Dear Prevention minded friends.

Subject: Summary and commentary on historic prevention
with the plus -- at the threshold.

Ret> I have serious doubt that a kids vision will go down by 1/2
diopter per year once they are given minus lenses. Show the evidence
for that in humans. I will show you the evidence that it is not true
in a second posting.

Otis> Oakley-Young study showed taht the single-minus
went "down" at -1/2 dipter per year, the "plus" went
down a zero diopters per year.

Ret> ...and no eyedoc over-prescribes minus. we give just enough to
get the patient to see 20/20.

Otis> I have verified cases where the person passes
all legal visual requirement for visual acuity -- and
was PRESCRIBED a -2.0 diopter lens. That, my friend,
is gross over-prescription.

Otis> It is clear that if a child lets his vision go below 20/40,
> and gets down to 20/70, then a minus lens must be used. But,
> given the facts we have now, that can only be the result of the
> person's neglect of using the plus lens, when necessary to clear
> back to 20/40 or better.

Ret> What facts do you have now that proves intervening
with plus lenses on a myope will cause their myopia to be reduced.
Please produce me the facts (in humans, a statistically-valid
population study).

Otis> See below.

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


Retinula asked for proof that a "highly intelligent" person
who would VERY agressively work with the plus -- could clear their
vision to pass all legal visual-acuity requirements.

In the "bi-focal" study, a WEAK 1.5 diopter plus was used,
and the "plus" was not used agressively -- so this was not, nor
could it ever be, a true test of the PEVENTIVE effect of a strong
plus, on the order of +2.5 to 3.0 diopters (to be used at the
20/50 level.)

It is obvious that, if there is no personal commitment in
wearing the plus -- there is no solution.

It person does not have much interest in "protecting" his
distant vision -- it is obvious that he is going to lose it.

Best,

Otis

_____________________________________________________


Dear Friends,

This was written about 100 years ago.

Chalmer Prentice, M.D. may have not got everything right (no
one ever does) but he got this part right.

The difficulty is not the statement of what is necessary. It
is in helping the person develop the knowledge and
force-of-character to successfully implement his prevetive methods
-- before his eyes "adapt" to that minus lens.

Today a great mass of explict DIRECT factual data spells out
the true effect that both a "confined environment" AND a minus
lens ultimately have on the eye.

What have we on i-see about this preventive method?

Best,

Otis

_____________________________________________________


Excerpt

From Chalmer Prentice


The foregoing in connection with limited tests of more than
two hundred similar cases suggests an answer to that most
important question, 'What shall we do to prevent myopia in school
children and students?'

[Comment: These were cases where the person cleared his vision
with the plus. OSB]

In a nomad, who is reared out of doors, who follows such
pursuits that his vision is mostly used at twenty feet and greater
distances, the nerve-impulses to the ciliary muscle become
established so that the easiest vision is for the far point, and
in many years of such use, these impulses become more or less
fixed; while the child of a higher civilization spends its life
within doors, amuses itself with toys, picture books, kindergarten
amusements and learning to read.

We will assume that such a child generally holds its book or
toy ten inches from the eyes, in which case the crystalline lens
requires a much greater convexity, or higher state of refraction
to bring about perfect vision; and this is brought about by an
increase in the ciliary nerve-impulse which contracts the ciliary
muscle. Through long continued use, this excessive impulse
becomes comparatively fixed, and in some instances refuses to
suspend itself sufficiently to bring about distant vision again,
and so myopia has set in.

The regular work of the student and those other pursuits
which require the use of the eye at the near point, tend to
perpetuate this disease and make it progressive.

Again, the important question, 'How are the advantages of a
high civilization to be attained wihout the foregoing
disadvantages?' If the eyes are to be used at a distance of ten
inches, aid them artificially by a ten inch magnifying glass; then
the nerve-impulses to the ciliary muscle will be no more than if
the patient were leading an outdoor life and viewing objects at
twenty feet or more. The nerve-centers are not called upon for so
excessive an impulse, and they become habituated to sending the
same amount of nerve-force as if an outdoor life were led.

In conjunction with this artificial aid to the ciliary
centers, it may be found advantageous to suspend, in a measure,
the excessive nerve-impulses to the interni, by the use of prisms,
base in. Under these artificial conditions, the eyes may be used
in the attainment of all the advantages of the highest
civilization while the nerve-centers are no more taxed than if out
of door pursuits were being followed.

If the little student at school or any other person using the
eyes at the near point, were to be supplied with such glasses
during the hours of study, on leaving the school room they could
be taken off and the natural use of the eye at all other times
would be quite sufficient to cultivate and establish the habit of
accommodation. At least the danger of disturbing the
accommodation would be much less than the dangers resulting to the
eyes and nerve-centers without such aid.

I simply suggest the above as a possible answer to one of the
most important questions of the day.

[The partial Chapter is printed below. OSB]

The Eye in its Relation to Health

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

By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.

Chicago, A.C. McClurg & Company, 1895

Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004

----------+ | Chapter IX | +--------


Chalmer> The following are some very interesting experiments in
myopia which can be verified by any operator, and which
prove that refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm,
and that, even in axial myopia, considerable repression
can sometimes be made at the near point.

[Comment: By "repression", Chalmer means that the refractive
power of the internal-lens can be changed by an external
plus lens. By "refractive myopia" Chalmer is talking
about "pseudo" myopia where the eye has a negative
refractive state as measured with an eye-chart
and trial-lens kit and frame.

Chalmer> In either class of cases, repression must be made at the
near point.

[Comment: The "near point" must be moved "optically" out to
infinity with a strong plus, thus removing the
"repression". OSB]

Chalmer> In various lengths of time, we shall be able to reduce
the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more.

[Comment: In current parlance, clearing vision from -1.0 diotpers
(20/60) to better-than 20/40. OSB]

Chalmer> In most cases satisfactory results will require
considerable time and patience; but a few experiments
after the following example will suffice to show that in
some very advanced stages of myopia, it is possible to
suppress, or at least check, its onward course by
repression at the near point.

[Comment: I would think that the goal should be vision-clearing
from -1.0 diotper to normal. Un-doing stair case caused
by an over-prescribed minus has proven to be almost
impossible. OSB]

Chalmer> This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic
eyes an open question.

[Comment: The facts of the Oakley-Young study makes this a
virtual certintity. AT THE VERY MINIMUM, THIS MAKES
PREVENTION A VALID "SECOND-OPINION" with the above
"accepted" limitations. OSB]


EXAMPLE CASES


Chalmer> Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right
eye -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for
the space of two years; eyes in use more or less at the
near point. I recommended the removal of the concave
glasses for distant vision and prescribed +3.50 D for
reading, writing and other office work.

[Comment: Perhaps a little strong. Dr. Colgate used a +2.5
diopter lens to clear his distant vision from 20/70 to
20/20. OSB]

Chalmer> After reading in these glasses for several days, the
patient was able to read print twelve inches from the
eyes.

[Comment: The focal length of a +3.5 diopter lens is
approximately 12 inches. The eye's adjusted favorably
to the applied plus. OSB]

Chalmer> This patient was of more than ordinary intelligence and
understood the aim of the effort.

[Comment: Absolutly crucial. If the person does not understand
the purpose of true-prevention, then effective
prevention is not possible. OSB]

Chalmer> In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After
using the +4 D glasses for several months he again came
under my care for an examination, when the left eye gave
twenty-twentieths of vision, while the right eye was
very nearly the same, but the acuity was just
perceptibly less.

[Comment: This is a superior result. It is considerably above
the DMV requirement of 20/40 or better. OSB]



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

Chalmer> Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;

Chalmer> ...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it
is almost impossible to induce them to undergo the
trial.

[Comment: I have no doubt that others at -1.0 diopter and 20/50
could accomplish this result -- if they could over come
their "fear" of using the plus strongly and correctly.
OSB]

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

[Comment: Anyone considering "prevention" must understand this
issue. There is no "easy way" of prevention. As
Chalmers said -- the person must fully understand this
issue. It is for this reason that I suggest full
transfer of "control" to the person himself. If he
lacks the motivation to look at the chart, and "clear"
himself, then no "third party" (i.e., OD) can do it for
the person. This is why I separate a true-medical
problems from preventing a negative refractive status in
the natural eye. I believe that the above statement
simply clarifies that point. OSB]

[Comment: It is of major significance that this proof was
established 100 year ago. There has been NO follow up,
and no meaningful review. It has been established that
when a minus lens is prescribed for a young child -- his
vision goes down at an AVERAGE of -1/2 diopter per year.
Almost all children go through this -1 diopter (20/50)
stage -- yet NO ATTEMPT is made at prevention at that
stage when it could be completely successful. But as
Chalmers said, the process is "tedious for the patient".]

[Comment: Is true prevention worth the "tedium" of
clearing your distant vision with the plus -- before it
is too late. Obviously, Dr. Colgate, Keith,
Captain Fred Deakins, David DeAngelis, and others
have thought so. Something to think about.]

[Comment: If you consider "clearing your vision with
the plus "tedius", then you will not even make an
attempt -- and you will never know. Don't wait
for Retinula to offer you any preventive help.
Looks like you will have to do it youself -- under
YOUR OWN CONTROL. While Retinula is waiting
for hell to freeze over, maybe you can take
plus-prevention and do it youself. I don't
think he leaves you any choice. OSB]

Dear Keith,

Subject:  The incredible arrogance of some ODs.

Re: Please remember, not all "docs" are like this -- thank goodness.


      I fear for the people who come under Retinula's control.
There can be no doubt but that the kids vision will go "down" by
the application of that minus lens at a rate of -1/2 diopter per
year -- once they are "started" with an over-prescribed minus.

      It is clear that if a child lets his vision go below 20/40,
and gets down to 20/70, then a minus lens must be used.  But,
given the facts we have now, the can only be the result of the
person's neglect of using the plus lens.

      Clearly, most people have NO INTEREST in their eye chart, and
most never look at one, except in a doctor's office.  That defines
MOST of us.  This Retinula should make that statement, and I would
AGREE with him.

      But when he gets on his "high horse" and tells us to NOT
examine scientific facts I must say that he is dangerous.

      But for the person who values his distant vision, and will
work with his own developing knowledge of the eye's behavior, then
true-prevention is possible.  There are indeed "difficulties" that
we both acknowledge.

      Most people believe that the OD should do this for us.  It is
obvious that that is NEVER going to happen.

      So here, for your enjoyment is a statement of the Retinula's
majority opinion.  Some issues in you life you must decide for
yourself (as you have done), and this is one of them.

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

Dear Retinula,


Subject:  Fundamental testing of the eye for its dynamic behavior
    on a scientific level.

Re:  And your judgment thereof.

      Over the past 100 years there has been a consistent advocacy
on the part of ODs (second opinion).  This advocacy is difficult,
because most people only want their vision made-sharp with a minus
lens.  So I understand that prevention is difficult for you -- if
not impossible.  As you said, "legal reasons" prevent you from
even starting that process with the great mass of humanity walking
in off the street.  (No offense intended.)

      But that means that the person who seeks true-prevention must
examine the objective facts himself, and decide on a course of
action that best protects his long-term distant vision.  I regret
that you can not be a part of that process -- but you have spelled
it out for use clearly.

      I will forward this the my nephew, for his clear
understanding of your position.  You have made a fair statement of
the "majority opinion" that there is no relationship between the
natural eye's visual environment and its refractive state.  It is
up to the scientist and engineer to determine the accuracy of your
belief about the fundamental eye's proven behavior.

      I think you are totally wrong based on direct scientific
data.  The preventive "second opinion" is in agreement -- even as
you disagree the real scientific truth of the natural eye's
behavior.

If you think that you can tell me:

1.  What to do

2.  What to think.

3.  How to act.

You are mistaken.

      Your original is posted.  I will edit your response.  If you
don't like that -- don't read it.

      To further respond.


      ++++++++=

      Otis,

Otis> I will not try to respond to the numerous details of your
       message.

Otis> Then don't

Ret > You didn't understand a single point I was trying to make.
       You took things literally that were not intended so.

Otis> The others on i-see can judge your response.  You have taken
       much that I said about the dynamic nature of the fundamental
       eye out-of-context also.

Ret > Its just a waste of time to argue the issue with you.

Otis> Then why are you doing so?

Ret > My final statement is simple; please post it without
       chopping it up and adding your editorial comments.

Otis> Your original is posted with out my comment.  This part will
       have my editorial comment.

Ret > Eyedocs are not afraid to recommend a complicated fix for
       patients if that's what they need.

Otis> As I previously stated, prevention with the plus requires
       that the person (not a patient) evaluate the objective
       scientific data himself, and resolve on a course of action
       that will clear, and keep his distant vision clear for life.
       I appreciate thee fact that you can never:

1.  Prescribe prevention (you stated "legal reasons" and I accept
       that, and

2.  With you in "control" the process would be VERY EXPENSIVE.

3.  It is better that the person himself evaluate the objective
       facts himself, and take direct control as Keith did.  That
       way he personally verifies that his distant vision clears by
       his own eye chart.  And because of that -1/2 diopter per
       year, it is obvious that periodically during the school
       years the preventive process be restarted when ever it is
       necessary to do so.  Again, this would be VERY EXPENSIVE if
       you were involved at all.  You are of value for checking for
       true-medical problems and reporting this to the person.
       However, when Keith has a negative refractive sate of -3/4
       diopters, and can clear it under his own control, I fail to
       see why you should be involved with this proven behavior of
       the natural eye. (As proven in the primate studies.  The
       effort is scientific -- not medical.)

Ret > we are not just looking for a "quick fix" as you claim.

Otis> That is EXACTLY what you provide.  Don't kid yourself on this
       issue.  From the above you can not provide a "preventive"
       solution, and you stated, "for legal reasons".  Also, you
       pointed out that STEVE LEUNG is now under board-action
       scrutiny for providing support FOR HIS OWN CHILD, and
       others.  This is why there is, and must be a second opinion
       on this preventive subject.

Ret > i gave you some examples in my earlier message of some very
       complicated and long-term fixes that we DO have to explain to
       patients and their families (amblyopia, retinal problems,
       etc).

Otis> I stated very clearly that the person previously

1.  Had no medical problems.

2.  Developed a negative (and natural) negative refractive state
       of -3/4 diopters, and

3.  You should check for MEDICAL problems and report them to the
       person

4.  After that, the person can decide if he wishes to clear his
       vision on his own, after you tell him that you can not
       support true-prevention because there is no evidence that
       the natural eye does not "follow" its average visual
       environment.  But that issue is truly scientific -- not
       medical.

5.  What actions he chooses to take at that point MUST be a matter
       of his intelligence and motivation on the subject.  If he
       values his distant vision, he can work to successfully
       clear it to better-than the DMV requirement, and avoid the
       use of a minus lens.

Ret > these issues takes a lot of patient education but we take
       the time to do it because that's what the patient needs for
       the sake of their visual health.

Otis> Yes, thank you for your time -- you should be paid for it.
       The issue of understanding the natural eye's proven behavior
       takes time also. There is every reason for you to state
       this and ask them to read the preventive-advocacy sites and
       decide if they wish to use this preventive process UNDER
       THEIR CONTROL.  If they do this successfully the clearly
       will not need you -- nor will the sue you either.

Ret > thats what our job is.

Otis> Thanks for being very clear -- about you legal concerns. I
       can't blame you for it, and I DO AGREE that you can not
       offer true-prevention for exactly the reasons you state.
       This again means that the person must learn to do it
       "correctly" under his own control.  There appears to be NO
       OTHER WAY TO "WORK" PREVENTION.

Ret > Myopia prevention, however, is NOT one of those difficult
       issues simply because NO PREVENTATIVE SCHEME HAS EVER BEEN
       FOUND TO WORK.

Ret > Don't get this wrong, but you are simply wrong -- because
       you totally ignore direct scientific data that proves that
       the natural eye is a sophisticated, dynamic camera that
       changes its refractive state, based on a negative change it
       its average visual environment.  But you are totally blind
       to objective science.  (Yes, that is the second scientific
       opinion., despite your denial.  You wanted scientific truth
       -- you got it.)

Ret > Its OK for you, who is not held to any kind of standard or
       accountability

Otis> Bull s___.  It is true that I do not "deal" with a person
       who is a "patient".  I expect far more of him than that.
       Once the medical issues are "cleared", then it is up to the
       person himself to look at these facts and arguments, and
       personally decide to protect his distant vision for live --
       or not.  That is truly the his second-opinion, and not your.
       My standard and accountability would go to Keith B., to
       decide the issue.  He has children of his own, and must
       understand your majority-opinion, and made his decision
       accordingly Thank goodness there are 21 centuraly ODs who
       WILL OFFER the use of the plus for prevention.  We truly
       need more Steve Leungs in this world.  My purpose is to help
       the person go to Steve (for prevention) so they get the
       preventive help they truly need. Until that develops, I
       believe that the person must understand these issues, take
       control and clear this vision based on the scientific truth
       of the primate studies (that you insist we must TOTALLY
       IGNORE.)

Ret > unlike an eyedoc is, to recommend whatever hearsay Snake-oil
       treatment you want to.

Otis> This statement drips intense bias, while you totally ignore
       the PROVEN FACT that the natural eye is dynamic and
       "follows" the applied "nearer" environment.  I am beginning
       to believe that.

1.  You do not understand objective, scientific proof. Or you
       don't understand the nature of it.  and

2.  You are extremely biased, and when true-facts are presented,
       you lurch into this name calling mode, as a substitute for
       logical scientific argument and review.  That is why the
       second-opinion does not agree with any of your statements.
       Further, you are calling ALL second-opinion ODs "snake-oil"
       idiots and the like.  Perhaps the i-see group can see your
       intense bias -= because you can not.

Ret> ...and thats what you do!

Otis> Wow!  No, that is NOT what I do.
       You have no clue about what I do. What I do is analyze the
       fundamental behavior of the natural eye on a
       engineering-scientific level, and report it as the
       second-opinion.  Perhaps some can learn to keep their vision
       clear by this analysis of scientific facts.  That, as
       always, must be a judgment of the person concerned with
       protecting his distant vision through the school years.  It
       certainly beats developing stair-case myopia (-1/2 diopter
       per year) that is proven for those who wear a full-strength
       minus lens all the time.

Best,

Otis

Dear Keith,

Subject:  This OD simply does not "get it".

If you have had 20/20 previously, and the develop
a negative refractive status of -3/4 diopters, after
two year in school, the 20/50 MIGHT be a "medical"
issue or problem.

THAT should always be identified to you (and this
IS the value of an OD exam.  However, to assume that
ALL NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE STATES ARE MEDICAL, and MUST
BE CONTROLLED BY EXCLUSIVELY MEDICAL PEOPLE -- IS
A MISTAKE.

I was well aware, that to the person must understand
this issue clearly.  That in this case, responsibility
and CONTROL MUST be turned over to the person.
(I know that most people are scared to take this control
for various reasons.  But that is indeed the issue.)

That is why it is better that you check you kids eye
chart BEFORE they go to an OD or MD.  If you see
that it is 20/40, you can be prepared to hear
that you child needs a -2.0 diopter lens. (Yes,
they over-prescribe by that much!)  In fact,
with no medical problem, the child could fly
an airplane -- with that vision.  That is why
I "warn" you about this "attitude" they have.

Equally, something must be done, and the
"preventive issue" is difficult as
both of us know.

You are prepared.  But you will cross this
bridge when you come to it.  If you
keep the kid's heads off the page, they
will probably start getting into 20/40
in junior high school.  At that point
you can reason with them (I hope).

At least they can know that they had
an "alternative" that most people NEVER
have.

Here is Retinula's statement and
some of my commentary.


Otis> I think that Judy and Retinula should
> point out to us that we expect
> INSTANT results -- and that we
> would not take "prevention" with the
> plus seriously -- even if they offered
> it. But that would be our problem
> then.

[Comment:  What I am suggesting that the person's intelligence and
motivation be respected.  Certainly the fact that Steve Leung has
his own child in a plus -- at a refractive state of zero -- should be
part of the second-opinion pitch.  OSB]


Ret>  ...you keep trying to make it sound so simple-- we just give
people what
they want, we take the easy way.

Otis>  Have I EVER stated that prevention was "simple"?  I think it
is one of the
most difficult things you could do!  I think this is why you had
to do it yourself.


Ret>  you are wrong.

Otis>  Ret's majority opinion -- again.


Ret>  do you know how hard
it is to tell a parent that they need to put their child through
visual training (patching, exercises) and possible strabismus surgery
when they have amblyopia in one eye.

Otis>  Ret again missed the point.  I stated that a person PREVIOUSLY
had 20/20,
and none of these MEDICAL problems.  Is it that hard to state this --
and
tell them about the Steve Leung's second opinion?


Ret>  do you know how hard it is to
tell an indifferent patient...

Otis>  If the "patient" is indifferent, then you can forget about
prevention.  In any
event I DO NOT talk to a person who considers himself a "patient".
See
my statement about separating pure-science issues from "medical"
issues.
Ret does not understand the issue, nor the difference.


Ret>  that they need to see an retinal
specialist because they are developing a subretinal neovasuclar
membrane that is threatening their vision.

Otis>  Again, this is NOT THE ISSUES.  The person previously had
20/20 an not
one of these MEDICAL problems!  Boy is this man DENSE.


Ret>  do you know how hard it is
to refuse contacts to someone who has worn them but has developed a
degenerative corneal disorder that would be worsened if they wore
contacts again?

Otis>  Keith, if you had ignored the intelligent use of the plus --
you would have
needed contacts in college.  Then the above could have happened to
you.
This begs the question.  The "patient" could have avoided this mess
in the first place by "protecting" his distant vision himself -- under
his own, wise control.


Ret>  why don't we just give them what they want-- they
would be happier and we would make more money, right?

Otis>  I an not certain what Ret is saying here.  I only stated that
he
should inform the parents of the POTENTIAL use of the plus, while
the child was still at 20/40, and could function without the minus.
Money is not the issue.  Professional information is the issue.
The PLUS is NOT A MEDICAL TREATMENT!  I am sorry
if ANYONE thinks that it is!


Ret>  i'll tell you
why-- its our job to tell people what is best for their eye health.


Otis>  This is Ret's "GOD" complex.  This is why I hate even dealing
with this man.
He assumes that the "minus" is perfectly safe -- a fact that is
profoundly
disproven in direct scientific fact. He then ASSUMES he can over-ride
this scientific proof and DECIDE to put a child in a strong minus --
an
step that will have PERMANENT consequences for that child.
He then says it is HIS job to TELL PEOPLE what is BEST for
their eyes!  Total arrogance -- of the most damaging kind.
My eyes are valuable to me.  I think these people OWE us
an informed choice -- whether we can "work" that preventive
choice or not.  This "attitude" forces you to learn
the science fact that this man totally ignores.



Ret>  in fact, we are legally accountable for screwing up if we don't
tell
them the right thing to do.

Otis> i.e., putting a strong minus 2 diopter on 20/40 eye, and
creating
stair-case myopia is the "right" thing to do?  I think that it would
be the RIGHT thing to do to discuss this specific issue, and
provide an informed choice.  The kids eyes will be permanently
screwed up if he begins wearing that -2.0 diopter lens all
the time. But you will get a dead silence from Ret on that
issue.  The is the real meaning of understanding the
"second opinion".


Ret>  the problem is, plus lenses have been
proven to be ineffective.

Otis> In a blind study where you do not tell the child to look
THROUGH THE PLUS,
and the do not -- then yes, for that reason alone.  "Prescribed" when
the
person does not understand the reason "why", then again yes.
But that is due to the lack of high-quality scientific data -- that
this man trashes.  When you understand these issues, the
YOU can prove to yourself that the plus is effective -- FOR YOU --
and that is ALL that matters.  But I am pleased
that you are hearing this "majority opinion" attitude.


Ret>  thats why we don't recommend them.

Otis> On a pure "medical" level, as per Raphaelson's, "The Printer's
Son"
I would agree.  The public is BOTH ignorant and none motivated.
But that is the issue you must resolve.  The recommendation
for prevention is made on a scientific level -- not on
Ret's "medical" level.  That issue MUST be understood
by anyone who wishes to clear his vision back to
20/20.


