RetsMO.txt

Dear Doogle,

Subject: A General discussion about rejectiing plus-prevention.


REVIEWING THE BOOK, "HOW TO AVOID NEARSIGHEDNESS"

IMAGINATION

Imagination is more important that knowledge...knowledge is
limited but imagination circles the world. To see with one's own
eyes, to feel and judge without succumbing to the suggestive power
of the fashion of the day, to be able to express what one has seen
and felt in a trim sentence or even a cunningly wrought word...is
that not glorious? When I examine myself and my methods of
thought, I come close to the conclusion that the gift of
imagination has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing
absolute knowledge.

Albert Einstein


Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the
limits of the world.

Arthur Schopenhauer



If you have ANY QUESTIONS about my answer to Neil Brooks --
feel free to ask them. For you I will do my best.

The reason Brooks was Banned, was ONLY because he posted his
questions a zillion times AFTER I had answered them.

Essentially what Brooks was doing was to question my MOTIVES.

My MOTIVE was to not repeat my "mistake" in "accepting" and
over-prescribed minus -- in the first place. (I mean "repeat" in
a metaphysical sense. -- i.e., Keith did what I WISH I COULD HAVE
DONE.)

So, were my motives "pure"? For Keith and his children, they
certainly are. For Raphelson and his family -- the were.
Rapaelson did his work -- as I do it. So that others might have a
FIGHTING CHANCE AT PREVENTION.

And this will be a credit to YOUR INTELLECT in about 15 years
when your own kids start getting into it. (And that will be
difficult -- so be prepared.)

I have posted my answers to YaBB. I think that is
sufficient. Like my question to Retinula about the -3 diopter
lens on the fundamental eye -- his answer, Yes, No, I don't know
-- would be fine.

Except he does not answer. So I have, and he tells me that a
minus lens had no effect -- and on a scientific level -- I am
virtually certain that it does.

Since there is NO DISCUSSION WITH him on this subject, I
simply call his statements the "M.O., since he is living in this
"world" where the eye is "frozen" by his beliefs.

Here is some more commentary:


Ret > Otis,

Ret > If all your statements above are attempts to answer any of
the questions that Neil D. Brooks originally posted to you,
they fail miserably!

Otis> This from a man who refuses to state what will happen if you
place a -3 diopter on the fundamental eye. Now THAT is a
easy question -- and the correct answer is critical. I have
ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS. IF a person does not "like" the
answers -- that is a profoundly DIFFERENT ISSUE.

Ret > Those "clips" and misquotes taken out of context from the
original conversations say nothing. And you haven't proven
anything that you have been asked to.

Otis> Doogle, this is where YOU make the judgment about WHICH
questions are "correct". There is no other way.

Ret > 1. Provide PROOF that minus lenses accelerate myopia in
humans.

Otis> Ret -- YOU provide PROOF that the refractive state does NOT
GO DOWN BY -2 DIOPTERS WHEN YOU PLACE A -3 DIOTPER LENS ON
THE EYE.

Ret > 2. Provide PROOF that plus lenses prevent myopia
development in humans.

Otis> This depends on item #1, as per above. Once you understand
the implications of that correct answer, the next issue is
to use the PLUS for pure-prevention. The closest to that
issue is the Oakley-Young study where a WEAK +1.5 diotper
stopped DOWN movement of the natural primate eye.

Ret > 3. Please explain why you do not warn people that plus
lenses can induce diplopia. You certainly recommend "the
plus" all the time but not once do you give full disclosure
about its potential harm.

Otis> As far as I am concerned -- it does not. But the issue is
that a judgment must be made. I suggest that putting a -3
diopter lens on the eye results in the eye going DOWN by -2
diopters in 12 months. That is PROVEN in science. The
minus can be used -- but this is obvious proof that there is
a profound risk to it -- i.e., stair-case myopia.

Otis> This is a CHOICE -- and the person should be informed of it.
It is like Lasik -- and its risks. They should be reviewed
PRIOR to the use of a plus.

Ret > 4. Please explain why you think Oakley-Young proves
ANYTHING except that using bifocal adds can possibly reduce
myopia development in nearpoint esophores. That is what the
study was about, and nothing else.

Otis> Because "phoria" common to all natural eyes -- has NOTHING
TO DO WITH IT. The "plus" was the key issue -- and the plus
group did not go down relative to that full-strength minus
group that went DOWN at -2 diopters in four years. This is
a close as you are going to get to a pure-plus preventive
strudy.

Ret > Thats just a few of the obvious remaining open questions
that you never try to openly address.

Otis> I have -- but M.O. Retinula chooses to IGNORE ALL THE
ANSWERS.

Ret > Why not just have a clear-cut honest open discussion and cut
the evasive crap?

Otis> I just did.

Ret > Your credibility is ZERO.

Otis> Your credibility, in insisting that a -3 diopter lens has NO
EFFECT on the refractive state of the FUNDAMENTAL eye is
less than zero.

Otis

+++++++++


RetClue.txt

Dear Doogle,

The arrogance of Retinula. Ret has an
education in how to make a person's vision instantly sharp with a
minus. That is not science at all -- that is a crude, simplistic
quick-fix.

But then he ASSUMES that because he can do this -- he has the
"title" of scientists. That is complete BULL S__T.

Doogle -- I understand prevention to be difficult -- but
possible. Understand that there ARE S.O. ODs to totally disagree
with Ret.

More commentary:

Ret > science is nothing more than a logical rational
evidence-based approach to problem solving.

Otis> OK, then place a -3 dioper lens on the fundamental eye --
and report the results ACCURATELY. TO REFUSE TO DO THIS --
AND YOU ARE ANTI-SCIENCE.

