBILITY to the parent and child. Is this the
attitude and actions of a true-professional? And what
happens when the child develops more serious myopia and a
detached retina in later life and goes blind, I a certain
that Mike will not acknowledge any responsibility for that
either. That leaves the parent to be "responsible" for
that consequence also -- not to mention the child's fate.
And they like to accuse me of not being "responsible".
This is truly a "learning experience". OSB]


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

From: "RM" <priv...@...> - Find messages by this author

Subject: Re: The effect of denying scientific proof and truth

Otis> my personal opinion is that ...

Otis> Just my opinion --

RM-OD> I like your new approach. Did your lawyer recommend it?

RM-OD> BTW, there is no data that reading too close causes myopia.
In fact, I have a lot of parents who claim that their kids
read too close and in fact they are hyperopes (that means
they are farsighted Otis).

RM-OD> On the subject of prevention, that would be great if there
was something that we knew that worked.

[Comment: Keith, the only thing that "works" is when
you realize how totally stupid these people are,
and that you have little choice but to respect the facts
concerning the natural eye's behavior, and work WITH that
behavior -- rather than against it. OSB]



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


Jan-OD (Dutch majority-opinion optometrist)


Subject: Re: The effect of denying scientific proof and truth

<otisbr...@...> schreef in bericht

Otis> Subject: Kids and their 3-inch (-13 diopter) reading bad
habits.

Jan-OD> Look in the mirror Otis Brown and speak out loud and clear
what the header says.

Otis> ''this is the effect of denying scientific proof and truth"

Jan-OD> In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be
destroyed

Jan-OD (normally Dutch spoken)

[Comment: Preventing the development of a negative refractive
state for the eye is not "therapy". It is rather a wise
understanding of the proven behavior of the natural eye
(primate eyes) and applying that information to your own
personal situation. Jan's idea is that people who promote
your own personal welfare (the second-opinion) should be
destroyed. What does that tell you about majority-opinion
optometrists? Do you think you will receive an honest
second-opinion from Jan? Do you know the consequence of
this type of arrogance for your long-term vision? OSB]


[Previously posted -- you have already reviewed this.]

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

1. otisbrown@...

Jan 8, 11:45 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision

From: "otisbr...@..." <otisbr...@...> - Find messages by this
author

Subject: The effect of denying scientific proof and truth

Subject: Kids and their 3-inch (-13 diopter) reading bad habits.

Re: Failure to provide ANY warning about this bad habit to the
parents. The important thing to do would be to stop the
kid's bad habit FIRST -- before the situation got
out-of-control.


SCIENCE:


If you take a population of young primate eyes (measure the
refractive state of all of them) and place half of them in a
confined visual environment, then the half forced into that
"close" environment will experience a refractive change in the
direction and approximate "near" environment. Remark: This a
natural process -- and the science is final. This experiment can
be repeated and the results will be the same -- versus the concept
that the eye WILL NOT change its refractive state in conformance
to this change.


OPTOMETRY:


Optometry pretends that scientific proof that the living eye
is dynamic -- DOES NOT EXIST. Therefore they will provide NO
WARNING about some children's obviously bad habits. (i.e.,
putting the nose on the page when reading -- same as the above
"monkey" scientific test. The implication for the 3-inch child is
that his eyes will behave EXACTLY as the primate eye behaves, i.e.,
the refractive state of his eyes will do the same thing -- and his
natural eyes will have a seriously negative refractive state. The
real issue is for the parents (by one means or another) to stop
the child from doing this. But of course that would require that
the parents have a clear understanding of the science of the
natural eye's behavior. (But anyone attempting to provide that
type of information will get "sued" for telling scientific truth.
Does anyone give a damn?)


NOW ENTER THE OPTOMETRIST


(Who for reasons of the Neil Brooks effect, will not talk
about the first issue -- of prevention -- but will simply apply a
minus lens. Sometimes a "bi-focal" but that is probably
too-little, too-late. In fact the REAL ISSUE is the extremely bad
habit of the child.


Here is the discussion for your understanding.


Subject: Kid reading at 3 inches -- and effect on natural
eye's refractive state.


______________________


From: RT <RTM...@...>


Subject: Re: Appraising the OD


"Mike Tyner"


MikeOD > > We have several good bifocal studies that show they
don't offer substantial benefit to asymptomatic young
people. So where are these "professionals" recommending
bifocals for non-presbyopes?


Layman> My 9 year old son was prescribed bifocals. I don't have
his script in front of me, but both eyes are around -7.50
with 1D of astig.


Layman> > He has +3. The reason being is that when wearing the
-7's he reads over the tops of his glasses about 3 inches
from his face because he cannot focus in his glasses at a
comfortable distance to read.


Layman> > They seem to be working, meaning that he can now read
and do his homework with his glasses on, but sometimes I do
catch him reading over the tops of his glasses. He does
that consistently if he wants to examine something close up.


Layman> > He has contacts too (Proclear) and in those he's forced
to read from a greater (and probably more correct) distance.
He doesn't like wearing them for that reason because he
can't bring things up to the tip of his nose like he's used
to.


Mike> > He's certainly not a presbyope!


Mike> BTW: his glasses are progressives. he adapted to them very
quickly.


__________________________________


Commentary: The real issue is this kids "unfortunate" habit of
putting the nose on the page. Nothing was said about this
-- and no attempt was made to do anything about it -- since
that would have required that the parents be aware of the
effect that a "near" environment has on the refractive state
of the natural eye.

Otis> It would be better if the parents had this information --
and could take effective actions, but Retinula keeps
insisting against all scientific proof, that environment had
NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATE OF THE NATURAL EYE.

Otis> I would suggest you understand the effect that Retinula's
intense bias against science has on the restraint of
information about this issue to the parent.

Otis> It would indeed be difficult to STOP a child from doing this
-- but that would be the first step of true-prevention, and
this certainly is not a "plus" issue at all. It is an issue
of "open" information and choice for the educated parent and
child, and is not a "medical" issue. Although neglect of
this issue eventually BECOMES a "medical" issue. This is
why sci.med.vision is an open SCIENTIFIC forum where we learn to
understand this second-opinion issue.

Best,

Otis