Ret>  in fact
if we did, we could be liable

Otis>  Ret is correct on this point.  He just needs to state it
clearly.  That he can not support prevention as a PRESCRIPTION
lens.  Because if ANYTHING happens (having NOTHING to do with the
plus -- he will get sued, but BOTH the person, his fellow ODs,
AND the OD board.  This again spells out why you must make
the "preventive" decision, and why I so totally checked the
safety of it.  But to IGNORE to real risks of the minus lens
(i.e., -1/2 diopter per year), and not state them, is
tragic.  That is why it takes an intelligent person
to work through the "logic" of this situation.


Ret>  for suggesting an unproven treatment
just like the problems your friend Steve Leung is facing.

Otis>  Steve is VERY BRAVE.  Yes, he had "board action".  Nothing
came of it.  I suggested to Steve that he always have his patients
SIGN and agreement or "contract" so that they could understand these
issues.  This would be very wise for any OD who is offering
the preventive plus to the public.


Ret>  sorry to bust your "Raphaelson" bubble.

Otis> Ret has only more strongly explained why, if you wish
to protect your distant vision for life -- with eye-chart and plus --
you
had to be smart enough to do it yourself on a scientific level.

Best,

Otie

Retin8a.txt

Dear Jon,

Subject:  A statetemnt of intense bias against prevention
	   with the plus.


      Men live by their routines; and when these are called into
question, they lose all power of normal judgment.  They will
listen to nothing save the echo of their own voices; all else
becomes dangerous thoughts.

					 Harold Laski


      Here majority-opinion Retinula OD explains that a the natural
eye is not dynamic, and therefore a minus lens can not have any
effect of the refractive state of the eye.  Further he explains
that a minus lens is "perfectly safe" and does not create
stair-case myopia (of -1/2 diopter per year) in young children.
Further, he explains that anyone who "objects" to his singular
opinion, must simple be "wrong".

      Here is an analysis of his statements protecting the
traditional method of the last 400 years.

      Best,

      Otis

______________


Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  Retinula again expresses his "office" majority opinion.


      "You cannot by reasoning correct a man of an ill opinion
which by reasoning he never acquired.  We can also say that
neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts,
can you convince some people that an opinion which they have
accepted on authority is wrong."

				  William Bates


      Just remember that the second opinion is that the minus is
"risky", and every effort should be made so you understand the
scientific reasons for this second opinion.  Just be aware, that
even the second-opinion ODs will NOT use a minus on their own
children, because of their scientific knowledge of the proven
effect it has on the natural eye.  You would have to put your head
in a bucket to not preceive these objective facts.  But Retinula
manages to do it.  I simply can not trust a man who does not
understand nor offer me an informed second opinion.  You on i-see
can make your own decision on this matter.


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

To: <i-see-owner@yahoogroups.com>

Subject:  A second second post from our friend the shy Retinula.

Date: Monday, October 24, 2005 10:50 AM

--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@p...> wrote:

> Dear Friends,

> Subject:  Prevention minded optometrists versus
   the "conventional opinion".

> The primate data is clear on that point.
   That must be THEIR decision -- not YOUR decision.

Ret > ...and the human data is clear also.  "stair-step" is not an
       issue for humans.

Otis> Your preferred ignorance of it is a truly profound problem.

Ret > ...you live in a world populated only by chickens and
       monkeys i guess

Otis> I live in a world of intelligent open-minded scientists who
       preceive that a negative refractive state can be avoided --
       if the "near" environment is elliminated by a
       proper-strength plus at the threshold.  "Stair-case"
       response of the natural eye is PROVEN by the Oakley-Young
       study.  By stair-case myopia I mean that the single-minus
       group when "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter average.
       (Clearly some went "down" as a faster rate than this.  The
       "plus" group did not go down.)


> Ret> you like to refer to data from earlier experiments in
       chickens and monkeys that support your view.

> Otis> They shure as hell do not support YOUR VIEW.

Ret > ...true. i live and work in world of humans.  i do not fit
       glasses or contacts on chickens or monkeys.

Otis> If you wish to make the argument that the great mass of
       un-informed humanity wil only "accept" an impressive
       quick-fix, then I can accept that from you.  But that is the
       "blind" tradition of the last 100 years at work.  On i-see
       we try to develop these insights that you do not have.


Ret > ...you need to start a discussion group on animals.  there
       is no data to support your approach on humans.

Otis> Again, complete "shop" bull s___.  People who examine BOTH
       the primate data AND the Oakley-Young scientific research
       can BEGIN to get the correct idea concerning the natural
       eye's behavior.  I only hope they get the better
       "preventive" idea before YOU put them in an excessively
       strong minus lens, and create stair-case myopia in them.


> Ret> the data in humans gives different results.  isn't
> it humans that we all care about in this forum anyway?

> Otis>  You can draw your own conclusions about
> the bias of this statement.  I certainly have.


Ret > ...apparently you draw your conclusions from something else
       other than scientific evidence.  you are a man of true faith
       otis.


Otis> This is incredible.  He sweeps ALL SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH off
       the table for his "office" reasons, and then declares
       "...their is no scientific data"!  I am a man of faith IN
       THE DIRECT EXPERIMENTAL DATA.  If that means that I have no
       faith (an now trust) in this man's technical ability -- then
       you got that right.


> > 2. A more-confined environment has
> > NO EFFECT on a population of primates.

> Ret> i never said anything about this.

> Otis>  You keep on insisting that a minus
> is "perfectly safe".  Further, your majority
> opinion friends keep on saying this against
> the direct and explicit experimental data.
> As before the i-see people can draw
> their own conclusions -- just do not
> patrionize them.


> Ret> why are you trying to state that i
> argued against this point?

> Otis> Because you have.  Again, let
> the readership on i-see draw their own
> conclusions. If they totally support
> your thesis, maybe they will post
> in YOUR FAVOR.  As per "chinamyopia",
> even your fellow ODs thing your
> "position" is wrong, and is harmful
> to the public's long-term visual
> welfare.

Ret > ...once again, an otism. never have i said that a confined
       environment has no impact on human vision development.  the
       data shows it does.

Otis> Good, then let us continue to work on effective prevention
       by agreeing that a person has the right to an informed
       "second opinion" on this matter.  But I am virtually certain
       you will never honor a person's intelligence in this matter
       by offering them that kind of discussion.

Ret> ...the human data also shows that plus lenses, bifocals, even
       excessive minus lenses make no difference.

Otis> I hate to be so brutal, but this is complete "office" bull
       s___.  Anyone NOT IN YOUR "PROFESSION" will see the intense
       bias of your statement.  I DO AGREE that you can not reduce
       an accurate understanding of the natural eye's dynamic
       behavior into a "quick fix" you provide for the public
       walking in off-the-street.  But that is the difference
       between perpetuating a grinding tradition from pure
       scientific persuits.


Ret > ...but you have been told that.  why don't you openly
       discuss these scientific studies to your friends in this
       forum.

Otis> This Retinula is incredible.  Quite frankly I have not met a
       man quite this "dense".  What in the world do they teach in
       OD school?

Ret > ...are you afraid that they might begin to make up their own
       mind that you are simply an old engineer.

Otis> They can work on their understanding of a preventive second
       opinion to the best of their ability.  They can judge both
       of our opinions to the best of their ability.  If they have
       children, I hope that they are better informed of this
       "preventive" second opinion.  There children MIGHT have a
       live free of stair-case myopia for that reson -- if they get
       it right.  But that suggests that they have both the
       intelligence and motivation to do this work "correctly".
       The purpose of i-see it to fully explore the scientifif
       basis, and reasons for this second opinion.

> Ret> there is actually some
> scientific data to support this notion.  its just that plus lenses
> that you propose has been proven not to work!

> Otis>  Not so.  Although I do agree that it
> must be used on the threshold -- as
> per the scientifc study by Oakley-Young.
> Once you even START with an over-prescribed
> minus you will lose your distant vision
> PERMANENTLY.

Ret > ...as you know, this is not true.

Otis> I would suggest that the person review the Oakley-Young
       study himself to decide with is "true" and "not-true" about
       the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. That is the real
       goal of science.

Ret > ...the study of Goss showed that overminusing young children
       (humans otis) had not affect on myopia development.

Otis> Your "majority opinion" at work.  You cite EXCLUSIVELY the
       studies you WANT TO BELIEVE while totally ignoring the
       implications of the studies you hate.  Yes, Retinula, I
       understand your "majority opinion".  The second opinion is
       as stated by the scientists who understand this issue with
       greater clarity than you do.


> Otis> The report by "Jon" shows what a highly
> motaved person can dd -- if he has the
> resolve to do it.  But he MUST avoid
> you and your habitually over-prescribed
> minus lens -- which you insist must
> be worn all the time.


Ret >  another 1 rat study (=testimonial) from otis.

Otis>  "Jon" is a very intelligent person, and paid
attention to the second opinion, and understood
the scientific facts about the behavior of the
primate eye.  By intelligently working with the
second-opinion, he gradually cleared his distant
vision himself.  It is obvious that had he
not done this (under his OWN CONTROL) his eyes
would have "adapted" to that minus -- and he
would have lost his distant vision -- permanently.

Ret > ...people reported 20 years ago that peach pits could cure
       cancer too -- didn't pan out did it otis.  you should be
       sued along with the other idiots from "eye see clearly" for
       making false claims.

Otis> I-see is an "open form", and you can say what you wish.  I
       report facts accuratly as the concern the dynamic behavior
       of the fundamental eye -- when correctly tested. The very
       nature of this work is protected by the "freedom of speech"
       clause of the U.S.  constitution.  But further, Jon, has a
       right to be informed of the nature of his choice, and the
       fact that the ODs themselves support prevention as the
       second opinion.  I assume that you wish to sue ALL OD WHO
       DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.  Is that your "cause" and purpose?

Ret > ...the only difference is that they are trying to defraud
       people to make money and you just have some kind of wacko
       agenda.


Otis> Spoken by a man who truly has his head buried in the sand.
       In fact, the staements of Dr.  Raphaelson convinced me that
       he would be a "leader" for prevention.  But that requires
       that the person WISHING for prevention begin to understand
       the nature of this second-opinion.  But you are right -- I
       make no money in this effort -- becuse true prevention costs
       almost nothing.  How much does your minus-lens quick-fix
       cost the un-susecting public?  Staring at $200 to $400 for
       that FIRST minus lens for their kids?  Not to mention the
       stair-case myopia they will get into, requiring another $300
       for EACH LENS CHANGE?  And YOU accuse ME of attemping to
       defraud people by informing of them of a second-opinion?
       Where is your head my man?  You have no compassion for these
       people.


> > I have seen these experiments -- and the
> > results.  I have no doubt that the
> > results are repeatable -- as required
   > in pure science.

> Ret> as Dr. Judy already said in this newsgroup, and i pointed out
> to you
> in my posting-mistakenly-sent-as-an-e-mail, your references are 20-
30
> years old.

> Otis>  Proof that you learn NOTHING from objective
> science.

Ret > ...proof that YOU don't listen to science.  you have been
       passed by otis.

Otis> Retinula's bindness to scientific truth continues.

> Hell, the method you are using
> was put in place 400 years ago.

Ret > ...true, minus lenses help myopes see better.  nothing else
       works better.  if something is proven to work, i will do it.

Otis> Said as you chronically over-prescribe the public by -2.0
       diopters, with the obvious consequences.

[Comment:  Over-prescription.  You read the eye-chart at 20/40 and
       go pass the DMV. You then go to the OD and by "accident" he
       prescribes a -2.0 diopter lens.  You are over-perscribed by
       2 diopters.  OSB]

Ret > if something is disproven i will not do it.  apparently not
       for you otis

Otis> It is impossible to prove anything for a man who is
       conducting "shop practice" and never grows to understand
       that the natural eye is a sophisticated system that changes
       it refractive state to changes in its average
       visual-enviroment.  But that is science -- not "medicine"
       and you want no part of that.


> Ret> otis, if you test your theory and it doesn't hold true,

> Otis>  The conept that the fundamental eye
> is dynamic is confirmed on a scientif level.
> It is your "box camera" theory that is "broken".


Ret > ...this box-camera phrase that you throw around is yours and
       yours alone.  you have already admitted that you do not know
       the anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry of the eye.

Otis> I made no such statement.  Yet another Retinula fib.

Ret > ...your simplistic notions are that the eye is some kind of
       input-output diagram.  your approach is simply like leaches
       and herbal remedies.

Otis> And over-prescribed minus lens based on a shop-theory is
       like the "leaches" you describe.  You habitual ignorance of
       the dynamic nature of the fundamently eye is truly
       incredible.

Ret > Read otis.  learn otis.

Otis> I learned what the effect of your over-prescribed minus is
       on the natural human eye.  A truly profound disaster.


Ret > ...from what i have seen you have some kind of axe to grind.

Otis> Not at all.  I just suggest that a person on the threshold
       be accurately informed of his choice, and the fact that a
       minus lens will create stair-case myopia if nothing is done
       to prevent it.

Ret > ...regardless of all the objective evidence that has piled
       up against your theory you just plow ahead with your
       single-minded approach.

Otis> The evidence is that you totally ignore all scientific
       research -- when you don't like the implications of
       scientific truth and techincal accuracy.


Ret > ...readers of this forum beware. otis is no "expert" in
       vision.

Otis> The readers on i-see are shaking in their boots. Maybe you
       can kick them into submission.


Ret > ...his "second" opinion isn't even a close fifth.

Otis> Yet anoter Retinula fib. This is so obvious that it is
       pathetic that he would even attempt it.  Read:

www.chinamyopia.org

Ret > ...visual science and the field of myopia development has
       moved way beyond his approach.

Otis> So, according to Retinula, just wear that over-prescribed
       minus, and when you develop stair-case myoipa, why that is
       not Retinula's fault is it?  Of course YOU ARE PERMANTELY
       STUCK WITH THE RESULT OF HIS SELF-IMPOSED IGNORANCE.

Ret > ...but i guess there are still some who think the world is
       flat.

Otis> Yes, and that person is Retinula.

Otis> I have absolut respect for Dr.  Raphaelson, Steve Leung and
       all other second-opinion ODs who are working on true
       prevention.  It is obvious that I have lost all respect for
       Retinula's "majority opinion" for scientific reasons.
       I-see is a place where we examine this type of bias -- so we
       can understand it, and deal with it.

Best,

Otis

Retin7.txt


Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  The complete presentation of the OD majority opinion.

      "I know that most men...can seldom accept even the
simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them
to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in
explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the very
fabric of their lives."

				  Leo Tolstoy

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

      I agree that prevention is difficult.  It takes a person with
a strong will to do it.  But it is important, because wearing an
over-prescribed minus will take your vision "down" -- and there is
no "recovery" from that.

      If you wish to understand WHY you get no "support" for true
prevention, the "Retinula" is spelling it out for you in this
discussion.

      I value my distant vision.  Given accurate facts concerning
the eye's behavior I think I could have prevented it -- if I were
old enough to understand scientific truth and facts -- and do the
work under my own control.  From the remarks by Retinula I really
do not see any other choice.

      There was an old movie called, "Cool Hand Luke", where the
warden described a situation by stating, "...what we have here is
a failure to communicate".  Perhaps that is the real truth in the
following exchange.

      Best,

      Otis

___________________________

Dear Friends,

Subject:  Retinula (a majority opinion OD) presents the case to
	   oppose true prevention with the plus.

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

					   Arthur Schopenhauer

      Optometrists like Dr.  Raphaelson and Steve Leung has clearly
spelled out the necessity of true-prevention at the threshold. It
is my opinion, based on objective repeatable SCIENTIFIC
experiments that the highly self-motivated person can keep his
distant vision clear through the school years -- as Jon did --
once they get the idea and REALIZE THAT THEY WILL NOT GET ANY HELP
FROM A MAJORITY-OPINION OD.

      I will post the reasons for this, and how I suggest we
separate pure-scientific issues, from "medical" issues.

      His is an presenter from sci.med.vision, or a "hard over" OD
who believes that neither a minus lens (say -3 diopters) NOR a
more-confined environment has ANY EFFECT on the refractive state of
the natural primate eye.  (Say adolescent primate eye just to make
the issue clear.)

      Provided this issue is cleanly stated, I would have no
problem putting up $10,000 on a wager (against equal money) to
establish this fact (again).

	    NO OD RUNNING THE EXPERIMENT PLEASE.

      But, here for equal time, is our shy "retinula" -- what ever
he is. (With no experimental data to contest the above DIRECT
experiment.  I mean "input" versus "output" -- as in pure
science.)

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

Otis> Dear friends,

      Those who fall in love with practice without science are like
a sailor who enters a ship without a helm or compass, and who
never can be certain whither he is going.

					    Leonardo da Vinci


Otis> Subject: Retinula should post on i-see, rather than sending
       me emails.

Otis> I formally invite this Retinula to post on i-see so that he
       can make his argument on a scientific level that:  (the
       natural eye does not "test out" as a dynamic system.)

Ret > ...i guess my fingers are as big and clumsy as yours.  i hit
       the wrong button and sent the message to your e-mail and not
       the group.  why don't you please repost my message,
       unedited, in its entirety to the group?

Otis> As the biased majority opinion -- of course.

Otis> Just remember that for all of retinula's huffing and
       puffing, some forward-looking ODs have put their own
       children in a plus as soon as their refractive state reaches
       zero diotpers -- or SLIGHTLY negative.  www.chinamyopia.org

Otis> 1.  A minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of
       the natural eye (or that the minus lens is even "safe"),
       and...

Ret > ...yes, this point is crystal clear in humans.  it has been
       scientifically proven and you have been given the references
       so many times that i am sure you know them yourself although
       you try to deny them.

Otis> These bifocal "studies" are run with NO CHECKING to see if
       the kids actually look THROUGH the plus. Not really a valid
       SCIENTIFIC STUDY.  Your majority-opinion bias speaks for
       itself.  I think that the readers of i-see should recognize
       their right to a "preventive" second opinion, with a
       recognition of what will happen to their eyes if they even
       start wearing an over-prescribed minus lens.  The primate
       data is clear on that point.  That must be THEIR decision --
       not YOUR decision.

Ret > ...you like to refer to data from earlier experiments in
       chickens and monkeys that support your view.

Otis> They sure as hell do not support YOUR VIEW.

Otis> Also, why not be a man and post here -- or are you
       incompetent to do that also?

Otis> The support the SECOND OPINION.  The difficulties of
       true-prevention I fully acknowledge.

Ret > ...the data in humans gives different results.  isn't it humans
       that we all care about in this forum anyway?

Otis> You can draw your own conclusions about the bias of this
       statement.  I certainly have.

Otis> 2.  A more-confined environment has NO EFFECT on a
       population of primates.  (Majority opinion)

Ret > ...i never said anything about this.

Otis> Then you should -- or stop critizing engineers who do
       present accurate scientific data on the subject. You keep
       on insisting that a minus is "perfectly safe".  Further,
       your majority opinion friends keep on saying this against
       the direct, explicit experimental data.  As before the
       i-see people can draw their own conclusions -- just do not
       patronize them.

Ret > ...why are you trying to state that i argued against this
       point?

Otis> Because you have.  Again, let the readership on i-see draw
       their own conclusions.  If they totally support your thesis,
       maybe they will post in YOUR FAVOR.  As per "chinamyopia",
       even your fellow ODs thing your "position" is wrong, and is
       harmful to the public's long-term visual welfare.

Ret > ...there is actually some scientific data to support this
       notion.  its just that plus lenses that you propose has been
       proven not to work!

Otis> Not so.  Although I do agree that it must be used on the
       threshold -- as per the scientific study by Oakley-Young.
       Once you even START with an over-prescribed minus you will
       lose your distant vision PERMANENTLY.

Otis> The report by "Jon" shows what a highly motivated person can
       do -- if he has the resolve to do it.  But he MUST avoid you
       and your habitually over-prescribed minus lens -- which you
       insist must be worn all the time.

Otis> I have seen these experiments -- and the results.  I have no
       doubt that the results are repeatable -- as required in pure
       science. (I am willing to repeat these experiments -- but
       it is obvious that Retinula will learn nothing from it.)

Ret > ...as Dr.  Judy already said in this newsgroup, and i
       pointed out to you in my
       posting-mistakenly-sent-as-an-e-mail, your references are
       20-30 years old.

Otis> Proof that you learn NOTHING from objective science.  Hell,
       the method you are using was put in place 400 years ago.
       You have managed to avoid true science developed in the last
       50 years.  The sun never enters your "office" apparently.

Ret > ...that was an age when doctors actually did believe that
       plus lenses and bifocals might really affect myopia
       progression.

Otis> We are not talking about "progression", or don't you get
       that?  We are talking about PREVENTION before that first
       minus lens is prescribed.  Again, the Oakley-Young study is
       VERY CLEAR on that point.

Ret > ...unfortunately the real human studies disproved that
       notion

Otis> So much majority-opinion BS.  The public will just have to
       figure out how to do it "right", because they will get no
       help from your "majority opinion" indeed.

Ret > ...so we have all gone on to something else.

Otis> Something else?  Continue the minus lens quick-fix of the
       last 400 years.  Some "improvement"!

Ret > ...why don't you?

Otis> Because you totally ignore direct scientific proof -- that
       is necessary to start a true preventive effort.

Ret > otis, if you test your theory and it doesn't hold true,

Otis> The concept that the fundamental eye is dynamic is confirmed
       on a scientific level.  It is your "box camera" theory that is
       "broken".

Ret > ...then make a new theory that agrees with the data.

Otis> I suggest you need to actually look at the direct proof,
       rather than living in your dream world in your office.  I do
       concede that I do not deal with the general public -- but
       rather with people who have the motivation to do the
       preventive work "right".

Ret > ...thats what a rational scientist would do.

Otis> Then you profoundly fail that test.

Ret > ...don't engineers act rationally too.

Otis> Yes, to completely examine the objective facts that PROVE
       that the fundamental eye is dynamic.  An also to examine the
       LIMITS placed on you by "public expectation".  And lastly,
       the help people who have the motivation to help themselves
       Avoid GETTING IN TO IT.

Ret > ...don't just deny the data.

Otis> I pointed out to you how totally you IGNORE ALL DATA YOU DO
       NOT "LIKE".  That is real proof of your intense bias against
       the scientific approach. That is WHY there is a
       second-opinion, and why your majority opinion is so intensely
       biased.

Ret > ...not very scientific to do that now is it otis?

Otis> Depends on how you look at scientific facts concerning
       the proven behavior of the fundamental eye.  It depends on
       how you apply that knowledge to protect your distant vision
       -- for the rest of your life.

Otis> I believe that the correct words are, "...first do no
       harm".  The objective facts themselves demonstrate that a
       great deal of "harm" is done with an over-prescribed minus.
       But you are oblivious to that scientific truth as demonstrated
       by your refusal to take the direct-primate data seriously.

      Otis and Retinula

Dear Jon,

Subject:  Myopic ODs who "beat up" on me.

Re:  The professionalism of Steve Leung and Jacob Raphaelson.

Re:  Learning to think for yourself -- and develop your own
solution -- to the best of your ability.

This is my "philosophy" on science -- and the separation of
"optometry" from pure science.

You have show remarkable maturity in working on prevention.

I simply wish that I had had your ability -- but I was too young
for it.  You have learned from the mistakes of the ODs -- that
they continue to make -- the mistakes of the general public,
and honestly my mistakes as a 6 year-old child.

You paid the price in terms of your own effort -- and
have achieved a success.

Best,

Otis
_______________

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  Some conversations on sci.med.vision on the science of
    the natural eye's proven behavior.

      I have friends in optometry and ophthalmology.

      I set "professional limitations".  I define this as follows.

      I DO NOT deal with the great mass of humanity walking in off
the street.

      The public wants that "instantly sharp" vision, and so it is
provided.  That is "optometry" and that is how it has been for at
least the last 150 years.  I do not propose to "change" it.