Ret > "science" does not say that myopia is all genetic nor is
diabetes all genetic.

Otis> The NATURAL eye can have a negative or positve refractive
STATE. This is NOT A DEFECT. It is the natural eye's
PROVEN BEHAVIOR. We are not taking "cause", but ONLY
objective facts -- concerning the NATURAL EYES PROVEN
BEHAVIOR. Retinula it totally blind ot this issue.

Ret > "science" DOES say that diabetes CAN be influenced by diet,
exercise, etc.

Ret > i think you do not fully understand what science is.

Otis> I think that M.O. Ret has no clue about the nature of
"Science".

Best,

Otis


========


Dear Doogle,

When Retinula or any other M.O. OD insists that the eye does
not go DOWN when you place a -3 diopter lens on it -- I say this
-- OK, I respect you.

But, as an Engineer, I am GOING TO CHECK THE HELL OUT OF YOUR
SWEEPING STATEMENT.

I can not do this to the human-priamte eye, but I sure as
hell can check the monkey-primate eye.

That way I will KNOW FOR CERTAIN.

So I put a -3 dioper lens on the fundamental eye -- and what
happens?

The refractive state FOLLOWS that -3 diopter lens, going down
by at least -2 diopters in 12 months.

In HUMAN TERMS, this means that is you take a child at 20/20
(refractive state zero) an place a -3 diopter lens on the child,
then in 12 months, the child will be a -2 diopter myope, and his
Snellen will be 20/140.

And this is a NATURAL PROCESS.

When some one DENIES SCIENTIFIC TRUTH OF THIS NATURE TO MY
FACE -- what am I to think?

OK, so he believes his self-generated FIBS. I can not change
that at all.

But, I can point the the S.O. ODs who acknowledge these
scientific facts -- and are willing to understand the IMPLICATIONS
of these facts.

I also agree that "we the public" love that quick-fx, and
hate "plus- preveniton". But we need to CHANGE.

I would gladly ACCEPT periodic use of the plus (for reading)
in school and college to KEEP MY DISTANT VISION. I need to be
TOLD THIS BY ANY AND ALL ODS.

I WOULD GLADLY PAY FOR THAT INFORMATION -- FEE SCHEDULE
DETERMINED BY THE OD'S TIME WITH ME.

But, with Ret -- this in never going to happen -- and he
fights tooth-and-nail against is.

This then forces me to realize all of this -- and that make
is very tough.

But this is about you, Doogle, and your future children -- so
THEY get the help that you and I NEVER RECEIVED.

Best,

Otis

^^^^^^^^


From: "Otis Brown" <otisbrown@...>

Subject: Dan LOVES Brooks!

Dear Doogle,

There is no accounting for human stupidity.

Here is "Dan" who loves Reintiula's FIB that the eye is not
dynamic, and that the natural eye does not change its refractive
STATE when you place a -3 diopter lens on it.

So the "fib" meshes with Dan.

If you truly want to know why NO OD CAN HELP THE PUBLIC READ
ON.

And ask yourself -- if YOU WERE AN OD -- how could you ever
help a person like Dan. Truly impossible. Now, the only issue
that will remain -- is how you help your own children avoid ENTRY
into a negative refractive STATE.

More Commentary:

Dan > Just want to say that I think it's a shame Neil got banned.
I'm not sure whether Otis really means any harm, but he does
manipulate people (consciously or unconsciously) and spreads
misinformation that is very confusing to people who are
trying to learn more about vision improvent.

Dan > Neil just kept pointing it out by questioning what Otis says
after just about every post. While this is tedious and
filled half the forum with Neils' questions, i think he did
a good job reveiling Otis' true face to new forum users who
would otherwise have been deceived by all those unscientific
claims that are very tempting to believe.

Otis> Dootle, this is were YOUR judgment of the eye's dynamic
behavior can make all the difference. I am called a liar
BECAUSE I test all fundamental eyes for this
"characteristic". It is up to you to decide if this
scientific approach is correct -- in YOUR TERMS.

Dan > I don't think it is a matter of agreeing or disagreeing when
one party is blatantly lying over and over again instead of
engaging in a rational debate. It borders on mind control.

Otis> Doogle -- again, it is your call.

Best,

Otis

+++++++++

Dear Doogle,

The reason it takes a WISE person to "work" preventing a
negative refractive STATE.

Here is Dug -- again. Central to my thesis is the need to
CHECK for dynamic behavior of all fundamental eyes.

Because you can not make the necessary -3 diopter CHANGE in
the human eye.

So it takes INTELLIGENCE to understand that specific issue.
There is no better word for it that.

Dug will go his own way -- and I have nothing to say about
it. But if he goes to college (engineering) he will EXPECT his
refractive state to go DOWN by -1.3 diopters AVERAGE. But I doubt
that he would understand that issue at all.

But if his hot rice-bags work for him -- then that is
wonderful.

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

Dug > the other thing thats frightening here is that hes
_insisting_ that _his_ is the _only right question_,

Otis> No, I suggest that is it a means to determine if the natural
eye is, or is-not a dynamic system. NOTHING more than tha.


Dug > but from where Im looking his simply _isnt_ the right
question at all.

Otis> Fine -- then that PERMANETLY ends the possibility of
understanding the natural eye's behavior -- in terms of
refractive STATE.

Dug > those first three questinos that neil kept asking him blew
his whole primate thing off the face of the map.

Otis> If you say so. If you insist on that -- then the
possibility of proving the NATRUAL EYE as dynamic -- is
IMPOSSIBLE.

Dug > why _otis_ hasnt figure it out is still anybodys guess.

Otis> Dug's opinion -- and he is welcome to it. And if hot rice
bags do not keep him "clear" after 4 years --- what then?


Otis