      In fact Dr.  Raphaelson spelled this out with stark clarity
in "The Printer's Son", there the plus was indeed successful, and
the parents -- not understanding the necessity of it -- totally
rejected this intelligent use of the plus -- for prevention.  That
DEFINES but the problem -- and the fact that these ODs can never
achieve a "solution".

      But I simply report the fact that the natural eye is a
dynamic device, and is a "control system".  When you respect the
natural eye is this manner, then you get accurate scientific
results.  But that becomes a matter of judgment of the scientists
who are conducting this type of review.

      This respect for scientific facts, however can never be
"reduced" to a matter of dealing with the general public -- and I
don't propose to do it.

      My proposal was for my immediate relatives who had the
insight to "work" the preventive measure -- and personally verify
their vision as passing all legal VA requirements.  This they did.
It certainly was not easy, and reflected on their motivation in
this issue.  The REAL SKILL and ability was in them.

      To further respond:

Dick> My guess has been that myopia is due in part (probably
       mostly) to stretching of anatomical elements which succeed
       in the well-functioning eye to keep its relaxed focus at
       infinity.

Otis> It is just easier to say that when you take a population of
       primate eyes -- and place them in a more-confined
       environment, the refraction of the "confined" primates moves
       in the direction and approximate magnitude of the "confined"
       environment -- in diopters.  This is a NATURAL process --
       and can be verified by any scientists who wishes to make
       this measurement effort of the NATURAL eye's behavior.  That
       is just the way it is.  This is an expected result -- there
       is no surprise to is.  It would be very surprising if this
       result DID NOT OCCUR.

Dick> That stretching, once beyond the elastic limit of said
       elements, would not likely be reversible.

Otis> That is true.  The only possibility is prevention -- as
       suggested by the scientific work of the Oakley-Young study.

Dick> Thus, my proposal for positive lenses would be preventative,
       not therapeutic.

Otis> That is my position also.  It puts "responsibility" on the
       person himself to make THAT kind of choice.  Not easy at
       all.  But the consequences of NOT doing it are as you state.

Dick> It is for reading glasses, positive with respect to the
       distance correction, based on a competent prescription to
       correct refractive errors, and prisms to point the eyes
       straight ahead when focused on the work (converge at
       infinity).

Otis> It is my belief that a person educated as to the true-facts
       concerning the natural eye's behavior -- can teach himself
       how to use the plus.  I believe that the "prisms" are not
       necessary -- and very cumbersome. It is hard enough to help
       the person understand this type of choice -- indeed.  Most
       people will not respond to this -- at all.  So the ODs have
       NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

Dick> I do not imagine I am the first to propose that.

Otis> It is not difficult to propose a preventive solution --
       under the person's control.  The "reality" is that most
       people have NO INTEREST in "protecting" their distant
       vision, and so eventually, there is no choice but to wear a
       minus lens -- when the eye-chart goes below 20/50 or so.

Otis> As always, the issue is more a perception that the natural
       eye is a "dynamic" system, rather than a "medical"
       perception.  Please enjoy our pleasant analytic reviews of
       the natural eye's proven behavior.  (In terms of measured
       refractive-state -- not in terms of "error".)

Best,

Otis

Dick

Dear Keith,

Subject:  Medical insistance that "environment" has NO EFFECT on
	   the refractive state of the fundamental eye.

      If you wonder why no one will help you with prevention, then
here are some of the reasons -- based on the statement of this
"medical" person.

      I get tired of hearing this ignorance stated as "fact".  I
hate to think of all the stair-case myopia that is being created
by this systematic ignorance -- and the appliation there of.

      This is the reason for "stair-case" myopia as far as I am
concerned.  When and how can this tragic situation change?

      Otis

      ____________________


To "Don"

Subject:  new studies?

Don > Otis.  here's something I got from a very ignorant MD.  Have
      you heard of these "studies"?

Otis> There have been a large number of studies to "counter"
      Francis Young's studies of the dynamic nature of the
      fundamental eye.  I have not read these specific studies. At
      some point you must make a judgment about scientific facts
      concerning the eye's behavoir, and work on true-prevention on
      the basis of these scientific facts.


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

From the Ignorant MD,

MD > After reading information on your website, I could not stop
      shaking my head at how ridiculously false your reasonings are
      for the cause of myopia.

Otis> It is hard to believe this statement.  This is why I use the
      term "refractive state" and talk about the result of direct
      testing of the fundamental eye.  This man as truly been
      taught myths about the behavior of the natural eye that has
      been profoundly disproven by the primate data itself.  There
      is no "cause" for the natural eye's behavior.

MD > Studies have specifically disproven the theory of
      environmental etiologies as a cause of orbital elongation.
      (Schama, 2001; Hinckley, 2004, and more)

Otis> I have never said anything like this.  I simply reported
      that actual behavior of the fundamental eye accuratly on an
      "input" versus "output" basis.  "Length" an the like are
      conjectures of an ASSUMED box camera model of the eye.
      Clearly the natural eye can and does change its refractive
      state as the environment in changed in a negative direction.
      This man implies this proven behavior DOES NOT HAPPEN.  He is
      not only confused -- he is just plain wrong.

MD > More ridiculous is what your theory implies:  Refrain from
      focusing on close objects, and you won't be myopic.

Otis> Given that proven behavior of the primate eye (when placed
      in a more-confined environment) then the person himself must
      make the (second-opinion) choice of "ending" that near
      environment with a plus.  The person who can ignore this bad
      advice, can use the plus "effectively" and clear his distant
      vision from 20/60 to 20/40 or better.  This man has no
      concept of scientific proof.

MD > If people listened to you, and they won't, then our country
      would be ridiculed as the nation where everyone squints to
      see...

Otis> How tragic that an MD would be so ignorant and make so many
      false assumptions.  Keith saw is distant vision getting
      "blurry" in college and "woke up" to the need for prevention.
      While it was difficult and took great presonal resolve -- he
      cleared his distant vision with the plus. If this MD's
      advice is followed, we will indeed become a nation of myopes
      -- starting with this man's intellectual and scientific
      myopia.

MD > ...and poeple hold things as far away from there eyes as
      possible, even though things may appear blurry.

Otis> This is further extension of this man's ignorance of the dynamic
      behavior of the fundamental eye.  Correct use of the plus
      produces only SLIGHT blur, and had the effect of moving ALL
      CLOSE WORK out to optical-infinity.

MD > Maybe you are trying to promote botox therapy to counter all
      the orbital wrinkles people would develop trying to squint to
      see anything!

Otis> Yet another bizzare statement based on this MD's profound
      arrogance and ignorance of the proven behavior of the
      fundamental eye.

Otis> This is why I paid total attention to the scientific facts
      themselves as a counter to this man's brutal ignorance.


Otis

Care2.txt

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  Warnings against the preventive second-opinion from the
	   ODs on Google -- sci.med.vision for your enjoyment.

Re:  Scientific proof of the natural eye's dynamic behavior.

      I advocate personal "empowerment" -- with due caution and
information.

      Here are statement against your right to an informed,
competent second opinion and, against your ability to "take
control" and clear your vision with the plus -- if possible.

      You can take this as you wish.  I ALWAYS want the true-facts
presented to your and I.  I do not need the OD arrogance for this
subject.

      Make your own judgment here.  This is the reason you received
an excessively strong minus in the first place -- and received NO
information on prevention when you needed it.

      The scientific facts (as stated below) are what I rely on.

Otis

      __________________________


Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  When a basic question is asked, and a opinion expressed
	   -- there is a huge explosion of denial by the ODs on
	   sci.med.vision.

      Why is that?  Think about it.

      Was Dick asking the "wrong" question?

      What is wrong with the correct answer?  (That the eye is
"dynamic" as proven in pure-science?

      Otis

      ______________

Dick> What are the causes of progressive myopia?

Dear Dick,

The correct answer is:

1.  A confined environment -- confirmed with primate eyes.

2.  An over-prescribed minus.

That is also the "second-opinion".

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

From:  Dr.  Leukoma


Subject:  WARNING AGAINST THE PREVENTIVE SECOND OPINION.


DrG > According to Otis, there is no appropriate use of a minus
       lens for the treatment of myopia.  Therefore, every instance
       of minus lens use is considered "over-prescribing."

DrG > According to Otis, myopic children are forced to live in
       closets with dim lighting.

DrG

[Comment:  Obviously I NEVER said anything like this.  What you
      see on my site is some kids with this "bad visual habit" of
      pulling the "work" into about 4 inches (-10 diopters).  No
      child is "forced" to do this -- it is a very bad habit that
      must be "broken" by the parents.  OSB]


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


From:  RM

Otis> Dear Prevention minded friends,

Otis> Subject: When a basic question is asked, and a opinion
       expressed -- there is a huge explosion of denial against the
       effect that a minus lens has on the primate eye.

Otis> Why is that?  Think about it.

Otis> Was Dick asking the "wrong" question?  What is wrong with
      the correct answer concerning the proven behavior of the
      natural eye?

RM > There is nothing wrong with giving a learned response to
      someone's questions.  You, however, just belch out your own
      unfounded point-of-view which IS NOT based upon any good
      science and which has been repeatedly debunked time after
      time.

RM > And what's worse, YOU DON'T CARE!

[Comment:  I OBJECT!  The problem is that I care "too much", and
	    not the other way around.  OSB]

RM> You have either no respect for the scientific process,

[Comment:  I have just posted the nature of a scientific study of
      the natural eye.  RM insists that EVERYONE totally ignore the
      implications of scientific truth, and states that "science"
      is not science.  OSB]

RM> or no sense of ethics about what you say, as evidenced by you
      continuing to repeat your same "theory"

[Comment:  It is RMs theory that a minus lens has no effect on the
      refractive state of the natural eye.  He offers NO DATA AT
      ALL to prove his idea.  See the review below.  I personally
      HATE being patronized.  OSB}

RM> in the face of the withering proofs presented against it by
      people who know much more than you.

[Comment:  An example of TOTAL ARROGANCE by a two-week "Doctor".
      You make your own judgment about RM -- is he a "God" that you
      should worship him?  I suggest keeping an "open" scientific
      mind -- and understand preventive alternatives that ARE based
      on direct scientific proof.  OSB]


RM> You are an outrageous old fool Otis Brown. Go away troll.

[Comment:  A statement of profound arrogance.  I suggest that
      anyone who loves there distant vision and wishes to keep is
      must figure out how to AVOID this man's profound arrogance.
      OSB]

RM> PS-- A note to all the other eyedocs:  The next meeting of the
      "Minus Lens Conspiracy Committee" of the American Optometric
      Association will be held at our secret location in the
      Bahamas on November 5th.

[Comment:  A statement of further arrogance.  But I would suggest
      that there are many a truth spoken in jest.  I would just
      suggest that is it a conspiracy of profound ignorance about
      the natural eye's behavior spoken by RM who is truly ignorant
      of that proven behavior.  OSB]

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

Subject:  WARNING AGAINST YOUR RIGHT TO AN INFORMED SECOND-OPINION
	   ON PREVENTION.

Dear RM,

      I have met many HUMBLE ODs who were open-and-honest about the
PROVEN behavior of the NATURAL eye.

      If you ask -- what will happen if I place a -3 diopter lens
on a population of natural primate eyes -- with measured
REFRACTIVE STATES, then on a scientific level, we can provide and
accurate answer.

      Please use the term "refractive" state to describe the natural
eye that can (and does) have refractive states that can be
positive or negative.

      So the only issue is to confirm this dynamic attribute of the
fundamental eye.  A population of primates living in the "wild"
will have an average refractive state of about +0.75 diopters,
with a gaussian distribution of REFRACTIVE STATES.

      So the PURE scientific question is this.  Does this natural
eye "follow" the applied -3 diopter lens -- or not.

      (Again, this is pure science, not to be construed as a
"medical test" or a "medical statement".  The natural eye must be
credited as a sophisticated control system, and we are just
verifying that scientific truth.  You keep on attempting to make my
statements in to "medical" statements -- and that is simply not
the case.)

      Now, if we take 1/2 the (adolescent) monkeys and place them
in a -3 diopter lens, and the other remain in the wild, the we can
predict one of to things will happen (by direct measurement).

1.  Your theory -- the refractive state of the wild and (-3
      diopter) monkeys will remain the same, i.e., both groups will
      had a refractive status of +0.75 diopters.

2.  The "dynamic" concept (respecting the natural eye as a control
      system.) The monkeys with the -3 diopter lens on will change
      their REFRACTIVE STATE by about -2.75 diopters (or more) in 1
      year.  Thus the "wild" monkeys will remain at +0.75 diopters,
while the -3.0 diopter monkeys will change their REFRACTIVE
      STATE to -2.0 diopters.

This test proves NOTHING about "error" or "nearsightedness" at
all.  (I hope you can "conceptualize" the behavior of the natural
eye as a dynamic system.)

      Science simply predicts the behavior of the natural eye (as a
dynamic system) when accurately and correctly tested.  I have not
made ANY MEDICAL STATEMENT HERE -- only reported scientific facts
accurately.

      That is the basis of my answer to Dick on his question as to
why the natural eye moves in a negative direction from:

1.  A prolonged "confined" environment followed by

2.  An over-prescribed minus lens.

      Difficult to understand perhaps but this is a natural process
not a "error" process.

      Best,

      Otis

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: A conversation with a minus-lens theory
and practice optometrist.

Re: The difference between pure-science and
"clinical" practice.

Judy has some good reasons to explain why she can not offer
"prevention with the plus".

She should also include a statement about "The Printer's
Son" -- as a reason why she can do nothing for prevention.
Then I would agree with her 100 percent.


Best,

Otis

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

From: "drjudy65" <mpace99@...>

Subject: Re: For Otis re: Preventive Plus


Otis> Dear Carly,

Otis> Subject: The OD of the "future".

snip

Otis> I have BEGGED the ODs on sci.med.vision to relent -- and
help by DISCUSSING the preventive method.

Judy> The ODs on sci.med.vision have asked you to provide
repeatable, valid, scientific evidence...

Otis> This depends on your priorities. My First priority is to
establish that the natural eye behaves as a dynamic system
when correctly tested. This is a matter of pure-science.
If a person has a scientific mind, or an "engineering" mind
then he can understand this type of experimental
verification that the natural eye is a dynamic system. If
he does not understand this -- then the potential for
scientific "proof" would end at that point.

Judy> ...in the form of clinical trials showing that there is a
preventive method that works.

Otis> If the person understands the natural of the natural eye's
proven behavior -- and implements the preventive method
himself, then there is no need for a "clinical trial". If
he neglects the use of the plus, and for that reason
develops 20/80 vision -- you will have no choice but to use
a minus lens on that person. Effective prevention (by the
person himself) means that he recognizes the proven fact
that the eye is "dynamic" and applies that concept to
himself by aggressively using the plus at the 20/50 level,
and always "clears" to better-than 20/40. This requires
both intelligence and motivation in the person himself --
and not a "clinical trial" since this preventive process can
obviously NEVER be reduced to "medicine" -- with all due
respect.

Judy> When that evidence is provided, they will be happy to
suggest the method to their patients.

Otis> Of course after they have developed stair-case myopia from
the minus lens it will simply be "too late" for them. I
would HATE to have to be the person to "explain" that issue
to a patient who developed stair-case myopia from an
over-prescribed minus.

Otis> I would hope for a "supportive" optometrists that offers
BOTH methods. But that has happened ONLY with Steve Leung.

Judy> What do you mean by "both" methods? There are many, many
claims of methods. Optometrists would have to present all
the methods, not just a select two.

Otis> There are TWO methods available -- as the "majority opinion"
and the "second opinion". The very-easy method of making a
person's vision very sharp in 15 minutes. This is the
minus-lens box-camera theory and method.

Otis> Obviously, there are quite a few ODs who recognized the
"problem" with the minus lens -- and have sought to change
it. (Very difficult -- if you understand the issue of, "The
Printer's Son". The issue is PREVENTION before the minus
lens is applied. Obviously this consideration REQUIRES a
person who is informed of these issues as either chooses to
use the plus aggressively -- or not.

Judy> Licensed professionals have an obligation to present therapy
with informed consent -- the patient must be informed of the
odds of success, the risks and the benefits and the
alternatives.

Otis> Providing a discussion of these issues is difficult. With
the Internet available the person COULD do his own research
-- and perhaps conclude that the simple minus was "right"
for him. We both agree that this is an "either-or" choice.

Judy> If I were to mention "prevention" or "natural vision
improvement" to patients the conversation would go something
like this:

Judy> "A retired engineer thinks that wearing reading glasses can
prevent or reverse myopia. A real estate developer in New
Zealand thinks that therapy to address self esteem and
childhood problems can do it. A guy selling pinhole glasses
on the internet claims they work. Another guy selling a
headset with plus lenses and prisms says his gizmo works.
Yet another guy selling an ultrasound acupuncture gizmo makes
similar claims. Several companies claim their eye exercise
programs work.

Judy> None of these claims have been tested in clinical trials, so
the odds of success and the risks are not known.

Otis> The effect of the minus was tested in a "clinical" trial.
(Oakley-Young study) This demonstrated that the a
single-minus went "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.
The "plus" stopped going "down". This suggests that if
prevention is desired the use of the plus MUST START BEFORE
THE MINUS IS WORN.

Judy> If you would like to try NVI, google the term, explore about
5 million websites and make your choice.

Otis> I NEVER refer to true-prevention as "natural vision
improvement". If you are avoiding a negative refractive
state -- then you are ending your "near" environment with a
plus. As with the dynamic primate eye -- the refractive
state of the eye will move positive (i.e., eye-chart will
clear) although at a very slow rate.

Judy> If you find one you like, use PubMed to find out if clinical
trials have been done.

Judy> If clinical trials have not been done, then please don't ask
me if your chosen method would be a good one, without a
clinical trial, I can't answer that question."

Otis> Since I suggest you look at scientific proof that the eye is
dynamic (controls its refractive state to its average visual
environment) then I suggest that you work to keep your
eye-chart clear. As Judy says, "...then please don't ask me
if your chosen method would be a good one". I would suggest
that if you wish to keep your distant vision clear -- and
always pass the DMV, then there is no earthly reason why you
should even bother asking Judy any questions.

Judy> ...without a clinical trial, I can't answer that question."

Otis> This clearly separates an accurate understanding of the
dynamic nature of the fundamental eye from Judy who, "Can't
answer that question".

Judy> If you were the patient, what would you think? Would you be
wondering why I was wasting your time bringing the topic up
at all?

Otis> If the "patient" figures out how to clear his distant vision
(by science) then the fact that he does so will keep him
from "wasting Judy's time".

Judy> This is the reason that ODs do not mention prevention and
wait until the patient finds a method and asks about it.

Otis> At the point the "patient" figures out was science tells us
about the natural eye's behavior and applies the scientific
method (plus) to his own eyes -- and clears his eye-chart to
better than 20/40, then he has no need to go to an
optometrist and "ask about it". He has become master of his
own eyes.

Otis

Dr Judy

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


Dear Keith,

I am proud of you and your ability to take prevention seriously.

You gained geatly in scientific knowledge, and you also
kept your distant vision clear (when massive number of
children will lose their vision to that minus lens.)

Here Dr. Judy argues that she should continue over-prescribing
that minus lens until "someone" runs a "clinical" study.

You can plan on hell freezing over before an OD runs
a "clinical" study that trashes the "minus lens method"
of the last 400 years -- or agrees to the
obvious, that an over-prescribed minus
creates stair-case myopia.

The primate studies of the behavior of the natural
eye under scientific "test" conditions prove
that point, if you use the term "refractive state"
to describe what you actually measure -- not
what you conjecture.

Otis

Autobi2.txt

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject:  My background and interests.

Re:  Personal credibility -- and your judgment.

      You have a right to know who I am -- and judge my personal
motivations to work on a scientific understanding of the natural
eye's behavior.

      I do not particularly wish to "self-promote" but I would like
to know the motivations of the person who I talk to.  Perhaps the
following can help you with that "understanding".

      I see the natural eye as a sophisticated, and therefore a
dynamic device.  Here are some of the reasons for my perception
and respect for the natural eye.

      I do not "deal" with a great population of people waking in
"off the street".  That can never be part of my argument.  My
argument is more a matter of your own "empowerment" so that you
can take actions that meet your personal requirements.

      Best,

      Otis

			  ______________

					 October 10, 2005

Dear Friends,

Subject:  My History

PART I -  Personal engineering and scientific interest.

PART II - Separating pure scientific facts from "medicine".


			        PART I

Purpose:  To Provide intellectual and scientific support to Steve
	   Leung in his work to prevent the development of
	   nearsightedness in children.


      When I was young, I was told that I would learn the truth --
only after the truth no longer mattered.  But knowing the truth
about the dynamic nature of the eye was, and is, very important to
me.

      Since we have been working on "nearsightedness prevention"
for the last 30 years, we might look "inward" in the sense that we
analyze our own motivations.  Obviously I realized that we
understand the natural eye "differently".  I believe that the
natural eye MUST be dynamic, and that some people have accepted
the "traditional" picture that the eye is a "frozen" box camera,
and does not control its refractive state to its visual
environment.


		    MY PERSONAL CURIOSITY

      When I was 16 years old I went through a personal "crisis"
and felt my life was "over".  [Most people would have regarded it
as a normal "bump" on the road of life!] But that personal
disaster spurred my interest in "nearsightedness".  The standard
(i.e., box-camera) explanations did not "ring true", and I had to
wonder if the pressure to prescribe an immediate solution was
"driving" this process -- and I sought to determine if that were
the case.


		    THE OPHTHALMOLOGIST

      Since my interest had become clear to my family, my father
asked our ophthalmologist about this issue.  The ophthalmologist
said, "Oh, God, don't let Otis get involved with that issue".  To
me he said, "Once you become an Ophthalmologist -- then you will
understand".  I have not become an Ophthalmologist -- but I
certainly understand why he made the statements he did!

      But my curiosity was such that I could not "let it go".
Equally, however, I knew he was a fine man who was doing the best
that he could do -- and I respected him for that reason.

      I did understand how my questions might be construed as
insulting, although that is not, and has never been my intention.
The fact that he had to imply that I didn't "understand" worried
me.  I resolved to ask a different type of question and use
neutral words to avoid this type of conflict.


		  WORKING FOR A LIVING

      I worked a few years for the telephone company.  This was
good "outside work".  I had some time to study the design of the
V-2 rocket in a book written by Dr.  Walter Dorenberger.

      The result of this engineering book caused me respect for the
design of a "control systems".  A rocket flies straight up -- with
the flame straight down.  To the casual observer it appears that
the rocket-motor is "fixed".  To the rocket-engineer it is clear
that this is a false belief -- of the general public.  The entire
system is absolutely "unstable".  Only continuous strong motions
of the motor, monitoring a gyroscope creates this apparent
"stability".  Later this idea of "active" stability became the
core of a technical analysis of the eye's fundamental behavior.


		  COLLEGE AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

      In college I had the opportunity to study the history of
science.  (This was different from most "science" books, since it
defined how ideas in science develop.) The concept was profoundly
"different" than the conventional notion of science that most
people have of the subject.  The book was "The Foundations of
Modern Science" by Gerald Holton and Duane Roller.

      The specific idea that caught my imagination was the struggle
between the Ptolemaic concept (Earth-centered) universe, versus
the Copernicus (Sun-centered) universe.  These were two
"world-view" concepts.  A study of these concepts and how
"observed facts" interact with scientific theory were essential
for me.

      The "world view" and the "fact" seemed to totally support the
Polemic concept -- and the fact that the concept had been use for
the previous 1200 years apparently made the Ptolemaic concept
"perfect".  Further, the concept had been accepted by the Catholic
church.  The "objections" by Galileo was then translated as a
DIRECT ATTACK on the entire Catholic church.  It was for this
reason that Galileo was forced to "recant" his belief that the
Earth (and planets) moved around the sun as the center - and not
the earth.  He was placed under "house arrest" until his death.

      Later I changed my "interest" to engineering and spent four
years obtaining a BS degree from Capitol College.  As part of this
study I learned to design "control systems" -- as well as many
issues regarding engineering and design in science.  A deep
appreciation of the truth that the natural eye must be a
sophisticated system (for stability) became part of this
evaluation.


	    RADIO STATION WORK - FREE TIME TO THINK

      During this time (for curiosity) I continued my interest in
nearsightedness.  One "popular" publication, about 1965 was by Dr.
William Ludlam.  He stated that "Submariners developed
nearsightedness proportional to the time they spent in a
submarine".  Since this make a great deal of sense to me, I wrote
up a thirty page paper, describing the concept of the plus to be
used for prevention -- since I had NEVER EVEN HEARD of any
proposed or suggested use of the plus as a preventive for
nearsightedness.

      Dr.  Ludlam wrote back and said that the concept of "the
plus" was not new, and that Dr.  Raphaelson had developed the
concept to a certain extent.  I then went to Cincinnati about 1967
to see him.  Jacob was 92 years old -- and I felt very lucky that
I could visit and talk with him.  He gave me his publications, and
they provided a great insight into the difficulties of introducing
prevention -- from the perspective of an optometrist.  These
insights were valuable to me -- and changed by "world view" about
the natural eye's behavior in a fundamental way.


      PREVENTION AS SEEN FROM THE OPTOMETRIST'S POINT-OF-VIEW

      While Jacob covered many subjects, there were two items that
DEFINED the nature of the "problem" and caused me to forcefully
separate the matter of dealing with people "off the street" as
different from pure-science, or "engineering-science".  I will
describe why this is necessary in "Part II" of this evaluation.


		      FURTHER CLARIFICATION

      There is a tendency to state that the minus lens method, put
is place 400 years ago is "based on science", or call such use,
"science".  I object in strong terms to that type of thinking.  I
could understand the OD who would say, "...but I have no choice"!
To avoid conflict, I would describe this as "medical-science", or
the matter of dealing as best you can with a great mass of people
who expect an "instant solution" from some one who is "medical".

      Dr.  Raphaelson was successful in, "The Printer's Son", only
to have the parents and child totally REJECT both Raphaelson and
the plus lens. It is now very clear that the child (in this
statement) would simply have gotten back into nearsightedness
because his habits had not changed.  I simply can not tolerate
this type of situation.  If the person I talk to demands that
"instant solution", then I will not "fight" with him or the OD
about the issue.


	  CLEARING THE MIND -- AND WORK WITH FRANCIS YOUNG

      In fact, I have no "objection" to the use of the minus, and
consider that an OD (like Jacob Raphaelson) has only an obligation
to SUGGEST the possibility of using the plus (providing the
child's vision is "workable", i.e., 20/40 to 20/70).  If the
parents can not accept the plus at that point -- then they should
sign a statement that they had been informed of the "preventive"
method, and that they prefer the immediate solution of the minus
lens.  For me that would "clear the air", and make the parent and
child responsible for the long-term consequence of that choice.
Given the one-way street nature of myopia development, the parents
must understand that when the minus lens is started -- the plus
can not be used.


	   FINDING MORE INFORMATION -- BY BEING PROVACATIVE

      Many people are "passive" -- meaning that they do not "push"
their knowledge.  It has always been my habit to ask questions.
If I receive put-offs and put-downs then I must find out why my
questions are being deflected. Is it because I am "insulting" the
person with my questions.  If my questions are honest, then I
expect an honest answer.  If my questions are still considered
"insulting" then I must find out why.

      Part of this goal is to "stand up" and publish your
assessment -- in a formal scientific review process.  I have
published eight papers in the IEEE/EMBS with co-authors who are
leaders in their field.  It takes a considerable amount of time to
prepare these papers and get them accepted for publication.  This
was a "learning" process for me.  But at least I had the "guts" to
stand up and make this type of pitch.  Ultimately, I assembled
these papers into my book, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness".  I did
this in part to help the "next curious person" to avoid the labor
I when through to reach my conclusion about nearsightedness
prevention.

      [I was very upset that it took me ten years to "find" Jacob
Raphaelson.  An engineering text and review would have saved me an
immense amount of labor.  And I am always in favor of "labor
saving" publications.  Straight answers about the proven behavior
of the natural eye would have saved me an incredible amount of
physical work on this project.]


        DAVID GUYTON, KAREL MONTOR, PETER GREENE, AND DONALD REHM

      During this time I had the pleasure of meeting the above
people.  The goal was to initiate a "preventive" effort at the
Naval Academy -- among pilots -- who MIGHT have the motivation for
the effort.  The result was pleasant conversations and discussions
-- but "red tape" prevented ANYTHING from being attempted.  I must
also add that the time I spent with these people was wonderful.


        PUBLICATION OF MY BOOK, "HOW TO AVOID NEARSIGHTEDNESS"

      Up to this point, I only knew that Dr.  Colgate had cleared
his vision with the plus.  But I never heard of anyone else doing
it under their own control.  With the book published, I sold it
through a "Professional Flying" magazine, and attempted to
restrict the sale to ONLY pilots whose vision was 20/40 to 20/70
who (with intense motivation) could clear their vision back to
20/20. I sold the book to a Brian Severson, who "cleared" to
20/20 -- from 20/70.  At least I knew that prevention was possible
when done with great intensity.


		    RETIREMENT FROM GSFC

      In 2002 (age 62) I retired from NASA support work at the
Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland -- after 35
years of very interesting and enjoyable work.  Since I now have
more time to pursue my "hobby", I developed the Internet page,
www.myopiafree.com, to further develop the concept and help people
like, "The Printer's Son", to "wake up" and understand the
necessity of prevention -- or understand the "direct and certain
consequence" of rejecting the use of the plus at the threshold.
This is far more an educational process for the individual
himself, rather than a "medical" process.  I know that most people
simply do not understand this issue.  It is very important however
-- since failure to learn to use the plus "correctly" leads to
life-time consequences that (almost) can not be reversed.

      [Obviously this now depends on the "qualities" of the person
himself -- to decide this issue.  Since no one can "predict" that
a person has a "quality mind" for this work, I make myself
completely dependent on the person himself to have these
qualities.]


		 THE FUTURE -- SAME AS THE PAST?

      The past "predicts" the future.  One hundred years ago, no
one could make a statement about the dynamic behavior of the
natural eye -- because no one "thought" to run the correct
experiment.  Today, in "engineering science" we can predict --
with good accuracy -- the behavior of the fundamental eye,
providing we test the natural eye under "input" versus "output"
conditions.

      We must use absolutely neutral testing (to avoid bias).  I
suggest we use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye
can (and does) have positive and negative refractive states --
depending on the "input" average-visual environment.  This type of
study proves that the fundamental eye is dynamic.

      [Dynamic in the sense of rocket-guidance. There is no doubt
on a pure-scientific level that the natural eye is proven to
behave as a dynamic "camera" system.]

      However NONE of this accurate information is ever discussed
with a person on the threshold of nearsightedness.  I am very
pleased that a few men have been able to "figure out" how to
intensively use the plus "correctly".  It seems to take a person
of considerable intelligence to realize that you must understand
the eye's behavior "correctly" -- and can not, in a knee-jerk
fashion use a quick-fix method.  The real answer is to understand
the facts as stated above, and CHANGE the near environment with
the plus.


			    PART II

     SEPARATING PURE SCIENCE FROM MEDICAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS


      There are may people who confuse "medical" considerations and
actions From "pure science" issues.  To avoid the antagonisms
involved, I suggest using the word engineering-science when
discussing the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye, versus
"medical-science", when discussing MEDICAL issues concerning the
eye.  Failure to separate this issue in this manner will ALWAYS
create confusion and anger -- and emotional, self-protective
response from an OD or MD.  I have see way too much of the
"self-protective" reaction on the part of may ODs.  I regret it --
that issue must be faced as a "fact" of this discussion.


	        MEDICAL-SCIENCE CONSIDERATIONS

      A very dedicated optometrist (Raphaelson) spelled out the
real problem of prevention -- in the "Printer's Son".  As long a
parents REJECT the use of the plus when it must be used -- there
is no future for "true-prevention", or the optometrist can not
administrate it effectively.  This issue did not reflect on
Raphaelson -- it reflects on the ignorance and lack of MOTIVATION
of the public for prevention.  There was NOTHING Raphaelson could
do about this issue -- and NOTHING I can do about it either.
Classify this as a "medical-science" issue.


		     ENGINEERING-SCIENCE ISSUES

      As long as the "Printer's Son" scenario exists, then
"prevention" will always be impossible.  Thus the issue becomes
the "education" of the "Printer's son" about prevention -- on an
"either-or" basis.  I quite frankly was shocked about this
question when I discussed the story with Dr.  Raphaelson.  But it
became clear that nothing could be done.  No amount of scientific
research, or technical analysis can change this issue. But in the
last 100 years scientific truth is finally confirming the behavior
of the natural eye.


		     OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS

      In working with Francis Young, I had access to his data.
Thus, the issue of the natural eye could be resolved by DIRECT
testing.  In order to do this correctly it is necessary to use
very basic words to describe a measurement.  We should not "read"
meaning into a measurement -- because this becomes a biased way of
interpreting the data. Thus, if we wish to determine the dynamic
nature of the fundamental eye, we ask simple and basic questions
about whether a population of nature eyes are dynamic on an input
versus output basis.

      Further, we use the neutral term refractive-state.  In the
case of Francis Young's study, the measurement was made by induced
paralysis, since you could not get the monkeys to read an eye
chart. Thus the test is simple -- and there can be only two
possible results.  Either the natural eye is dynamic -- or it is
not.  Further, this type of test is repeatable, if the result is
disputed.  This is "pure-science", since it takes the person
himself to "accept" the conclusions you will reach if you take
this type of testing seriously.  Francis Young published these
results, and I did further analysis which demonstrated that the
natural eye is in fact controlling its refractive status to its
average value of accommodation.

      There is no scientific doubt about this result -- but there
are may who do not like "abstract" analysis and scientific truth
about this result.  I have no power to "argue" with a person who
rejects this type of scientific analysis -- but it does lead to
the conclusion that nearsightedness could be prevented -- by the
person himself -- if he had the fortitude to take this type of
pure-scientific research seriously.  My book, "How to Avoid
Nearsightedness" is designed to assist a person who has this type
of strong motivation to "protect" his distant vision through the
school years.

      But equally I do acknowledge that most people can not "get
motivated" in the correct-use of the plus.  The person who
criticizes an optometrist like Jacob Raphaelson or Steve Leung
should write up an "essay" explaining how Steve should overcome
the resistance of "The Printer's Son" for correct-use of the plus.

      Since was the parents who rejected the use of the plus --
then they, in their ignorance, accepted full responsibility for
the consequences.  We know now that when the plus is rejected in
this manner, the child's vision will start down again, and that
the "down" rate is about -1/2 diopter per year.  (The Oakley-Young
study. For some children, it can be 1,0 diopters per year.) Thus
the OD must deal with this type of "ignorance", and this ignorance
will continue to compel this situation.  Worse, some ODs insist
that the concept of prevention with the plus "...must be
destroyed".  This makes the situation of "The Printer's Son" even
worse -- since any OD attempting to offer the use of the plus on
the threshold will encounter of "buzz saw" of opposition FROM HIS
FELLOW ODs, not to mention ever more fierce objection from the
public due to their ignorance on the objective of true-prevention
with the plus.


	  THE DIS-INCENTIVE TO SUPPORT PREVENTION FOR AN OD

      This is the reason for the tremendous dis-incentive to do
ANYTHING for prevention on the part of an optometrist. These are
very serious issues 0- and must be discussed and understood by the
parents before any minus or plus is used.


	       AN INFORMED-CONSENT CONTRACT AS THE
	       FIRST STEP TO PRACTICAL PREVENTION


      The issue is serious enough to call for a "technical
agreement" or "contract" with the parents about the use of a
straight-plus for the child.  I believe that this will prevent
"abuse" OF THE OD who OFFERS true-prevention with the plus.  This
document is prepared to help BOTH the parents and the OD with this
subject.  Obviously the parents can not understand all these
issues -- but their intelligence should be respected, and their
child's right to a "second opinion" could be understood and
supported under this "signed contract" method of prevention.


Otis

Dear Second-opinion friends,

Subject:  Direct scientific proof -- of the eye's fundamental
           behavior.

Re:  I get tired of ODs insisting that a minus lens has NO EFFECT
      on the refractive status of the natural eye.  My intention
      is to put their statement "to the test".  Below is a
      statement of that test.  When I insist on it -- they change
      the subject, state that objective scientific tests "don't
      mean anything", and continue "quick-fixing" the public that
      walks in off the street becasue:

1.  They can and

2.  Doing anything BEYOND the quick fix is impossible for them.

3.  They are very protective of their "professional position".
      Hell anyone can "prescribe" a minus lens.  You and I could do
      it.  It takes real skill to NOT do it.  It takes real
      intellectual skill to understand WHY you must use the plus
      for prevention.

      Below is what I consider to be basic, clear scientific proof
that the eye functions as a highly accurate camera.

      I object in strongest terms when someone tells me that
preveting a negative refractive state for the fundament eye is NOT
SCIENTIFIC.  If they said NOT MEDICAL -- I would agree with them.
If they it can not be done -- I would ALMOST agree with them,
because of the "attitude" of the public.

      Here the meaning of descriptive words is absoulty crucial to
the discussion.  Thus the natural eye can have a positive or
negative refractive status -- and as the test below proves.

      And since this test proves this dynamic characteristic of the
natural eye, then both a positive and negative refractive state
(in the range discussed) must not be called an "error" or any
other words that PRESUME something about the natural eye
that is not true.

      Best,

      Otie

_______________

Dear Carly,

Subject:  Testing the natural primate eye (in the wild) to see if
      it is dynamic (relative to a -3 diopter lens.)

Re:  To understand this test is it necessary to know that the
      refractive status of monkies living in the wild is about +3/4
      diopters, with the "spread" bell-shaped curve running from
      about zero diopters.

      These are monkies that have eyes that are controling their
refractive state the their average environment.

      Now your question is this.  How can I verify this scientifc
truth.

      You take 100 of these "wild" monkeys and place 1/2 of them
into a -3 diopter lens.  The other 50 you keep in the wild.
(Remember, this is not a test to "find" or "determine" any error
or "defect".  It is only work to determine if the natural eye (in
the wild) is a dynamic auto-focused camera.


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


Carly> If a monkey with no myopia was put in a -3 lens perhaps
        he'd develop a bit but I'm not convinced he'd go down a whole
        -3.


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


Otis> From the above test of adolescent monkeys, (and scientific
analysis), I
would suggest the following.

1.  NO DIFFERENCE will develop between the two groups. (This is
      the box-camera prediction.)

2.  Some difference.  Carly's prediction.

3.  The difference will be on the order of -2.5 diopters (after
      one year) between the 50 with the minus lens on, versus the
      50 that remained in the wild.

      Those are the potential results of a scientific test.  Dr.
Judy mainatins that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive
state of the natural eye.  On scientific grounds I dispute her
prediction for this objective scientific test of the natural eye's
behavior.


Best,

Otis


--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "Carly Wong" <carly_pussycat@t...>
wrote:

Carly> Well that test would not particularly interest me as my
      original test was to see if wearing the actual prescription
      you've been given affects the progression of your myopia.

Carly> Regarding your overprescribed lens test though, I am not
      entirely convinced that the eye does adapt to the lens it's
      put in, because I was clearly overprescribed for a -5.00 lens
      yet when I wear my -4.75s now they aren't too weak, therefore
      after more than 2 years of wearing a -5.00 my eyes haven't
      worsened. If a monkey with no myopia was put in a -3 lens
      perhaps he'd develop a bit but I'm not convinced he'd go down
      a whole -3

Otis> No, in one year the 50 monkeys would go down by -2.5
      diopters by experimental proof and mathematical analysis.
      Why should we not believe in scientific tests and truth?

Otis> If this test were not this consistent -- I never
       would have stated this web site and discussion.
       The issue is about your long-term distant vision,
       and protecting it if you can.

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  Objective scientific proof depends on the nature of the
	   question you learn to ask.

Re:   Long ago I learned to RESPECT the fundamental eye as a
       highly sophisticated auto-focused camera.  The proof for
       this fact is to test this thesis against the theory that the eye
       is a fixed-focus camera and therefore can not possibly
       change its refractive to it average visual environment.


	   HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT THE EYE IS DYNAMIC?

      If I ask the question, "Does a minus lens have an effect on
the eye with a negative refractive status" -- then (in science) it
is sometimes necessary to exagerate the strength of the minus lens
to see the effect.

      If you are interested in PROVING the effect on the natural
eye (with refractive states from -0.5 diopters to -1.5 diopters),
and you are using the primate eye, then I would suggest that a -3
diopter lens be used.  (There accommodation systems will easily
track this "nearer" environment.)

      Thus the one group (in cages) would continue to have the SAME
enviroment, while the group with the -3 diopter lens on
(equivalent to putting a box on their heads -- with the MAXIMUM
distance is at 13 inches) would be correctly tested -- just to
see:

1.  If there were change -- or no change in refractive state.

2.  If so, how much change in one year (relative to the "test"
     group.)

3.  We should determine if this type of scientific testing of the
     natural eye (with a negative refractive status) can be
     repeated again and again with the same result.  (i.e., the
     need for a REPEATABLE scientific experiment to CONFIRM that
     the natural eye changes its refractive state in conformance
     to its average visual-environment -- as we will expect from
     an auto-focused camera.

      (Yes I know, this is a scientific study, and does not EXACTLY
answer your question, but is does suggest that the minus lens is
proven to have an effect on all natural primate eyes.) You will
have do draw your own conclusions -- since this objective test
COULD NEVER BE PERFORMED ON THE NATURAL HUMAN-PRIMATE EYE.

      That is the "science" part of it.


			     _______________

From:  "Carly Wong"

Carly> Sorry I misread what you wrote. I thought you were
        referring to monkeys with -2.00 myopia to use a -2.00 lens.
        I agree with Dr Judy, why would you use an overprescribed
        lens?

			     _______________


Otis> You run the above test to confirm that a minus lens has NO
       EFFECT on the eye's refraction -- even if it were
       ACCIDENTALLY over-prescribed.  This is typically the type of
       test the NIH will run to confirm that a drug (like red-dye
       #2 is safe).  You must increase the "dose" to actually see
       the effect.  The same principle is used here to verify that
       a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of
       the natual eye.

Otis> There are other indications that when a young-man with 20/40
       vision (passes the DMV) winds up with an over-prescribed
       -2.0 diopter minus lens. I would suspect that the same
       thing that is proven for the natural primate eye (above)
       would occur to HIS refractive state if he wore that -2.0
       diopter lens ALL THE TIME.  This is the explicit
       recommendation of the "majority-opinion" optometrists.

Otis> MyopiaFree is about different opinions and judgment about
       this dynamic quality of the fundamental eye -- and seek
       scientific proof that the NATRUAL eye behaves in the manner.
       This should provoke so honest review of pure science versus
       "medical" necessity.

Otis> MyopiaFree is about thinking and analysis -- not the demand
       for immediate results produced by a minus lens.

Otis> The average OD has no choice but to use a minus lens in his
       office.  I do not "argue" about that given situation.  Dr.
       Raphaelson's statement about, "The Printer's Son" spells
       THAT issue out -- exactly.

Best,

Otis

NRiver2.txt

      Mr.  N.  River (named changed) claims that the "preventive"
plus will "hurt your eyes".  For that reason he contacted my
nephew to inform his that a "plus" hurts his eyes.  In fact my
nephew used the plus to "clear" his distant vision (as required)
through college.  For you interest, here is the discussion.

____________

Dear Keith,

Subject:  Thinking for your self.  Acting for yourself.

Re:  Fundamental science -- not medicine.

      I think you did an excellent job protecting your distant
vision.

      You must look at the "quality" of the people who have done
this -- and I mean specifically Stirling Colgate who reached the
same conclusion that you did.

      Clearly Stirling did not earn a living "selling" the minus
lens -- and could not care less about it.  He wrote up his "story"
at the request of his wife Rosie to help his own children
understand and avoid this "undesired" situation.

      You are right about "medicine".  It sinks to the lowest
common denominator.  By that I mean that whatever is done -- must
produce and OBVIOUS result that is "seen" by the patient.  Most
people are "superficial", and so this "immediate" result meets all
medical needs.

      Almost NO ONE will listen to any "medical" person who
attempts to go beyond this point.  The remarks of River   is
sufficient to shut down ANY MD or OD who attempts to go beyond the
"superficial" demand of the public.  This was the real "message"
of Dr. Raphaelson -- and I learned it well.

      In the sense of pure science -- most of these issues are
resolved.  In the sence of "medicine", i.e., the superficial
public's demand for the "obvious" solution -- NONE OF THESE ISSUES
WILL EVER BE RESOLVED.

      You did it "right".  You heard this "second opinion",
monitored your distant vision -- saw it as blurry -- and realized
you had to "do it youself".

      I think that ONLY the person who has confidence in himself
can ever implement true-prevention.  And I mean:

1.  You physically saw your distant vision "blurry".

2.  You worked intensively with the plus and saw your vision clear
     to pass the DMV.

3.  You realized that you had to "repeat" this process as long as
     you were in a "reading" environment.

      That seems to be an "impossible" concept for most.  In fact
most people simply will not look at an eye-chart.  They seem to
want EXCLUSIVELY an OD to make all measurements -- like they are
physically incompetent or something.

      Once you have personally cleared your vision, it will be
impossible for an idiot like River to come along and tell you it is
"impossible" or that you are DECEIVING YOUSELF in some way!

      This is why I state that "medicine" can never accomplish this
task.  This should not "insult" medicine -- but tragically they
take it that way.  They simply can never deliever "prevention"
when you must see the results youself.

      You can delete the rest of this -- but I have added some
commentary.  (I also give up on the "sci.med.vision" news group.
They deserve the likes of River   -- tragic to say so.


COMMENTARY:


Subject:  Re:  River again

Date:  Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:45 PM


Dear Keith,

      You are right.  River is a psychopath.  I plan no further
communications with him.

      On the subject of being "forceful" in advocacy for
"prevention" I recognized that Dr.  Raphaelson was right.  You can
NEVER help a person -- until the person chooses to help himself.

      I would have liked to have "forceful" help in avoiding this
situation.  (But I understand "myself" and my own "failings" on
this issue.)

      My purpose was to make this issue clear -- and "empower" you
to think for yourself.

      The future is yours, and that is the most important part of
these discussions.

      Love,

      Otie

_____________

      To:  otisbrown@...

      Sent:  Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:00 PM

      Subject:  River again


      Uncle Otie,

      Just FYI and I don't plan to communicate with River again.  A
note for you, I am actually happy to discuss plus lens use with
open minds but not this guy.

Love,

Keith


Otis> I learned a long ago you can not "save" the great mass
      of humanity.  You can only "save" youself -- no one else
      matters.

Or, to make it simple, I say it this way, as far
as "helping" a person with prevention -- who wants
no help at all:

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing.  Why?

Because it wastes your time -- and annoys the hell
out of the pig.

*******************

River> I see it's a familial thing then, Keith.

Keith> Sure, why not.

River> As somebody who works, and is educated, in the field you say
        you are, I'm surprised by how quickly you establish cause
        and effect.

Keith> Quickly?  No.  It took probably two years at least for me
        to turn faith (in this case in my uncle's ideas)
        into a measurable cause and effect.  Over the years, my
        observations of my behavior and vision status, both
        objective and subjective, have served to strengthen my
        belief in his ideas.

[Comment:  Brilliant.  Obviously this "River" will not hear
	    anything you say.  You won -- and that is all that matters.
	    OSB]

River> I do situps every day.  I don't have cancer.  Situps, then,
        are preventing my cancer.

[Comment:  What a bone-head.  OSB]

Keith> Quite possibly sit ups do help to prevent cancer because it
        is physical activity but no one knows for sure. There are
        credible theories that cancer has a greater environmental
        effect (carcinogens are just one known cause) than genetic
        effect but that's not the way medicine chooses to proceed
        with prevention.  Many times cause and effect through
        longitudinal studies require 20+ years to become valid.
        Framingham studies are about the only body studies like
        this.

[Comment:  I would add that the people working in "high noise"
       enviroments used to think that 120 dB noise produced no
       problems -- until they went stone-deaf 20 years later.  It
       take real personal intelligence to understand "delayed
       effects" -- and River is as superfical as they come.  OSB]

River> The problem is that your example is unscientific.  Touting
       your uncle's intervention is a logical fallacy (post hoc,
       ergo propter hoc).  ...  As it is, nobody can say with
       certainty what would have happened if you'd only worn a
       prescribed minus.  You may be completely confident, but you
       are equally likely to be completely wrong.

[Comment:  Scientific subject recommended to YOUR intelligence.
       It is clear that if you follow one path (over-prescription
       of a minus lens) you can not follow the other (clear distant
       vision when necessary -- keep distant vision clear for
       life.) The OD can argue that they are driven to do only what
       the "superfical" public will allow, and expects.  If they
       stated that truth -- I COULD AGREE WITH THEM.  But I hope
       both of us are more intelligent than that.  But River is
       wrong on two points.  The Oakley-Young study which showed
       that the "plus" did not go "down", and the direct-primate
       studies, which leave no doubt about the behavior of the eye.
       The scientific facts can only point you in the right
       direction.  The actual implementaion MUST BE your on
       interaction ane preception of those same scientific facts.
       OSB]

Keith> First, I'm not touting his intervention.  You asked and I
       simply stated my belief based on my own experience.  Could I
       be wrong?  Sure, but I do know that wearing the plus will
       make my distance vision clearer and not wearing them shows a
       gradual decrease in distant vision and that "phenomenon"
       happens over weeks or months.  How do I know this?  I
       measure it.

[Comment:  That is the absolute and only way to do scientific (not
       medical work).  Accurate objective measurements are the ONLY
       way to do good science.  OSB]

Keith> How do I know that my measures are accurate?  I simply read
       an eye chart honestly.

[Comment:  Absolutly -- there is no other way. OSB]

Keith> One aspect of sports medicine relative to this is with ACL
       knee surgeries in the mid 80s.  ACL rehab protocols were
       quite slow and less predictable. The reason the protocols
       improved is that patients did NOT do what the docs told them
       to, they took off post-op braces quicker and started doing
       more daily activities sooner than they were supposed to.
       The ones who did things they were NOT supposed to get
       better, and the orthopedic docs and physical therapists took
       note and changed protocols.

[Comment:  They escaped the medical "mind set".  In looking at
       your own eye chart -- and verifing results, you accomplished
       the same result. In the same breath I will say you saved a
       hell of a lot of money ($300 for glasses every two years)
       and your long-term eye sight.  I know you were probably at
       20/40 and 20/50 at times.  But by working at it you are now
       at 20/20.  Had you not been "empowered" the Oakley-Young
       study says you would be about -3 diopter or deeper, and at
       that point is would be impossible to get out of it.  An
       ounce of prevention -- saves a pound of "cure".  At -3
       diopter a "cure" is not possible.  The situation is
       permanent.

River> Citing obesity, and other health-related issues as you have,
       you are relying upon controlled studies, properly performed,
       using the scientific method.

[Comment:  No I am separating "medical" issues from
       pure-scientific issues.  If a kid is "stuffing" himself with
       food then it becomes (Excess calories in = Obese kid out).
       The person in "control" is NOT THE MEDICAL PERSON.  He has
       no control at all.  The same is true for the kid with his
       nose on the book for long hours -- and develops -1 diopter
       myopia.  The person "in control" is the kid -- and not the
       "medical doctor".  You must "change" the person's attitude
       who has the potential to "control" this situation himself --
       by moving the "near" environment out to "infinity" with the
       plus.  No one can EVER prescribe this -- only the
       intelligent "kid" can control this.  The scientist can
       figure this out. The "superfical" public will RUN to an OD
       for a minus-lens "solution".  River can not understand this
       rather obvious issue.  Tragic indeed.  OSB]

Keith> Maybe or not and does the information affect individual
        behavior?  Caffeine and alcohol were once said to have
        negative health effects but now they are thought to be at
        least harmless if not have (minimal) positive antioxidant
        properties.  How many billions of dollars are spent each
        year on health and fitness when the vast majority of people
        would need none of this information?  They simply need to
        get out and walk more and eat less.

Otis> While the plus requires considerable "body" intelligence, it
       also is on the order of "brushing your teeth", or other
       "preventive" measures.  How anyone can make this concept
       "difficult" is beyond me.  I do understand that initially
       the concept of "prevention" sounds strange -- until you get
       used to it.  OSB]

River> What you've succumbed to, and what bothers /true/
        scientists, is the continued, vociferous assertion of
        logical fallacies as truth.

[Comment:  You have to wonder about River's "true" scientist.  Is
       he the man who can "crank" a strong minus lens and put it on
       a kid -- and impress them in 15 minutes. Is that it?  In
       this sweeping statement you must sweep /true/ scientists off
       the table -- like Stirling Colgate and many others.  You
       must also "pretend" that a proceedure that works instantly,
       and impresses the superfical must be the ONLY true science.
       This is yet another falicy of this man.  A lesson to be
       learned indeed.  OSB]

Keith> Succumbed to?  No, I've made a choice based on my
        observations.  A case study of one without referees, biases
        or not.

[Comment:  What you verified was the tip of the iceburg in
       science. A great many things in science point to this
       result -- but you only believe it when you see it for
       yourself.  OSB]

Keith> True, you see logical fallacies.  There have been many
       great scientists who have been run out of town for strong
       disagreements with the norm.  The world was once flat, time
       was absolute, cooperation had nothing to do with
       competition, etcetera.

[Comment:  River is "floating" in his own logical fallicies -- and
       he is totally blind to almost all of them.  But you need to
       protect your own distant vision -- because no one else has
       any interest in it -- but you.  OSB]

Keith> Do I know what I know?  Yes.  Do you know what you know?
        Yes.  Individual perception is reality. Measurable
        perception provides for strong belief.

[Comment:  When you verify your vision "clearing" on your eye
       chart -- that is indeed and OBJECTIVE measurement.  You are
       not going to "cheat" yourself.  When you tell others -- then
       your objective measurement always becomes a "subjective"
       measurement.  In engineering and science, we simply do not
       use the word "subjective".  OSB]

River> The doctors (and I) are trying diligently to get him to stop
        practicing bad medicine with neither credentials nor
        expertise.  He /is/ hurting people.

[Comment:  Here again River jumps to a conclusion.  He should
      say "majority opinion doctors".  The "majority opinion"
      doctors do in fact support the concept of prevention at the
      threshold -- when it must be used to be effective.  There is
      no resolution to this issue.  OSB]

[Comment:  I have been VERY SPECIFIC about this.  I do not
       "practice" medicine.  Indeed, the "medical" person has
       exactly the problem I stated.  The person himself must be
       "empowered" to take control -- or nothing effective can
       happen.  Given the Oakley-Young study, the results of NOT
       PREVENTING IT, is that your vision goes down by an AVERAGE
       of -1/2 diopter per year.  And River is suggesting that
       weaing a minus lens IS NOT HURTING PEOPLE.  River has a
       strange "word" for the presumed "safety" of that minus lens.
       If you had not used the plus as you did I have no doubt what
       would have happened to your distant vision -- permanently.  OSB]

Keith> Medicine has to do with relying on others to describe
        health status.  Scientific methodology has to do with
        finding out for oneself.  My uncle draws a distinct line to
        not practicing medicine.  I don't personally claim strict
        scientific study but rather measurable cause and effect.

[Comment:  Self-preservation is a strong motivation.  Science can
       only guide you.  Untimately the person who sees the results
       under HIS control it the person who BELIEVES in the results.
       OSB]

River> The evidence is against your uncle (let me know if you have
        interest in reviewing it or, again, participate on the
        newsgroup).

[Comment:  I would suggest -- don't bother.  You have alread
      verified the behavior of the natural eye -- by clearing your
      distant vision in the manner that Stirling Colgate did it.
      Why bother with anyone else -- particularly psycho-idiots
      like River?  OSB

River> I've challenged him on countless occasions to prove his
       hypothesis using more than chicken studies and anecdotes.
       He can't.

[Comment:  The Francis Young study is very clear as to the
      effect that the minus lens has on the fundamental eye.  The
      ODs come up ENDLESS excuses to IGNORE this result.  That is
      why the DIRECT primate studies are so important.  River says
      you must IGNORE this scientific research. I suggest that you
      ignore River.  OSB]

Keith> True - chickens and primates with some individual case
        studies.  I have no interest.

River> These are not the hallmarks of a scientific mind.  These are
        the delusions of a frustrated would-be pilot.

[Comment:  It depends on who is calling who "delusional".  The
       science is excellent -- and you have see the results
       yourself.  Who "needs" River?  OSB]

Keith> That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  If you are
       concerned for my uncle's health then I thank you for your
       concern. If you are looking for someone to provide any
       further information or discussion then I am not the person
       you are looking for and NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION IS
       NECESSARY.

[Comment:  Well said.  You can only be concerned with yourself and
       the people you love.  OSB]

Keith> I don't participate in idea exchange regarding the plus
       lens and don't plan to.  My interests lie elsewhere.  If you
       can find a "sure thing" with no side effects to get people
       to be more active and eat less then please let me know.
       Statistically people in the U.S. are 60% overweight and
       about 30% clinically obese.  I hope for your sake you
       maintain good health practices because from my point of
       view, diabetes in the next 10-20 years will make discussion
       on eye refractive status seem novel.

[Comment:  A person in "medicine" must protect himself.  I
      understand THAT issue completely. In fact, given this
      bizzare River , it is clear that ANY OD OR MD who would even
      ATTEMPT a conversation with you concerning
      prevention-with-plus would come under severe threat by River.
      Further, given the superfical "mind" of the public, I a
      certain that ANY OD who attempted "prevention" would be
      driven out of the profession -- pronto.  I suggest the
      following:

1.  The public is profoundly ignorant and not-motivated.

2.  Very few people put ANY VALUE on their distant vision.

3.  The minus is instantly effective.  On the threshold everyone
     "loves" the minus -- until they get stair-case myopia.  Only
     THEN do they "question", and by THEN it is to late.

4.  Prevention requires an "appreciation" of these political
     problems -- and explains why no OD can help you with
     prevention and why you have no choice but to take control
     and "do it youself under a scientific understanding of the
     eye's behavior.

      Because the OD wishes to DENY objective facts (primate
studies) he must necessarily insist that "environment has no
effect on the eye's refractive state.  Thus he can not even
DISCUSS forcing the child to keep his nose off the book.  The
result is that the parents have NO KNOWLEDGE of tht long-term
effect that action of the child will have on his distant vision.
Thus the parents (in ignorance) let the child do this in total
ignorance.

      Thus you have the "ignorant" public (the child) being
permitted to do this to his eyes, and the ODs quick-fixing the
child after the child's refractive state moves from plus to minus.

      This suggests that the ignorance of the public "drives" this
situation, and the OD is only SLIGHTLY less ignorant than the
public.

      I am certain you made an intelligent choice in the matter of
keeping your distant vision clear for life.


Otie

N. River Part 1

Mr. N. River (name changed) claims that the "preventive"
plus will "hurt your eyes".  For that reason he
contacted my nephew to inform his that a "plus" hurts
his eyes.  In fact my nephew used the plus to
"clear" his distant vision (as required) through
college.  For you interest, here is the discussion.

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

Dear Second-opinion friends,

"River" has taken it on himself to contact my nephew, Keith B.,

I will post Keith's response for your interest.

      Keith was stated to be "nearsighed" at age 13.  I presented
the results of the scientific Oakley-Young study, and suggested
that "prevention" is the second-opinion, but to be effective
the person himself must take control -- and always keep
his distant vision clear.  At last check Keith
stated that his vision was better-than 20/20.

      Again, is was the scientific proof of the Oakley-Young study
that suggests true-prevention at the threshold, as Keith has done
it.  This indeed suggests the "either-or" choice a person must
make about the "preventive" use of the plus.  Once you begin
wearing the minus -- the plus can no longer be used for
prevention.  I am certain that Keith took this scientific study
very seriously -- as I do.

      Otis
      _______________________

      To:  "Keith

      From:  Otis

      Subject:  River

      Dear Keith,

      River Books is strange.  In many ways the OD is "stuck" in the
way that Raphaelson was "stuck" with "The Printer's Son".

      With our bad habits, "long hours with nose-on-book" we
produce a situation were are refractive state moves from a postive
value, to a negative value -- and then we have "burr at distance".

      If we "wake up" and personally decide to do something about
it -- the it is possible to avoid it.  But this choice and action
depend COMPLETELY on the person who has the "smarts" to implement
is.

      But that is the real issue.  How much responsibility and
"control" must be transferred to the person himself to make
true-prevention "work".

      It is very clear now, that almost all responsibility must be
transferred.  As a minimum, this is the "second opinion" even if
YOU must do all the work, and verify that your distant vision
always passes the DMV required in your state.

      The "preventive" future must be a matter of your choice in
the matter.

      River seems to want to act as the "defender of the faith" or
something like that.  But even this must be a matter of your
judgment.

I remeber doing "dumb things" with my eyes as a young child.
I was told by the "majority opinion" that this has no effect on
the refractive state of the primate eye.  From Francis Young's
work, it is very clear that BOTH enviroment (average) AND the
minus lens "affect" the refractive state of the primate eye.  If
we value science, then we should pay more attention to the
scientific facts, and less attention to the "majority opinion".

      Otis
__________________

      ----- Original Message -----

      From:  Keith B.

      Subject:  River

      Uncle Otie,

      Here's my reply to a guy who seems curious about something.

      Keith

   ************************

      Yes, he's fine.

      First, he is VERY passionate about a person's ability to
affect the focal status of his or her eyes.

      Second, and what I think tends to come out is that he often
times enjoys annoying people for what he considers the right
reason.

      I think also his science-oriented brain has a hard time
dealing with the reality that humans tend not to do what is good
for them with preventive measures, even though he knows people
don't.

      I've worked in sports medicine, sports performance, health
and fitness and share his frustrations with average human
tendencies.  Look at the statistics of obesity in this country
contrary to all of our knowledge and resources!

      Make no mistake, I've wondered at times if it was healthy
just how far he'll go to make his point or agitate a group of
people.

      I might even think he was nuts except for the fact that I've
benefited from his "preaching" of prevention and preservation of
my far vision.

      I am completely confident, and have proven it to myself over
25 years now, that I can positively (pun or no pun) affect my
vision with the plus lens - or negatively affect it with no plus.

      He does send me a fairly balanced view of his and others'
criticisms of him so I know he's basically against the whole
vision industry.

      That doesn't make him wrong.

      I'm very knowledgeable in most other workings of the human
body and although I could not very well explain his ideas, his
ideas are much more compatible with how all other parts of the
body work than the ideas of those who oppose him.

      The human body, including the brain and nervous system, is
very dynamic, going in both a positive or negative direction
depending on the stimulus presented, how far the individual is
from the optimal goal and most critically, how motivated the
person is to reach the goal.

      Sincerely,

      Keith

      ____________________________

Email sent by River to my nephew Keith B.


On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:50:41 -0500 "River "
writes:


      > Is this guy nuts??

      > Seriously:  is this guy nuts??

      > I'm a participant in the newsgroup sci.med.vision where
I've watched your uncle's posts for several years.

> Is he ok??  Check into that newsgroup sometime.  People are
vociferously
questioning his grounding in reality.

      > Regards,

      > River

Reply


    2. otisbrown@...  Oct 6, 1:21 pm     show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision

From: "otisbr...@..." <otisbr...@...>

Subject: Re: Keith B.'s response to River

Dear Friend,

Most ODs recognize the need for change -- and respect a person's right
to use a method if it meets their personal needs.

What matters is not me, or for that matter River  , but rather what
my nephew learned from evaluating the objective scientific facts as
the
concern the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

The practical implementation was indeed Keith's work, and I believe
that is far more difficult that the analytical work that I provided.

River is slipping into a confused haze of his own making.  Here is yet
another email from him.

River is truly a rabid nut.

___________________


Keith is nothing more than another anecdotal example that you cite.

Otis>  That is interesting -- before you insisted that he did not
"exist".  Why not stick with that?

Nothing more.

I wrote to him because I wanted to know if his uncle was
clinically insane.

No, River, you wrote to him because you are crazy.  Very soon they
will
not let you into the "day room".

If you don't want people writing to these anecdotal references
that you consistently make, you should refrain from posting their
e-mail addresses so freely.

Otis>  His email was not made available to you, River. But I have an
idea were you got it.

Reply



Newsgroups: sci.med.vision


Date: 6 Oct 2005 10:28:06 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 6 2005 1:28 pm

Subject: Re: Keith B.'s response to River  ' Note

Dear Friends,

The objective fact I present are clear.  You should review them.

There are prevention minded optometrists who will help you
"protect" your child's distant vision -- if you wish and request it.

If you do not want pevention (under OD) control -- that is fine
with me.  You have a choice -- and that is what I present.  See:

www.chinamyopia.org

I have concluded that River is insane.

Here is another example of that insanity -- for your interest.

I can now understand why NO OPTOMETRIST WILL HELP
YOU WITH PREVENTION -- IF THIS PERSON IS TYPICAL
OF THE INTELECT OF THE PLUBLIC MIND.

I will publish my legal disclaimer just to be clear.

I personally wish I had had the kind of "support" that I gave
to Keith.  The lord know he would not have gotten help
from most people.

Otis

Dear Keith,

Subject:  Scientific proof to support your effective
           use of the plus for prevention.

It takes great personal resolve to  use the plus to keep your distant
vision clear for life.  No doubt about it.

While a great mass of ODs deny it -- some "wise" ODs support it.

But ultimatly, the question comes down to you -- as what
you need to do for yourself and you children.

Indeed, your children might "reject" prevention.
But then, there will be no doubt as to the
consequences for them.

The science behind prevention is very strong.
This type of sciencific proof only has developed
in the last 20 years.  It is virtually impossible
to "reduce" scientific knowledge into
a quick-fix for the mass of humainity walking
in off-the-street.

Real wisdom is indeed involved.

Love,

Otie

________________


Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  Learning to ask (and answer) the RIGHT questions
    about the natural eye as a dynamic system.

      In science you tend to simplify and clarify.  A long time ago
I learned to RESPECT the natural eye as a very sophisticated and
competent system, i.e., an auto-focus camera that CONTROLS its
refractive state to its average-visual environment.  (i.e.,
average value of the accommodation signal.) This is
broad-perspective testing of the ENTIRE population of natural
eyes.

      In this test (do determine this dynamic characteristic of the
natural eye) you change the accommodation "signal" (of one eye)
with a minus lens.  The other eye is not so changed.

      Clasical theory (box camera) predicts that the refractive
state of the eye WILL NOT CHANGE because there is no relationship
between the refractive state of the eye, and its average value of
accommodation. (Note: Accommodaton signaly follows the minus
lens almost perfectly. With a minus 3 diopter lens applied, the
average-value of accommodation will be 3 diopters different that
the other eye.

      Here is the analysis and discussion for your intellectual
curiousity.

Note:  Only refractive state is measured.  No "conjecture" at to
        "size" is suggested.  That would be "jumping to a
        conclusion" that is not supported by the facts.  Just stick
        to engineering testing of the natural eye on an "input"
        versus "output" basis and you will develop a very accurate
        assessment of the behavior of the eye under repeatable,
        testable conditions.



      Best,

      Otis

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

      From:  "Billy Gard" <email@...>

      Subject:  Effect of plus lens on normal eye.

      I'd like to see them study the effect of putting plus lense
on normal sighted monkeys, and see if you can make them
farsighted.  Then see if humans with normal vision would be
affected the same way. Very little is said about plus lenses and
their effects, and whether it would be the mere vice versa of the
effect of a minus.

      Do you suppose that by wearing pluses of increasing strength,
one could induce hyperopia of +4 diopters?

      My previous eye doctor said "no, it would have no effect,
because then it would be a cure for myopia." (and that is not to
be heard of)

      Billy
__________________________

    Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 01:03:10 -0000

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

Subject: Re: Effect of plus lens on normal eye.

Dear Billy,

Subject:  You personally run the experiment.  Only then will
    you believe the results.

Re:  I realize that the "logistics" will prevent this, but on
      a scientiric level your should have no problem with repeatable
      results as the concern the dynamic behavior of the natural or
      normal eye.

Re:  Also, please remember that the natural (primate) eye IN
      THE WILD has a range of refractive states (COMPLETELY NORMAL)
      running betwee zero to plus 2 diopters.  (Bell shaped curve.)

      Also remember we only seek to determin whether this eye is
"dynamic" in the sense that it will change its refractive state
when a plus lens is applied.  With that understood, then:
________________________________

Billy> I'd like to see them study the effect of putting plus
        lense on normal sighted monkeys, and see if you can make
        them farsighted.

Otis> Using the above standard, we have already established that
       the NATURAL eye, that has a plus 2 diopter lens on it will
       move is a positive direction.  The other eye's refractive
       state (with no change in the accommodation signal will
       remains where it was.) With a mild minus on one eye, the
       refractive state moves in a negative direction.

Otis> This proves on a scientific level that the natural eye, at
       least, is dynamic in the above sense.

Otis> Therefore placing a plus 1 diopter on a monkey with a normal
       refractive state of +1 diopter would result in those
       monkey's refractive states moving in the direction of the
       applied plius lens.  (This would be a population of monkeys
       that all had a refractive state of +1 diopter to start with.
       The other prediction (of the box camera theroy) would be
       that there would be no positive change in refractive status.


Billy> Then see if humans with normal vision would be affected
        the same way.

Otis> The primate study could be done (although expensive).
       Further, we can predict the result from the "differential"
       study that proves that the natural eye is "dynamic" as
       previously stated.

Otis> The human study would be prohibited -- so you can speculate
       -- but NEVER TEST.

Billy> Very little is said about plus lenses and their effects,
        and whether it would be the mere vice versa of the effect
        of a minus.

Otis> You establish the behivor of all natural primate eyes as
       stated above.  You will have to reach your own conclusions
       about the behavior of the natural human-primate eye, versus
       the natural monkey-primate eye.

Otis> Please remember we are keeping this on a pure "scientific"
       level where YOU are the scintists and YOU make these
       judgments.  I can only present the obejctive facts to you.
       You must draw your own conclusions.

Billy> Do you suppose that by wearing pluses of incurr easing
        strength, one could induce hyperopia of +4 diopters?

Otis> Why not continue your first proposed study where you take a
       population of eyes with a refractive state of +1 diopter,
       and apply a plus one to it and verify that you can verify a
       "plus" change of 0.8 diopters in 6 months.  If you can do
       that, then it would be logical that you could continue to
       get this "dynamic" eye to continue to move is a positive
       direction.

Billy> My previous eye doctor said "no, it would have no effect,
        because then it would be a cure for myopia." (and that is
        not to be heard of)

Otis> Your preveious doctor does not evaluate the dynamic behavior
       of the natural eye, and knows nothing about evaluating
       objective facts as the concern this proven behavior of the
       natural eye.

Best,

Otis

> Billy

Dear Keith,

Subject:  The "second opinion" on prevention.

Re:  Some "conversations" with the "majority opinion" ODs on
      sci.med.vision

Re:  The incredible denials by the "conventional" ODs on
      sci.med.vision -- and why.

Re:  The future -- watching and protecting your children.

      It was clear to me from talking to Raphaelson (when you were
4) that effective "prevention" could not be delivered to a person
-- in 20 minutes in an office. I think that both DEFINES
optometry -- and limits it profoundly.

      From long experience (now) I know that they will take a child
(with 20/40 vision, legal to fly a plane in the USA airspace) and
PRESCRIBE a -2.0 diopter lens. The is a gross over-prescription.
Yet few "find out" about this very bad "habit".  This is why I
suggest you check you kid's eye chart.  There are those who think
"I can't do that -- that's medical".  This is false.  In some
ways, this is like finding out how much you weigh.  Just a
rational check.

      Here is some response of some ODs.  This is to "warn" you of
both there arrogance, and their over-prescription policy, and the
fatal effect it has on the eye.

      I realize how difficult it is to "stay motivated" to do your
own "preventive" work -- but after reading this, I think you have
little choice.

      I prefer direct-science.  i.e., my and your direct-testing.
This is the real importance of science (thinking, reviewing, being
objective, being decisive) and optometry, that must deal with the
great mass of ignorant, none motivated people walking in "off the
street".

      If the ODs stated that they have only ONE method of dealing
with the public in 20 minutes I would agree with them. If they
insist that I deal with this great "un-washed", I would agree that
I could do nothing.

      But when it comes to reason, logic and science, then the
facts do become clear. They are as I state them.  In no sense can
effective prevention ever be reduced to "something" you do with a
person in 20 minutes.  The "rub" comes when these ODs think that
they are "Gods", and "scientists".

      Eventually you will deal with this issue -- as will your
children.

      I have no problem with an OD exam -- broken into a MEDICAL
part (detached retina, and anything of that nature.) I think that
should be clearly spelled out to you.  But if, by your own
checking, you find your child is at 20/40, and you are give a -2.0
diopter (or greater) prescription then look out.

      Success favors a prepared mind.  You have gone through this
"preventive" process -- and so you know what it takes.  Very few
people have been able to do this.  I fact, by my accounting, only
about 20 in this world have been able to grasp the concept -- and
make it work!

      Here is the discussion.  Life is short -- so for some of us,
we must "enjoy it" but also "stand and fight" where we think that
we are working to "protect" each other.

      Neil Books is a "layman" at about +6 diopters.  He has taken
on the job of "defending the faith", i.e., "protecting the public"
against what is not the "preventive" second opinion.  In this life
you will run into this type of person.

      That is why the understanding the objective facts concerning
the behavior of the fundamental eye are so important.

Love,

Otie

      ___________________________________


Dear Prevention minded friends,

      There are many in the medical profession who recognize the
need for change -- new ideas, better review of the experimental
data.

      We all recognize that a great many people perhaps prefer an
instant "fix" with a lens -- that might have a secondary problem
with it.

Neil Brooks is an unusual person in a number of ways:

1.  He his a chauvinist for the "majority opinion".

2.  He is acting more like a "defender of the faith" than a
     "thinking, rational person".

3.  His knowledge of fundamental scientific facts, that RESPECTS
     the natural eye's proven behavior -- is a complete failure.

      It is true that you can not "reduce" an accurate
understanding of the natural eye's behavior -- into a "quick-fix"
for the general public walking in off the street.  That is what
optometry must do.  (That is the medical approach.) But a person
who is not "caught up" in this tradition of the last 400 years,
MIGHT be able to understand and perhaps USE the preventive method
on their own children -- before the situation gets out-of-hand.

      There are many in the OD profession who will argue that the
"public" lacks the understanding of these issues, or that the lack
the time to discuss these issues with you -- for the benefit of
your own children.

      But then, this would be the "scientific" place to entertain
this preventive idea for your own children.  This does take time,
and your thoughtful review might encourage you to consider the
preventive method if offered to you by a "prevention minded" OD
like Steve Leung OD.

      NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT ANSWER -- YET.

      Therefore your wise review of the objective facts as then
concern the natural eye's response to:

1.  The average visual environment, and

2.  An applied mild minus lens, would be a wise "starting-point"
     for a discussion of true prevention.

      Again, as stated by a number of OD, this would be a wise
step.

      This is a learning experience for your -- which Neil Brooks
would deny, because he is a "slave" to the traditional method.
and practice.

      Take Mr.  Brooks touching beliefs for what they are worth.

Best,


Otis

________________________

3.  Mike Tyner Sep 26, 1:30 pm show options

Newsgroups:  sci.med.vision From:  "Mike Tyner"

Subject:  Re:  ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

      <otisbr...@...> wrote

Otis> There are many in the medical profession who recognize the
       need for change -- new ideas, better review of the
       experimental data.

That's why optometrists quit using plus to control myopia.

-MT

_____________________

4.  otisbrown@... Sep 26, 4:46 pm show options

Newsgroups:  sci.med.vision From:  "otisbr...@..."

Subject:  Re:  ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

Dear Mike,

      That is because if YOU are involved the process would be very
expensive.  Further we are taking about PREVENTION, which MUST
involve the parent's understanding of the implication of the
Oakley-Young study, where the minus-lens group went down at a rate
of -1/2 diopter per year.

      Therefore if ANYTHING effective is to be done -- it must
START before that first minus lens is applied.

      After that minus lens is applied, both the "battle" and "war"
are lost.

      The "cost" of prevention is therefore a person's knowledge of
these truths.  The "warning" is that the parents should begin to
understand these issues BEFORE they wind up in your office.

      Clearly the "bifocal" is not the intent -- but rather to
learn how to use a strong plus "correctly" by the individual who
can master the "art" of self-control of his long-term distant
vision.

      If he "wakes up" to this issue, the "vision clearing" under
HIS CONTROL can be effective.  The cost of a strong plus $8 is
trivial.  The knowledge, and "will-power" counts for everything.

      The knowledge of the proven behavior of the natural eye
(primate) can be a factor in that person's choice.  But true
prevention means that a person receives a "warning" about the
existence of the "second-opinion" as stated by Steve Leung OD and
others.

      Ultimate responsibility for "choice" must rest with the
person's concern with this issue.

      Posting "warnings" about a person's right to a fully informed
competent second opinion is NOT how you go about resolving the
scientific and personal issue.

Best,

Otis

_______________________

5.  LarryDoc Sep 26, 5:34 pm show options

Newsgroups:  sci.med.vision From:  LarryDoc

Subject:  Re:  ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

      "otisbr...@..." <otisbr...@...> wrote:

Otis> Posting "warnings" about a person's right to a fully
       informed competent second opinion is NOT how you go about
       resolving the scientific and personal issue.

      Otis has truly "gone over the edge", a useful USA expression
which translates as "he's lost it", a useful USA expression which
means he doesn't understand anything.

1.  The "warnings" having nothing to do with informed second
     opinion, only a caution to unsuspecting readers that you're
     a fool, a nutcase, a zealot with an agenda.  I suspect that
     the warnings are unnecessary as you have made your situation
     quite clear.

Otis> I do not know of any "wimps" who are effective at solving
       very difficult problems of this nature.  Naturally I will be
       called "names".  But this issue is your visual welfare, and
       that of your children.  That is the ONLY THING that matters.

2.  Resolving scientific issues requires the acceptance of facts,
     something Otis not capable of achieving from "over the
     edge." His is a mission---don't confuse him with facts.

Otis> The "facts" concerning the behavior of the natural eye are
       very clear -- and as are as I stated them.  Your
       implementing them (i.e., prevention) in indeed very
       difficult.  But you have a very solid basis for doing so.

      ______________

      Nothing personal, either, just reaching for honesty and
truth.

Otis> Indeed that is EXACTLY what I report.  But I respect the
       natural eye as a dynamic system -- and this man does not.
       Further, I respect both your intelligence and motivation --
       and right-of-choice, which again this man does not.  "The
       TRUTH is more powerful than THE PLUS"

Otis> Scientific truth is more than quick-fixing the public in and
       office with a strong minus lens. But that is this man's
       "truth".  A very "shallow" approach.  He only continues the
       "quick fix" method of the last 400 years, and insists that
       what is does is "science".


      --LB, O.D>

_____________________


6.  Dr.  Leukoma Sep 26, 6:32 pm show options

Newsgroups:  sci.med.vision From:  "Dr.  Leukoma"

Subject:  Re:  ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

      otisbr...@... wrote:

Otis> Dear Mike,

Otis>  That is because if YOU are involved the process would be
        very expensive. Further we are taking about PREVENTION,
        which MUST involve the parents understanding of the
        implication of the Oakley-Young study, where the minus-lens
        group went down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.

      The implication of the Oakley-Young study, as other studies
have demonstrated, is that bifocals will not stop myopic
progression.

Otis> Young was forced to use a weak +1.5 diopter lens.  The
       "down" rate was about zero diopters over 4 years.  Had he
       been able to give instruction to use a stronger plus -- and
       the instructions FOLLOWED at the 20/50 level (about -1.5
       diopters) I have no doubt that the person could have cleared
       his vision to pass the 20/40 line -- or better.  But this
       would be full transference of authority and control to the
       person concerned with "protecting" his distant vision
       through the school years.

      The true implication is that bifocals are useful in slowing
down the rate of myopic progression in the presence of large
accommodative lag and esophoria....basically pseudo-myopia.

Otis> It does not matter what his "words" are.  It matters that
       you understand the necessity of this "alternative" and that
       you do it successfully -- as you have done it.

      Unfortunately, Otis has hung his reputation on this one old
study, which appears not to agree with him at all.

Otis> Keith, what matters is what YOU did -- to protect your
       distant vision.  You are the ONLY important person in this
       discussion -- and your children.

      DrG
____________________

7.  Mike Tyner Sep 26, 8:01 pm show options

Newsgroups:  sci.med.vision From:  "Mike Tyner"

Subject:  Re:  ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

<otisbr...@...> wrote

Otis> Posting "warnings" about a person's right to a fully
       informed competent second opinion is NOT how you go about
       resolving the scientific and personal issue.

      So why do you keep trying?

-MT

Otis> For your sake, Keith.  Maybe others can learn.

_______________________

      8.  Dr.  Leukoma Sep 26, 6:29 pm show options

      Newsgroups:  sci.med.vision From: "Dr.  Leukoma"

      Subject:  Re:  ### OTIS BROWN WARNING ###

      otisbr...@... wrote:

Otis> Dear Prevention minded friends,

Otis> There are many in the medical profession who recognize the
       need for change -- new ideas, better review of the
       experimental data.

      That is why we have "moved on" from a discussion of plus
lenses.

Otis> We all recognize that a great many people perhaps prefer an
       instant "fix" with a lens -- that might have a secondary
       problem with it.

      People wish for and have a right to clear vision.

Otis> 1.  The average visual environment, and

Otis> 2.  An applied mild minus lens, would be a wise
	   "starting-point" for a discussion of true prevention.

      Basically, you want to discuss the issues on your terms, no
matter how irrelevant they are.

      DrG

Otis> Keith, you must recognize that this "attitude" is very
       destructive.  This man can't care about your long-term
       vision -- at all.

Dear Prevention minded freinds,

Subject: The office "fib" clearly stated.  Is it true?

Here is the review.

___________________________

      Dear Keith,

      Some people can be "honest" in a conventional sense, but when
they get in their office, they tell the standard "shop fibs" that
have been obviously handed down from generation to generation.
Since the public is both ignorant and non-motivated they fall
victim to these convenient but disproven statements.  A great deal of
this depends on using neutral words to describe the behavior of
the natural eye.  A dynamic natural eye can have a positive
refractive status, or a negative refractive status.

      The "standard" language (in the shop) refers
to BOTH positive and negative refractive states as "ERRORS".  And
this is just the beginning of their misconceptions about the eye's
behavior that is driven into the poor descriptive language
describing the eye's behavior.

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

Subject:  Discussion of convenient "office fibs" as the
    majority opinion, versus the scientific "dynamic eye" as
    the second opinion.


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


Otis> Prevention with the plus is perhaps difficult to
       "understand" at first, but it beats "stair-case" myopia
       (-1/2 diopter per year) that these kids get into because
       they wear an over-prescribed minus lens ALL THE TIME.


From Dr.  G.  Leukoma -- of the "Majority Opinion"
      school of thought.


      "Prevention with the plus" is an oxymoron, and should not be
used.  You have not proven that plus can prevent anything except a
headache.  Myopia tends to be progressive, period.  If you don't
treat it, it gets worse.  If you do treat it with lenses, it gets
worse. However, if you treat it with atropine, it doesn't get
worse. If you treat it with pirenzepine, it only gets 50% worse.


DrG

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

Reply

Subject:  Question on Improving my Eyesight

Dear Dr.  G.  Leukoma,

Subject:  You express your "office" opinion -- not the
    objective scientific facts concerning the proven dynamic
    behavior of the primate eye.


      When you place a minus lens on a population of primate eyes,
the eye's with the minus lens on (say -3 diopters) go "down"
relative to the primate eyes with NO minus lens on them.

      The well-done Oakley-Young study showed that a WEAK +1.5
diopter lens had the capability of PREVENTING the development of
nearsighedness (a negative refractive state of the natural primate
eye.) This strongly verifies Stirling Colgate's statement about
his ability to "clear" his distant vision back-to-standard with
the "preventive" plus.  This REQUIRES that that a stronger
plus (reading at the blur-point) is required to "clear" and
avoid nearsightedness at the 20/50 level.

      This is indeed the "second opinion" but this scientific data
strongly suggests that "prevention" must start BEFORE that minus
lens is applied.

      It also suggests that the person himself must make an
"informed decision" about this issue, since in the Oakley-Young
study, the single-minus group went "down" at -1/2 diopter per year
over three years.

      These facts obtained in a "blind study" are of course
completely confirmed in the "open" primate studies, making the
results consistent between the natural primate eye and the and
human-primate eye.

      Or do you insist that the natural primate eye is dynamic --
as proven by science, where as the human eye is not dynamic, and
profoundly different in its natrual behviorial characteristic?

      At the very minimum, this scientific proof supports the
SECOND OPINION.  This means that if a person has the "will power"
to use the plus agressevely (before his vision goes below 20/50)
he has a good chance of "clearing" to 20/20.

      Our arguments are about the dynamic behavior of the natural
eye -- and not about the "defective" eye.

      Best,

      Otis

Dear Prevention minded friends,


Subject:  Francis Young's study demonstrates that a steady
	   DIFFERENCE (of -1/2 diopter per year) in refractive state
	   develops between the "plus" group and the single-minus
	   group.

Otis> * One of the scientists was Dr.  Francis Young -- although
	 not associated with this study.  His bifocal study showed
	 that a combination of under-correction and a strong plus
	 stopped the eye's movement into myopia, i.e.,, would help
	 the natural eye maintain clear distant vision if used when
	 the eye was at the 20/50 to 20/70 level.


Judy> If you look up Young's 1975 study, you will find that myopia
       progression was slowed but not stopped.

Otis> Judy has a way of "distorting" the statistics of the study.
       The "plus" group showed a "down rate" of 0.025 diopters
       (almost zero) and the single-minus showed a "down" rate of
       -1/2 diopter per year.  REMEMBER -- these were children
       with NO MOTIVATION to use the plus properly.  What this
       suggests is that more forceful use of a stronger plus could
       have the result of GRADUAL CLEARING (from 20/50) if the person
       understood the intent of the effort, and the plus was
       started BEFORE ANY MINUS WAS USED.  This result is
       confirmed by the people who have this type of
       "understanding" of this issue.  I would consider that -0.025
       diopters per year to have effectively "stopped" -- but the
       indication is that a stronger plus must be used -- with the
       reading INTENTIONALLY done at the "blur-point".  Clearly a
       "prevetive" study COULD NOT BE RUN AS A BLIND STUDY --
       because of the need to supply precise instructions as to
       correct use of the plus.

Judy> In the following 30 years, dozens of similar studies have
       been done with thousands of subjects and none have found an
       effect as large as that found by Young.

Otis> Clearly the OD opinion is against the plus-for-prevention.
       As Francis Young pointed out concerning the "Houston"
       study,

Otis> A "small segment" plus was used, i.e., "granny" type of
       plus.  The result was that the kids (with no understanding
       or instructions) looked over the plus -- and ignored it.
       The result was of course, that the "plus" has NO EFFECT.
       Francis Young used a stronger "high" plus, and the kids
       could not evade the "high" plus.

Judy> In science, when a study's results cannot be replicated, the
       results are suspect, ie it is likely that there was a
       design flaw or some other aberration.

Otis> This is the reason why your run SCIENTIFIC tests of the
       natural eye to establish the fact that it is proven to be
       dynamic. Unlike these bi-focal studies (where you CAN NOT
       CONTROL THE CHILD) the scientific work to determine if a
       population of natural primate eyes is dynamic -- is both very
       accurate, and the result (proving that the natural primate
       eye is dynamic) CAN BE REPLICATED -- AS MANY TIMES AS YOU
       LIKE -- PROVIDING YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO DO SO.

Otis> The "design flaw" of the bifocal studies is that they are
       BLIND STUDIES, which means that you are PROHIBITED from
       "controling" the way the child wears the plus at all.  For
       that reason alone these bifocal studies are suspect --
       because you have NO CONTROL at all as to whether the child
       looked through the plus AT ALL.

Otis> AN ENGINEERING-SCIENTIFIC STUDY would develope where the
engineer
       was given EXACT INSTRUCTION as to the use of the plus --
       UNDER HIS CONTROL.  This would be a SCIENTIFIC (NOT
       MEDICAL) study.

Best,

Otis

Dr Judy

		    ___________________________

		     BIFOCAL CONTROL OF MYOPIA

			      Authors:

		       Kenneth H. Oakley, MD.
			    Bend, Oregon

			        and

		      Francis A. Young, Ph.D.
		      Primate Research Center
		    Washington State University
		        Pullman, Washington


			      ABSTRACT

      "...  Similarly, 226 Caucasian bifocal wearers are matched on
the same criteria against 382 control subjects.  "

      "...  the (plus) Caucasian subjects (was) of -0.02 and -0.03
diopters right and left eyes against -0.53 and -0.52 diopters for
the (single-minus) controls."


			    CONCLUSION

      "...The rates of progression of about -0.50 diopters per year
among the control subjects at the younger age levels are commonly
found among myopes at these age levels and suggest that the
control subjects in this study do not differ from myopic children
who are fitted with a virtually full correction which is worn
constantly.

      The annual rate of progression of -0.04 diopters per year
found among the bifocal subjects is uncommonly found among myopes
of these age levels and suggests that the bifocals are having a
controlling and reducing effect upon the rate of progression.

      The effectiveness of the bifocal in this study may well
depend upon the very high position of the add fitted to the child.
The bifocal can only have an effect, if it has an effect at all,
if it is used.

      The bifocal fitted too low or too small a bifocal or a
bifocal which is not used does not provide a proper test of the
effectiveness of the bifocal.  Under reasonably well controlled
conditions the bifocal appears to be effective in controlling the
progression of myopia."

				       Francis Young


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

			   DISCUSSION

      Judy insists that the plus did not "stop" the "down" rate in
the "plus" group, (because the rate was -0.025 diopter for the
plus group!

      She then totally ignores the effect that a strong minus has
on the "single-minus" group.  This is indeed "selective"
intellectual blindness to the result of this scientific study of
the natural eye's behavior.

      Even in this study a very mild plus (+1.5 diopter) lens was
used as the "plus-add".  An this was sufficient to stop the
development of nearsighedness if used BEFORE the minus was
applied.

      With NO INSTRUCTION to the child, most children will pull the
work in "closer" who are wearing the plus -- thus partially
reducing the intended effect of the plus.

      With instruction, and use of a stronger plus, it is possible
to estimate that a MOTIVATED, INTELLIGENT person could use a +2.5
diopter lens to "clear" from 20/50 to the 20/30 20/25 range --
thus passing all legal visual requirments of the DMV.

      This type of scientific study HAS NEVER BEEN CONDUCTED.
Where individuals have "woken up" about these issues, they have
been successful in clearing their distant vision in the manner.

      Best,

      Otis

Dear Keith,

Subject: Using precise words to describe the dynamic behavior
	  of the eye.  Judy does not understand the concept.
	  Tragically, most of the "public" does not understand
	  it either.

Keith> I found humor in Dr.  Judy's brief discussion of an "exact"
        correction definition with a minus and that the 20/40 has no
        meaning.

Otie> You and I know the PROVEN effect that a minus has on the
       eye's refractive states -- then keeping your vision FAA
       legal is very important. Obviously Judy does not give a
       damm.  This is the "majority opinion", but it is not a
       "univeral" opinion, and that is the real importance of Steve
       Leung's site -- and recommendations.  When "experts"
       profoundly contradict each other on basic points -- then it
       is very important that you understand the implications for
       you of that contradiction.

Keith> In real life, certainly you know my bias, 20/40 might be
        the only real definition of adequate visual clarity (or
        20/20 for pilots).

Otie> I know that most people take their distant vision "casually"
       -- and will devote NO TIME to protecting it.  But a person
       who will "accept" then need to keep their vision better-than
       20/40, will keep their distant vision clear through college
       -- when their friends at 20/50 will most certainly lose
       theirs.  Buy your "working" this issue during collge, you
       have found at your age that you can "clear" to better-than
       20/20.  Congratualtions on both your intelligence and
       motivation!

Keith> When Anita states that she's been corrected with contacts
        for many years, to a measurement of 20/15, that tells me at
        least one eye doc thinks more is better.

Otie> Tragically, about 98 perecent think that the minus is
       WONDERFUL and has no "secondary problem" associated with it.
       They will "correct", not for 20/20 -- but 20/10 if they can
       get away with it.  Only your own checking of your children's
       eyes can protect them from that type of hubris.  In fact, I
       would occassionally put up and eye chart "as a game" so that
       you know what their eye-chart is now.  Any child at 20/20 at
       age 5 -- can keep it for life -- if he is willing to "work"
       the tedious preventive process.

Keith> Dr.  Judy also states you make up your own definitions of
        things but between religion and science, someone somewhere
        had to put things in writing and like train track width,
        standards tend to be based on ambiguous or outdated numbers.

Otie> The "language" that grew up AROUND quick-fixing the public
       is heavly biased.  Call it pure-medical language if you
       like.  I know the words, and the drip with un-proven
       assumptions.  Use basic simple language to describe the
       eye's dynamic behavior and you have the potential to get
it "right"
       on a scientific level.  On a scientific level the proof is
       final -- but the implementation is still difficult because
       it is "tedious".  That is where your "understanding" and
       fortitude comes in.

Keith> As with all other human physiology, there is a fairly wide
        range of what would be considered normal and an ability to
        personally influence that status.

Otie> Yes, that is were your knowledge that the FAA requires 20/40
       (not 20/20) for private pilots comes in. If you can fly a
       plane with 20/40 then a child should not be required to wear
       a -2.0 diopter when he has 20/40.  However, neglect is NOT
       how you resolve this issue.  A child in that situation must
       make a decision to use the plus "or else".  It is a hard
       lesson to learn -- and to "accept".

Keith> Saturday I was very glad to have this knowledge as I am now
        doing Judo, Carl too in the kid's class, caught my toes in
        the mat and wound up stepping on my 90 degree-bent second
        toe.

Otie> Kids!

Keith> It's an injury that would be classified as a good injury to
        have if you have to have an injury because it heals nicely
        with the correct procedure but doesn't really inhibit daily
        activities.  It just looked pretty bad at the time.

Otie> I always felt that flying an experimental Volks-Plane was
       safer than motorcycles -- because no one would run into me.
       But to live is to take "risks".  Same with sailing.  Same
       with vision-clearing, however the "risks" of NOT doing it are
       very serious indeed -- as I have found out.

Keith> I've been thinking about ghosting quite a bit even though I
        don't think I've experienced it.

Otie> Whenever we do someting "different" we always have these
       "fears" or concerns.  Perfectly understandable.  I am glad I
       researched this issue.  With vision of better-than 20/20,
       your eyes are almost "perfect" by any standard.  It was
       found that when a bright line was presented on the retina,
       about 43 percent could see a slight image of this line, ergo
       "ghosting".  When you pay great attention to objects -- you
       will see things most people NEVER see.

Keith> However, I've noticed that when my vision is sharper, the
        paradox of increasing expectations seems to rear its ugly
        head - the sharper my vision, the sharper I expect it to be
        and the more I tend to notice fuzzy edges of things,
        expecting ever-improving vision.

Otie> This is also a "natural" process.  Just understand it that
       way.  Since you are now about 40 years old, you will begin
       to lose SOME of you near vision at age 45 -- just a function
       of age.  You also might see some "floaters", again an "age
       thing".  You have avoided nearsighedness and the probablity
       of a detached-retina, that is assocated with nearsigheness.
       You must count the "good" with the "bad".

Otie> You have the potential to protect Haley's and Carl's vision
       if THEY will develop some interest it this process.  But
       that must be up to you and Anita.

Otie

Keith

***********

Judy> There you go again Otis, making up your own definitions.
       Over and under correction have clear, accepted definitions
       and they do not involve deliberately blurring vision to a
       poor 20/40.

Judy> The definition of correct refraction is the most plus or
       least minus to achieve best corrected acuity with
       cycloplegic refraction.

Judy> Under correction is less that that amount, over correction
       is more. The definition does not involve blurring to 20/40.

Chalm3.txt

Dear Friends,


      This was written about 100 years ago.

      Chalmer Prentice, M.D.  may have not got everything right (no
one ever does) but he got this part right.

      The difficulty is not the statement of what is necessary. It
is in helping the person develop the knowledge and
force-of-character to successfully implement this advice.

      Today a great mass of explict DIRECT factual data spells out
the true effect that both a "confined environment" AND a minus
lens ultimately has on the refractive status of the eye.

      What have we learned about this in the last 100 years?

      What happens when you try to help a person use the plus as
described by Chalmer at the 20/50 level?  The person states -- I
don't understand why I must use the plus -- my eye's are OK.  Take
your plus lens and shove it.

      This should explain why, even the ODs who "wake up" to the
necessity of using the plus -- never volunteer information about
it.

      Tragic, indeed.  But the truth.

      Best,

      Otis


		   ----------------


	     The Eye in its Relation to Health

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

		 By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.

	   Chicago, A.C.  McClurg & Company, 1895

	      Transcription (c) A.  Wik, 2004


			 Chapter IX


      ...The following are some very interesting experiments in
myopia which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
near point.

      [In the case of 20/50 myopia, "repression" means using a
strong plus that completely ellimates the "near" environment.
This means that the person finds the "blur point" at near, and
pulls the book in SLIGHTLY.  This is to insure that the "plus" has
the maximum possible effect.  OSB]


      In either class of cases, repression must be made at the near
point.

      In various lengths of time, we shall be able to reduce the
myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more.

      [I would suggest that the person himself (at -1 diopters) IF
HE HAS THE MOTIVATION can clear his distant vision to pass the
required 20/40 line on his own eye chart.  OSB]

      In most cases satisfactory results will require considerable
time and patience; but a few experiments after the following
example will suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of
myopia, it is possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward
course by repression at the near point.

      [This just suggests that much greater emphasis should be
placed on PREVENTION with the plus -- when the person himself can
take the responsibility to do this work completely under his own
control.  OSB]

      This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes
an open question.

      [From the Oakley-Young study, it is clear that a slighly
myopic eye will pick up a rate of -1/2 diopter per year (average)
if a minus is worn all the time.  The issue now is far more than
an "open
question".  It is a proven reality.  OSB]


		     AGE 43 NEARSIGHTEDNESS

      ...Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right
eye -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space
of two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point.  I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

      After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes.  This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort.  In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient.  After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths (20/20 OSB)
of vision, while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the
acuity was just perceptibly less.

      [Since then, the DMV standard around the world has become
approximately 20/40.  Almost the only people legally REQUIRED to
have 20/20 are professional pilots.  Be clear in your mind about
this issue.  OSB]

      During this time the general health had improved somewhat,
including considerable gain in the nervous condition.

      Similar results have been attained in thirty-four like cases;


		 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

			     EMPHASIS:

      "...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial."


		     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      [Anyone who is considering "prevention" at the -1.5 diopter
level (20/60) must realize that the process is tedious.  That
seems to be the real "objection" to prevention.  This really
becomes a "personal" issue for you to resolve.  It is easy to
"talk" about vision-clearing with the plus.  Sounds simple until
you realize that you must make the use of a strong-plus a "habit"
for from 8 to 15 months.  Just remember, it takes about 15 months
to develop -3/4 diopters of myopia -- and it is likley to take the
same amount of time to clear back to 20/40 (to pass the DMV) and
then to 20/25 and 20/20.  If you are looking for an "easy" or
"quick" method -- there is none.  OSB]

      _____________________________________________


Otis> This suggest that a "tutorial", or an "education" review
       must be supplied to the person BEFORE that minus lens is
       used.  Clearing vision from 20/70 to 20/40 (-1.0 diopters to
       -1/4 diopter) is possible and reasonable -- provided the
       issue is handled HONESTLY.  I suggest the term "second
       opinion" should be used as part of an offer of
       true-prevention.

Otis> If the person can not accept this requirement, and gets
       "stair-case" myopia because of an over-prescribed minus lens
       then he would have only himself to blame -- in my opinion.

Otis> I would GLADLY PAY a professional for his time to describe
       the above to me. I would have nothing to lose.  I think it
       is time that we learn to take this issue more seriously.

Otis> Today, we can state that there is almost absolute proof for
       this dynamic-eye concept -- provided we keep the subject on
       a pure-scientific level.


	        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

      The foregoing in connection with limited tests of more than
two hundred similar cases suggests an answer to that most
important question, 'What shall we do to prevent myopia in school
children and students?'

      In a nomad, who is reared out of doors, who follows such
pursuits that his vision is mostly used at twenty feet and greater
distances, the nerve-impulses to the ciliary muscle become
established so that the easiest vision is for the far point, and
in many years of such use, these impulses become more or less
fixed; while the child of a higher civilization spends its life
within doors, amuses itself with toys, picture books, kindergarten
amusements and learning to read.

      We will assume that such a child generally holds its book or
toy ten inches from the eyes, in which case the crystalline lens
requires a much greater convexity, or higher state of refraction
to bring about perfect vision; and this is brought about by an
increase in the ciliary nerve-impulse which contracts the ciliary
muscle.  Through long continued use, this excessive impulse
becomes comparatively fixed, and in some instances refuses to
suspend itself sufficiently to bring about distant vision again,
and so myopia has set in.

      The regular work of the student and those other pursuits
which require the use of the eye at the near point, tend to
perpetuate this disease and make it progressive.

      Again, the important question, 'How are the advantages of a
high civilization to be attained wihout the foregoing
disadvantages?' If the eyes are to be used at a distance of ten
inches, aid them artificially by a ten inch magnifying glass; then
the nerve-impulses to the ciliary muscle will be no more than if
the patient were leading an outdoor life and viewing objects at
twenty feet or more.  The nerve-centers are not called upon for so
excessive an impulse, and they become habituated to sending the
same amount of nerve-force as if an outdoor life were led.

      ...If the little student at school or any other person using
the eyes at the near point, were to be supplied with such glasses
during the hours of study, on leaving the school room they could
be taken off and the natural use of the eye at all other times
would be quite sufficient to cultivate and establish the habit of
accommodation. At least the danger of disturbing the
accommodation would be much less than the dangers resulting to the
eyes and nerve-centers without such aid.

      I simply suggest the above as a possible answer to one of the
most important questions of the day.


				    Dr. C. Prentice

Dear Keith,

Subject:  Keeping your vision clear during the college years.

Re:  Scientific certification -- and arguments against it.

      I am pleased you "did it yourself".  You may have wondered
why you had to "stand alone" and make that long-term decision and
choice.

      The reason is "legal".  John M.  (a pilot) had 20/40 to 20/15
vision.  He wished to "clear" from that level.  I sold him a book,
and explained the results that Colgate and Deakins had achileved.

      Since he is in the military he could have gone to the OD and
had a general check.  He should have -- but did not.

      After a month or so he saw "ghosting".  (About 43 percent of
people with very-sharp vision have this "ghosting" but never
notice it.  If it were already there, and you cleared by use of
the plus, you would begin to see it at about 20/20 to 20/15.)

      I made it clear (from the beginning) that I wished I had been
on the "receiving end" of my advice (when I was at 20/40), and
that I was an engineer -- not a medical person.

      There is no doubt that if I had "prescribed" the plus to John
M., and he saw this "ghosting" -- he would have sued me.  In fact,
ANY OD who attempts to do this preventive work has the "threat"
implicit in this work. I am certain the other ODs would "jump" on
this case and drive the OD out-of-business.  Not a pretty picture.

      This is the REAL reason why NO OD will discuss this issue
with you -- and you are stuck with "doing it youself".

      Here is some more of that discussion for your enjyoment.

      Quite honestly, if I had payed $160,000 for OD college, I
would not put myself "at risk".  The general public is ignorant
and has NO MOTIVATION for prevention, and no OD can care about
your distant vision -- the way that you can.

      As you understand -- this is a first-rate intellectual
struggle.

      Love,

      Otie

	        _______________________________


Dear Prevention minded friends

Subject:  Why you must "learn enough" to do it youself.

Re:  Pilot-John's reaction to using the plus.

      Some pilots (at 20/50) have taken over "control" and really
PUSHED with the plus, and cleared to 20/20, i.e., Fred Deakins and
others.

      I sold a book to pilot-John, and said that he did not have to
"buy" the book -- but he did.

      He agressively used the plus.  But he noticed slight
"ghosting".  If a medical person had PRESCRIBED this preventive
plus John could have sued the person who prescribed that lens.
The message?  There is no profit or motivation in helping ANYONE learn
the "art" of prevention.  You are forced to learn how to do it
youself -- if you have the motivation for it.

      Here is a "snippet" of conversation about that issue for your
interest.  I "gave up" on these ODs a long time ago.

      But equally, I respect how difficult prevntion with the plus
actually is.  This is i-see, and we do "work" and understand these
issues.

      In fact your children's visual welfare might he "improved" by
understanding this specific problem.

      Best,

      Otis

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

Subject:  DrG explains why prevention "won't work".  This most
	   likly applies to BOTH Bates people and "Plus-prevention"
	   people.  Read it -- and wake up!


From Otis:

Otis> Dear DrG,

Otis> Subject: The PUBLIC'S Rejection of the preventive plus.

Otis> Re:  John's experience and statement.

Otis> As you recall, I suggest ONLY prevention.  By that, I mean
       that the person himself reviews the relevalent scientific
       facts -- and determins if HE (on HIS judgment) wishes to
       "follow" the preventive concept.

DrG > It seems to me that you go beyond discussing the concept of
       prevention to suggest exactly how to do it.  Who wouldn't
       want to prevent themselves from developing myopia?

[Comment:  I do suggest a method -- that is a result of careful
	    review of Dr.  Young's work.  The method is a result of a
	    scientific understanding and proof of the primate eye's
	    natural behavior.  This is a scientific, rather that a
	    "medical" preception.  OSB]

Otis> Because of "John's" reaction, it is cear that you can not
       "legally" do this.  If you did -- and ANYTHING happened --
       even if it had NOTHING to do with the plus the person was
       using -- YOU WOULD GET SUED.

DrG > That's very incorrect.  "Legally," I can employ lenses
       and/or therapy to treat vision defects.  Were I to make
       un-substantiated, exaggerated, or untruthful claims about the
       efficacy of such treatments, then that would be another
       matter.

[Comment:  I make accurate statements about the proven behavior of
	    the fundamental eye.  The person I talk to is ENCOURAGED
	    to review these "input" versus "output" type of
	    experiments.  If his eye-chart is 20/40, there is time
	    to THINK, review and analyize.  There is no reason to
	    plunge a child into a -2.0 diopter lens -- when there is
	    time for this review.  The decision and choice will
	    depend on the child and parent -- and NOT on you.  We
	    disagree on that point.  OSB]

Otis> I accept that (legal threat) as YOUR explanation as to why
       YOU can not "perescribe prevention".

DrG > Of course I can prescribe "prevention."

[Comment:  Of course you can NOT prescribe prevention -- because
	    it is difficult and takes real personal commitment.
	    Further -- if you are involved it is going to cost
	    several thousand dollars.  If the person figures out how to
	    take control, it costs several $8 plus lenses from the
	    store.  The REAL cost is his efforts of control and
	    judgment.  OSB]

DrG > I do so when I recommend nutritional advice regarding
       macular degneration.  I prescribe glaucoma medication to
       "prevent" blindness.  Giving people proper advice regarding
       the use of contact lenses is done to "prevent" problems
       arising from abuse, etc.

[Comment:  Preventing the development of a un-desired refractive
	    state of the natural eye would not be "medicine".  But
	    it takes some time to figure this out.  But ultimately
	    the person must "clear" his vision under his own
	    control.  It only is necessary that he personally pass
	    the DMV test of 20/40 or better.  As long as he checks
	    this himself (By Bates or Plus method) he never comes
	    under your control. OSB]

Otis> As long as we are clear in our minds about that issue -- we
       have no arguments.

DrG > How does that follow?

Otis> This or course proves nothing about whether a person can
       clear his distant vision from say 20/50 to 20/30 (better
       than the DMV requirement.)

Otis> Some people have done it successfully -- but this issue
       depends on the qualities of judgment and a "technical sense"
       that you can not provide.

DrG > I am unaware of any controlled studies showing efficacy of
        your method.  Are you hiding them from us?

[Comment:  About dozen times I certified Francis Young' CONTROLLED
	    study of the effect of a HIGH PLUS on a child -- where
	    there was an indication that some of the children
	    actually looked THROUGH THE PLUS rather than around it.
	    DrG is totally BLIND to this study -- and BLIND to the
	    objective facts concerning the nautral eye's behavior.
	    This is a matter of DrG's total and self-enforced
	    ignorance on his part.  But YOU will pay the price when
	    he puts a -2 diopter lens on your child -- and he tells
	    you that he MUST wear that -2 all the time. OSB]

Otis> That is why I use the term "refractive state" to indicate
       the proven behavior of the primate eye.  I think that anyone
       wishing for "prevention" should evaluate that data --
       relative to his desire to retain clear vision (DMV or
       better) under his OWN control -- because you are not allowed
       (legally) to do it for him.

DrG > When discussing humans, the conventional term is "refractive
       error." However, I believe that most of us understand what
       is meant by refractive state.  The public only knows
       nearsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism.

[Comment:  "Refractive error" is an assumption based on a crude
	    understanding of the eye.  I use this neutral term to
	    end this "language bias".  It improves our understanding
	    of objective scientifc truth greatly.  OSB]

DrG > Again, I think you don't understand the distinction between
       what is illegal and what is unethical.

Otis> When you over-prescribe a person by -2.0 diopters (and don't
       discuss the second-opinion,) then I consider that to be
       "unethical", and not professional.

Otis> I posted remarks to "Shawn" about how I would wish to be
       treated in the future -- that would respect BOTH my
       intelligence and motivation.  At the very least you should
       honor this "change" by asking the person to review a site
       like:

       www.chinamyopia.org

Otis> For the full meaing of a "second opinion" when used
       correctly.  I WOULD GLADLY PAY YOU FOR YOUR PROFESSIONAL
       TIME.  The WORST that could happen, would be that I would
       state that I have no interest in "prevention" or that I
       consider it to be "too difficult".

Best,

Otis

DrG

Military Visual Requirements

Spherical Equivalent Conversion

Remarks:  The minus lens "works" instantly.  If you prefer it --
	   then use it. If you are 28 years old -- then the minus
	   will have little effect -- if you use it ONLY when
	   absolulty necessary. But if you have had -2.75 diopters
	   of myopia and cleared to 20/30 to 20/25, the "story" is
	   completely different.  I each case the person who is
	   knowledgeable of these issues MUST make his decision
	   based on the best available information.  Here is
	   information on the military 20/20 standard (4 out of 5
	   charaters) and the DMV standard is reading 1/2 the
	   characters to pass the line. (To the best of my
	   knowledge.)

Otis

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

TOPIC: More on PRK

== 1 of 6 ==

Date: Wed 31 Aug 2005

From: "Yasar, Mehmet C PFC A Co 602d ASB"

      Thank you to all ODs and friend who support me with their
feedback, yes it just didn't sink in well with me to get the PRK
with this prescription.  Military OD at Hawaii who would perform
the surgery denied to do so.  I got the email. I am not that
upset but I have some concerns, I'd appreciate some feedback.

      He said* "Sorry, but we have decided not to do refractions
this low.  Our cut off is a -1.50 spherical equivalent.

      The results on anything below this usually are not worthwhile
and sometimes the risk is greater than the benefit."

      * This is what I was thinking after I read your responses.
Though, what does "spherical equivalent" mean?

      My concern is my right eye which is -0.75 + 0.25 x40 now, the
flight pyhsical consists of "transposing" these numbers and
standards must meet in both plus-cylinder and minus-cylinder
formats, after that calculation, my right eye seems to be -1.00
-0.25 x130(?) according to military technical bulletin.

      This leaves me only half a diopter room before I would be
disqualified for flight duty.  If my eye moves another half
diopter and transposed numbers equal a -1.50, can I be still
eligible for PRK?  Maybe that is what spherical equivalent?

      I will write more later...  Thanks a lot...  By the way,
Bill, my right eye was 20/30-1 and pin hole 20/20-2 and left was
with moisturizing drops 20/20. This exam was at 1430 hours so my
eyes were not so fresh as some call it.  I wonder if the acuity
results would be different if it was done 0900 in the morning.

      == 2 of 6 == Date:  Tues 30 Aug 2005 20:43 From:
"otisbrown@..."

Dear John,

      I wonder if you could check something for me.

      I have been told that you must read 4 out of 5 characters to
pass the line.

      Dr Judy says that reading 1/2 the characters pass the line.

      (I like Judy's standard.)

      Question: Is there any standard?

      Best,

      Otis

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Wed 31 Aug 2005 12:57
From: "Yasar, Mehmet C PFC A Co 602d ASB"

* ATB - DISTANT VISUAL ACUITY TESTING (DD Form 2808, Block
   61.  'DISTANT VISION' ) [As of:  1 May 2002]*

- IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT 20/20 DISTANT VISUAL ACUITY STANDARD
   FOR FDMEs!  Per AR 40-501, paragraph 4-12, a (1), "...no more than
   1 error per 5 presentations of 20/20 letters, in any combination,
   on either the Armed Forces Vision Tester (AFVT) or any projected
   Snellen chart set for 20 feet." -

      Issue:  AFVT line has 10 letters but is split into two sets
of five letters positioned next to each other on the same line.
You may still test the entire line, if desired, but the patient is
still only required to get *4 out of 5* letters that are on a
20/20 line to be considered a 'pass' for an FDME.  Therefore,
entries of 20/20 or 20/20-1 are both passing entries.  Most
projected Snellen charts have 6 letters (some have 4, 5, 7, or 8
letters) per line.  The regulation allows for presentation of 5
letters "in any combination" so you may meet the requirement.  If
in que stion, refer to the Eye Clinic for verification.


== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Wed 31 Aug 2005 04:07
From: "Mike Tyner"

      "Yasar, Mehmet C PFC A Co 602d ASB"
<mehmet.yasar@...> wrote

> He said "Sorry, but we have decided not to do refractions
   this low.  Our cut off is a -1.50 spherical equivalent.

      Very logical.

      Spherical equivalent is the mean dioptric power, the average
of the two major meridians.

       For -0.75 +0.25 x 040,
the SE is -0.62.

When you convert, honor the signs.

      Your myopia would have to double before it threatens your
qualification. And the later myopia begins, the milder it tends
to be.

      -MT

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Wed 31 Aug 2005 04:25
From: "Mike Tyner"

      <otisbrown@...> wrote

      > Question:  Is there any standard?

      The standard they taught in physiological optics at UAB was
"smallest line with half or more right." But in the clinic, or in
a psychophysical experiment, the difference between one line and
another seldom alters anybody's career.

      The AF and the FAA etc spell out qualification standards as
fairly as they can, and it isn't always what a purist would use.

      -MT

== 6 of 6 ==

Date: Wed 31 Aug 2005 16:32
From: "Yasar, Mehmet C PFC A Co 602d ASB"

Mike Tyner wrote:


      > Very logical.

      > Spherical equivalent is the mean dioptric power, the
average of the two major meridians.

      > For -0.75 +0.25 x 040,

  the SE is -0.62.

      When you convert, honor the signs.

      > Your myopia would have to double before it threatens your
qualification. And the later myopia begins, the milder it tends
to be.

      > -MT


      Mike, Can you help me find where I am standing according to
Army regs?  Let me quote the standard procedures for the Army
exam...

      UPDATED ENTRY STANDARDS FOR CLASS 1/1A FLIGHT DUTY MEDICAL
EXAMINATIONS.  (as of 28 March 2002):

      Hyperopia greater than +3.00 diopters of sphere (in any
meridian by transposition in either eye) Myopia greater than -1.50
diopters of sphere (in any meridian by transposition in either
eye) Astigmatism greater than +/- 1.00 diopter of cylinder in
either eye.

      Must meet above standards in both plus-cylinder and
minus-cylinder formats, so transpose to ensure patient meets
standards (spherical equivalent method does not apply).

      For example, the cycloplegic refraction of:

      -1.00 - 0.75 x 180 (in minus-cylinder format)

      might appear qualified at first glance.

      However, after transposition into plus-cylinder format of:

      -1.75 + 0.75 x 090 (in plus-cylinder format)

      it is apparent that this refraction is disqualifying because
the sphere amount exceeds -1.50.

      Transposition Review:

      1.  Algebraically sum the sphere and cylinder powers

      2.  Change the sign of the cylinder power

      3.  Change the axis by 90 degrees.

      Important Note for Eye Care Providers

      A cycloplegic refraction is NOT necessarily equal to the
refraction you would give for spectacle lenses.  If a patient is
"on the border" of being qualified or disqualified, it is best for
the Army and for the patient to use the "least amount of
prescription needed to see within standards" approach.

      For example, if a patient has a cycloplegic refraction that
is +/- 0.25 diopters outside of standard but can still read to the
20/20-1 standard with the refraction amount that is WITHIN
standards, enter the lesser amount.

      Do NOT, however, try to "push" the 20/20-1 on borderline
cases. These patients receive an entirely new cycloplegic exam
once they come to Fort Rucker to enter flight school.

      If they are outside of the standard, they will be required to
request an exception-to-policy which will likely be disapproved.
Use your professional judgement but do not allow someone to come
to flight school knowing he/she has a good chance of failing their
detailed cycloplegic exam upon arrival.

      So what is mine after this transposition? As far as I
understood, they are not doing the spherical eq.  for flight duty
exams.

Dear Don,

Subject:  Consistent over-prescription by minus two diopters.

Re:  People currently working with the plus for prevention

Re:  Statements by ODs on sci.med.vision

Re:  These various "mono-studies", and there implication.

      For a long time I suspected that the minus was
"over-prescribed" -- but I did not know how much -- or why.

      From reports of Mike who contacted me, I found that:

1.  When he decided to go "cold turkey", he discovered that

a.  His prescription was for -2.75 diopters.  (a 1 diopter =
       20/70, the would mean a visual-acuity of 20/200 --
       approximately, or close to legal blindness).  But Mike could
       function with out the minus lens.

b.  When I asked him to read a standard eye-chart, he reported a
       "blurry" 20/70.  The Florida DMV standard is 20/70 --
       believe it or not.

2.  Since he was alread working with out the minus lens, I stated
       that he had to "clear" to 20/40 (1.8 cm at 6 meters) to
       truly reject the legal requirement for a minus lens.  Why
       was Mike so serious over-prescribed?

a.  The public "loves" over-prescription, so the ODs prescribe for
       20/20.  However, adolescent and children's eyes can "do
       better" that 20/20.  According to Stacy OD, his will keep on
       "cranking" until he gets to 20/10.  This probably adds 1
       diopter to a prescription.

b.  Thus a child that has 20/30 vision and has no rational need
       for that minus -- gets a -1.5 to -2 diopter lens, and worse,
       is told to "wear it all the time.

3.  It was a lot of work (following Colgate's method) but Mike
       gradually cleared to 20/40 and slightly better, i.e., passes
       the legal standard for driving a care.  At his mother's
       requiest he went back to the OD.

a.  The OD puts him in a darkened room, with a low-illumination
       Snellen, and "cranks" on that minus lens, and insists that
       Mike's prescription is -2.0 diopters.  Why this conflict?

b.  As far as I am concerned, a person who PASSES all legal
       visual-acuity standards that apply to him, is
       over-prescribed by the prescription -- which is not
       necessary, i.e., -2 diopters.

4.  I believe that a -2 diopter lens will totally PREVENT
       vision-restoration -- if it is worn all the time -- and
       particularly when there is no legal need for it.

5.  I appreciate the idea that the OD believes that he is doing
       wonderful work when he "prescribes" this -2 diopter lens,
       but I think he has fallen in "love" with practice, and
       really has no idea of the long-term damage he is doing.  It
       is tragic that NO ONE raises this issue.


      Fortunately, Mike has understood these issues.  Currently he
reports 20/30 to 20/25, which is incredible considering his
prescription of -2.75 dioters. I have no idea if Mike can reach
20/20, but I do know that that "last" step seems to be the most
difficult.  There is nothing "easy" in any of this.

      Best,


      Otis

______________________________


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

Subject:  phillips paper

Date:  Thursday, September 01, 2005 3:16 PM

Otis.

Someone sent me this:

Don Rehm


Br J Ophthalmol.  2005 Sep;89(9):1196-200.

Monovision slows juvenile myopia progression unilaterally.

Phillips JR.

      Department of Optometry and Vision Science, University of
Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand.
j.phillips@....

AIM:   To evaluate the acceptability, effectivity, and side effects
	   of a monovision spectacle correction designed to reduce
	   accommodation and myopia progression in schoolchildren.

METHODS:  Dominant eyes of 11 year old children with myopia (-1.00
	   to -3.00 D mean spherical equivalent) were corrected for
	   distance; fellow eyes were uncorrected or corrected to
	   keep the refractive imbalance < / = 2.00 D.  Myopia
	   progression was followed with cycloplegic autorefraction
	   and A-scan ultrasonography measures of vitreous chamber
	   depth (VCD) for up to 30 months.  Dynamic retinoscopy
	   was used to assess accommodation while reading.

RESULTS:  All children accommodated to read with the distance
	   corrected (dominant) eye.  Thus, the near corrected eye
	   experienced myopic defocus at all levels of
	   accommodation.  Myopia progression in the near corrected
	   eyes was significantly slower than in the distance
	   corrected eyes (inter-eye difference = 0.36 D/year (95%
	   CI:  0.54 to 0.19, p = 0.0015, n = 13); difference in
	   VCD elongation = 0.13 mm/year (95% CI:  0.18 to 0.08, p
	   = 0.0003, n = 13)).  After refitting with conventional
	   spectacles, the resultant anisometropia returned to
	   baseline levels after 9-18 months.

CONCLUSIONS:  Monovision is not effective in reducing
	       accommodation in juvenile myopia.  However, myopia
	       progression was significantly reduced in the near
	       corrected eye, suggesting that sustained myopic defocus
	       slows axial elongation of the human eye.

Dear Friends,

Subject:  Some commentary on prevention-with-plus for your
	   interest.

Re:  If I "prescribed" a "preventive plus", and the
person developed 1/4 diopter of astigmatism -- I would
be sued for mal-practice.  This is the reason why
no OD will "prescribe" the preventive plus.  The
other part of the "reason" it total arrogance
on the part of the (majority opinion) OD who
believes he is a "God" in his office.

       But don't take my word for it.  Read and
think for yourself.

       Here are some posts that might interest you.  Discussion of
the accuracy of a 1/4 diopter "astigmatic" measurement.

Best,

Otis

      _______________________


From:  "Mike Tyner"


"Yasar, Mehmet C PFC A Co 602d ASB" <mehmet.yasar@...>
	 wrote

John> Mike, Can you help me find where I am standing according to
        Army regs?  Let me quote the standard procedures for the
        Army exam...

John> So what is mine after this transposition?  As far as I
        understood, they are not doing the spherical eq.  for
        flight duty exams.

If your script was written -075 + 025 x 030,

	 that transposes to -050 -025 x 120.

      Either way, you're in.

      -MT


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

TOPIC: Plus Lenses stop myopia progression... NOT!  John M.



TOPIC: Current Progress in vision-clearing from -2.75 diopters



== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed 31 Aug 2005 15:57
From: "otisbrown@..."

      Dear Friends,

      There is no doubt about the diversity of opinions about
nearsighedness prevention "out there".  The fact of the
second-opinion should be understood.

      Some will work with the "second opinion", and others will
not.

      It is essential that the person understand that he must pass
the legal requirements that are imposed on all of us for driving a
car, i.e., reading 1.8 cm letters at 6 meters.

      Here is an update from Mike as to his progress.

      As always, enjoy our pleasant analytical research into the
dynamic behavior of the eye -- as a competent system.

      Best,

      Otis

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

Dear Mike,

Subject:  Your outstanding success from -2.75 dipoters (20/70)

Re:  Update

      I am very pleased that you have cleared your distant vision
to better-than 20/40.  That is a major personal accomplishment.

      Your decision to quit "cold turkey" BEFORE you contacted me
was a major step in the right direction.

      Some additional commentary:

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

Mike> I wore my friends +1.5 lens and I looked at my eyechart. I
       read a little better then before I began using the plus. I
       am pretty sure that I have cleared atleast 1.5 diopters off
       of of my origional 2.75 and I still have a year until I see
       my O.D.

Otis> I agree that you are correct.  It would be nice if you had
       your own trial-lens kit, but "borrowing" a lens is a good
       check.  My interest is that you always pass the DMV at
       20/40, and continue working towards 20/20.  (Just don't get
       frustrated -- clearing is a very slow process indeed.)

Mike> I am confident that my next prescription will -1 diopter or
       better and that has me excited.  I am very glad that I made
       decision to use the plus.

Otis> Please remember that John M., who PASSES the military flight
       requirement MEASURES at -1 diopter!!!  Thus I suspect that
       the eye-chart measurement you are making is far more
       accurate that the "diopter" measurement.  If you start
       "seeing" in the range of 20/30 to 20/15 vision, then you
       would pass the Military requirement -- in the same manner
       that John passed the requirement.

Otis> Again, I wish you had your own "trial" minus lens to check this.
       Remember, the official (DMV) test is room-illumination.
       Semi-darkness testing yields a profoundly different result.

Mike> I read 20/30 almost all of the time now and the 20/25 quite
       often but 20/20 is still blurry.

Otis> I have received a new "requirement" from Dr.  Judy.  Reading
       1/2 the letters on a line "passes" the line.  The previous
       standard was reading 4 out of 5 letters.

Otis> I have presented you with John M's statement about
       "ghosting".  That is a concern, but I personally would
       prefer to "clear" to 20/20 or 20/15 and "accept" some
       ghosting (slight shadow) if that is part of the "bargin".


== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed 31 Aug 2005 19:41
From: "RM"

RM > Otis "Engineer" is a zealot who advocates his "plus lens"
        prevention theory without good reason.

[Comment:  No, there is a good reason. At least some people have
        the intelligence and motivation to do this work under their
        own control.  Your "attitude" gives them no choice but to
        do this work themselves.  OSB]

RM > There is no scientific data to prove what he proposes.

[Comment:  That is because admiting to scientifc truth -- would be
        bad for his "professional position".  This man is more
        interested in that -- that your long-term visual welfare.
        OSB]

RM > He would ask that all myopes ( = nearsighted persons ) go
        around wearing plus reading glasses in hopes that it will
        eventually reverse their nearsightedness.

[Comment:  Absolutly false.  I have been VERY CLEAR about the
        words THRESHOLD MYOPES, i.e., able to function without a
        minus lens, or 20/70 vision.  The intention is that they DO
        NOT STAY AT 20/70, but SLOWLY clear to 20/40 or better.
        Only if there is a reasonable possibility that a person can
        "clear" to pass the DMV, would I encourage the use of the
        plus "for prevention".  Tragically, once a over-prescribed
        minus lens is worn all the time it makes recovery virtually
        impossible.  There are rare exceptions, however.  OSB]

RM > Nevermind that the blurry distance vision that myopes
        complain about is made worse by plus lenses!

[Comment:  A convenient "story" that RM tells all his patients --
        to shut them up.  The Oakley-Young study says the dead
        opposite.  The single-minus group had their vision "made
        worse" by the MINUS LENS.  There vision went "down" at a
        rate of -1/2 diopter per year.  The "down" rate of the
        "plus" group was zero diopters per year.

RM > Nevermind that there is no proof for what he claims.

[Comment:  Maybe in RM's mind.  But that is the "majority
        opinion".  You have a right to understand the "second
        opinion" regarding prevention with the plus.  OSB]

RM > If you are interested in Otis' approach, I have some other
        links that you might also be interested in:

[Comment:  I would point out that RM has posted NO IDENTIFICATION
        as an OD.  As such, you can take his commentary for what it
        is worth.  I have given complete identification as Steve
        Leung OD has done.  Make your own judgment accordingly.
        OSB]

== 4 of 7 ==

Date: Wed 31 Aug 2005 18:20

From:  p.clarkii@... (Optometrist -- we believe)

Clark> who cares about this?  go away troll.

[Comment:  Is this a "professional" who is greatly concerned with
        PROTECSTING YOUR LONG-TERM visual welfare?  If this is the
        attitude of your average OD, then I truly fear for your
        vision. OSB]


== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed 31 Aug 2005 19:33
From: "otisbrown@..."

      Dear Friends,

      It is obvious that these "professional" ODs don't care about
Mikes long-term vision -- BUT MIKE DOES.

      I will forward your remarks to him.  If he had any respect
for you it is fast evaporating.

      Fortunatly there are true professional optometrists who
support prevention (on the threshold) as the second opinion --as
it should be.

      As I have acknowledged, some people see great value in
prevention (entering a four year college) and are willing to
accept objective facts concerning their natural eye's behavior
under that circumstance.

      This is the "right" decision and choice for Mike.

      There is a massive amount of DIRECT SCIENTIFIC FACTS
demonstrating that (on input versus output) testing that the
refractive state of the eye "follows" its average visual
environment.  Mike is simply using his understanding of these
scientific facts to keep his distant vision clear -- when his
friends (at 20/50) will lose theirs.  A perfectly reasonable
choice.

      Perhaps others can learn from his success, and from the
recommentadations of Steve Leung OD

      www.chinamyopia.org

      who has his own children wearing a plus for preveniton.

      In the future I would expect other ODs to be supportive of
this goal.

      Best,

      Otis

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed 31 Aug 2005 21:04
From: "Yasar, Mehmet C PFC A Co 602d ASB"

otisbrown@... wrote:

Otis> Please remember that John M., who PASSES the military flight
        requirement MEASURES at -1 diopter!!!  Thus I suspect that
        the eye-chart measurement you are making is far more
        accurate that the "diopter" measurement.  If you start
        "seeing" in the range of 20/30 to 20/15 vision, then you
        would pass the Military requirement -- in the same manner
        that John passed the requirement.


John> Read my prescription after cycloplegic exam Otis,

OD -0.75 + 0.25 x40
OS -0.75

John> Glasses precription both -0.50

John> Military standard transposition minus cylinder method:

OD -0.50 - 0.25 X 130
OS -0.75

Mike> I read 20/30 almost all of the time now and the 20/25 quite
        often but 20/20 is still blurry.

John> Mike should SUBSCRIBE TO SCI.MED.VISION DEFINITELY.  Both
        eye vision also doesn't help during exam, each eye is
        tested seperately, that is what it counts, I highly doubt
        that Mike can see 20/30 clearly each eye.

Otis> I have received a new "requirement" from Dr.  Judy.  Reading
        1/2 the letters on a line "passes" the line.  The previous
        standard was reading 4 out of 5 letters.

John> Reading snellen does not mean a lot and doesn't bring out
        the real underlying refraction problem. I can still read
        20/20 both eyes, does that mean anything?  I am still -.75!

[Comment:  If you wish to PASS the DMV, your eye chart means a
        great deal.  They do not check for your refractive status.
        Only the "military" does that. As a minimum you must be
        reading 20/20 -- and THEN you worry about your "refractive
        status. OSB]

Otis> I have presented you with John M's statement about
        "ghosting".  That is a concern, but I personally would
        prefer to "clear" to 20/20 or 20/15 and "accept" some
        ghosting (slight shadow) if that is part of the "bargin".

John> Mike, just pay attention to that "+0.25" cylinder I have
        which I didn't HAVE before I used plus for 8 months.

[Comment:  How critical is 0.25 diopters of astigmatism.  John has
        "paniced" because of this 1/4 diopters.  He also paniced
        because of slight ghosting.  Anyone who knows the nature of
        the measurements knows that 1/4 dipoter is the MINIMUM
        measurement, and that normal "errors" can result in
        "changes" 1/4 diopter.  For instance, if John had 10 ODs
        measure him, he could expect to see "spherical", 1/4
        dipoter and 1/2 diopter over a 4 week period.  Further,
        there are ODs who simply will not write a
        "prescription" for 1/4 dioper, and simply will write
        a spherical prescription.  This "disaster" of 1/4 diopter
        has been magnified out of proportion to what it actually
        means.  But since he feels this way he NEVER should have
        been encouraged to use the plus lens in the first place.
        However, this "variation" in human judgment will
        effectively prevent any OD from helping you with
        prevention, and forces you to make that decision to
        that best of your ability.  We are "afraid" of measurements
        we do not understand.  To reduce this fear, I suggest that
        the individually PERSONALLY make this measurement so he
        understands the "random error" in this 1/4 diopter
        measurement.  OSB}

John> I don't have anything else to say.  Plus cylinder helps me
        with the cyclo part of the military exam since it brings
        down the minus HOWEVER it doesn't help one bit reading the
        chart!

John> It is still my worse eye.  It is my understanding that Mike
        is obsessed with the plus like I was, he should talk to his
        OD instead of waiting another year.  Next year it might be
        too late for him since he is still growing up.  Plus lenses
        are harming him, he doesn't even know that.

[Comment:  If Mike wishes to talk to his OD, then the OD will
        recommend that he begin wearing that -2.75 diopters lens
        all the time -- even though there is NO REASONABLE REASON
        TO DO SO.  Further, if he takes this OD's advice, his
        eye-chart will again begin moving back to 20/70, 20/100,
        etc.  If Mike does not mind losing his clear distant vision
        for life -- then perhaps he should follow your advice, or
        the advice of the OD.  If it were me, and I had cleared to
        20/30 or better I would NEVER wear a minus lens unless it
        were LEGALLY REQUIRED.  OSB]

[Comment:  John has made is own choice in this matter -- and I
        approve of his choice.  I can never "fight" for a person's
        long-term visual welfare until the person himself makes
        that decision.  Knowing that my vision was going to go down
        by -1.3 diopters in a four year college would be a "wake
        up" call to me.  In the past the minus lens has been called
        "poision glasses for childrens".  The SCIENTIFIC research
        AFTER that time simply confirms this statement. It is the
        minus lens that is "risky" -- if you wish to preserve your
        distant vision through four years of college.  OSB}

Dear Don,

Subject:  Ghosting -- differnt that Astigmatism

Re:  Fincham -- 43 percent of eye's with excellent have
       "ghosting".

      I do not think there has been any effort to define a
difference between these to "artifacts".

      My interest is in effective "prevention".  The "ghosting"
issue came up because "Chet Thor" began to see it as he worked
towards very-sharp 20/20.  When some one monitors his distant
vision as Chet did -- he might see this ghosting as described by
Fincham.

      PERSONAL REACTIONS

      Chect "accepted" that this ghosting (very slight) was part of
the optics of the natural eye. This ghosting never "prevents"
20/20. He continued to work with the plus -- and passed the JAA
test for pilot's vision.

      John M.  worked on vision-clearing with the plus -- and saw
the "ghosting".  As a result he got very angry with me.  Currently
he wants RPG, or Lasik done on his eyes to get that "perfect" zero
refractive status.  (I am certain he does no understand how risky
Lasik is for him.  Far worse that any ghosting he might see.) But
this poses another issue.  If I were "medical" he could have sued
me!  If an OD supported this work, John M.  whould have suded the
OD.  This is a tremendous dis-insentive to do any "preventive"
work.

      In my judgment the ghosting was always there.  For example,
let us say that a person has 20/40 vision.

      The slight blur of 20/40 vision will effectively "hide" the
ghosting.  As the person eye-chart begins to clear, towards 20/20
and 20/15, he begins to see the ghosting -- due to the success of
his work.  Having never seen this before, he then believes TOTALLY
that the plus-clearing CAUSED the slight-ghosting.

      DISCUSSION

      In engineering we study "risk-benifit" relation ships.

      Since ghosting is a possibility, the person (at 20/40) should
understand that fact -- BEFORE he starts clearing his vision.

      If he judges that the "ghosting" is too great a risk, then he
should not attempt "clearing" with the plus.

      If he understands this issue, then as he clears towards 20/20
-- he MIGHT see this ghosting.

      Some more discussion:

      At West Point, (from 201 files) the natural eye moves "down"
by about -1.3 diopters in four years.  (Spread -1.1 D to -1.6
diopters).

      If a person is at 20/40 entering a four year college, his
will pick up an additional -1.3 diopters -- average.  He must
"trade off" the possibility of "ghosting" versus developing 20/100
to 20/140 vision while in college.

      It is a decision and choice the person concerned with this
issue must make.

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

Dear Otis.

Don> the other day I looked up into the sky and saw a thin sliver
       of the moon.  Actually, I saw two slivers side by side.  Saw
       this with each eye separately.

Don> This is caused by astigmatism.

Don> Is this ghosting?

Otis> As defined above -- it is.

Don> Are people using the plus creating a little astigmatism they
       never had before?

Otis> I don't know the answer to this question yet -- since there
       have been so few who have done it.  In a "formal" study you
       could eventually estabish a relationship -- if any.

Don> If so, is this caused by upsetting the
       accommodation/convergence relationship?

Otis> In going from 20/40 to 20/20, the natural eye's refractive
       status has changed by about 0.6 diopters.  The power of the
       human eye is about 60 diopters, so the change is refractive
       properties is about 1 percent.  It is possible that small
       changes in the properties of the eye MIGHT create slight
       ghosting in this "change" process.  I doubt that the issue
       can be "accommodation/convergence" for that reason.  What is
       required is more consistent work and evaluation.

Best,

Otis

Don

To:  John M. (Pilot),

Subject:  A proposed DISCUSSION of prevention (20/40 to 20/70) for
	   students wishing to PROTECT there vision in a four year
	   college.

Re:   You have made some excellent commentary concerning our
       SUGGESTED preventive effort at a "generic" four year
       college. Here are my answers.

John> Otis what is your relation in regards to Embry Riddle
       Aeronautical University (ERAU)?

Otis> I have no relationship with this college.  But, in my
       judgement, a student at 20/40 (-3/4 diopters) should be
       introduced to the concept of prevention at that point, and
       should be aquainted with the -1.3 diopter rate (in 4 years)
       estabished at West Point by examination of the 201
       (personell) files.

John> Are you officially conducting a study?

Otis> No, but it is necessary to present and organized plan for
       such a preventive study. Success favors the prepared mind.

John> Or are you inviting students who attend ERAU to try plus
       lenses to prevent myopia?

Otis> In order to conduct an intelligent long-term study, it is
       necessary to have a group of people at one place -- for four
       years.  It also requires that the person have a chance to
       personally examine the reasons for the effort -- accepting
       the statistics of the natural eye's behavior established at
       West Point.  The LAST STEP would be the actual use of the
       plus -- AFTER the person had time to review all the issues
       and questions that are important to him.

John> To make my point clearer, I highly doubt that any students
       attend ERAU should worry about their eyesight unless of
       course they are in USAF ROTC.

Otis> Each of us is different! Some people are concerned with
       keeping their distant vision cler -- some are not.  That is
       a PERSONAL decision.  Since prevention (at 20/40) takes a
       strong personal commitment, that judgment must preceed ANY
       use of the plus-for-prevention.

John> Even then, they have a -1.50 (20/70 correctable to 20/20)
       limit to even become a "fighter" pilot.

Otis> If they have 20/70 (1.5 D) at entry, and they have the West
       Point statistics before them, then they will understand that
       their vision will not at 20/70 -- that would be wildly
       optomistic.  It would be highly probably that they would
       pick up an AVERAGE of -1.3 dipoters, for an end result of
       -2.8 diopters, or about 20/140 to 20/200.  Presented with
       these objective facts, it would have the person whould have
       to make his choice accordingly.  The "easy" thing to do
       would be to do nothing, and hope for the best, obviously.

John> No one cares about naked eye 20/20 anymore.

Otis> Perhaps you do not.  But you do not speak for everyone who
       is at 20/50 to 20/70 entering a four year college.  The
       issue is personal choice and decision -- when facing
       objective facts.

John> The people you bring into your conversations are also listed
       on this page like a team roster, do they all support this
       study that will take place at ERAU?

Otis> I assume you mean the names listed on the "generic" ERAU.
       The answer is yes for the (v) people.  We have not asked
       David Guyton at this time.

John> I would like to contact ERAU, as a matter of fact, I have a
       friend who is with the USAF ROTC there, if they are having
       such study?

Otis> We would like to make contact with ERAU also.  But in the
       future.  The proposal is good.  We would need some faculty
       support but no money.  The "paper work" is complete.

John> If in your opinion as you have stated, my contact lense use,
       or laser surgery operation makes me accountable towards the
       Army during a flight physical that I should disclose
       everything that has been done to my eyes, why not disclose
       the wrong use of plus lenses?

Otis> If the military requires it -- then disclose it. Render
       unto Cesar -- those things that are Cesar's.

John> If students attending ERAU will participate in such study,
       aren't they accountable to their school administration?

Otis> The "school adminstration" does not "own" the student's
       eyes.  They can not dictate what the student does or does
       not do.  As you know, my nephew, Keith B., worked with the
       plus and kept his distant vision to avoid that -1.3 diopter
       change in vision.  He had every right to protect his naked
       eye vision by using the plus in this manner.  Are you
       suggesting that a person be prohibited from protecting his
       distant vision in this manner?

Otis> Remember, this is a "proposal", not an actual "execution"
       of a plan.

Best,

Otis

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  Vision clearing to pass the DMV -- including
	   Astigmatism and Ghosting (Diplopia)

      In my opinion, prevention is possible using methods of Bates
and the "plus".

      Most people are scared to death about "astigmatism", and so
wear excessive astigmatic "correction".  You will have to make
your own mind up on that issue.

      Jo had was both nearsighed and astigmatic, as well as having
a touch of "diplopia".

      Here is how he "cleared" his vision and PASSED the DMV test.
He is now very close to 20/20.

      As always, I changed his name to protect his identity.

      Best,

      Otis

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


From: Jo

      Dear Mr.  Brown:

      I have been following with great interest your latest
postings on "Ghosting" or Diplopia.  My main reason to contact you
at this point is my concern that John may be commiting an
irreversible error for something he can overcome by continuing
with his vision therapy.

      As it happens, in the process of restoring my vision, and
struggling with a stubborn astigmatism, I have noticed "Ghosting"
in both eyes.  In my worst eye (Right) the ghosting has actually
changed.  Originally the ghost image was at 11 o'clock position.
As my vision improved, the ghost is now at 3 o'clock position, and
disappearing.  The left eye also has some ghosting that still
shows up occasionally. I know it is related to the astigmatism in
my eyes, because the astigmatic mirror tells me so.  I have my own
ideas as to why this is occurring, but the point is that I am
getting rid of the ghosting.

      While there has been some discussion about John's complaint
and his ghosting or diplopia, I am not aware he has had a thorough
diagnosis.  Unless I have missed those posts.  Maybe the
information at the following link:

http://www.optometry.co.uk/files/2c8b0cc4c7b2636385085b3991c9f03e_finl
ay20001006.pdf

      maybe helpful, if John is not aware of the whole diplopia
issue.

      Regards.

Jo


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

Subject: Re: Diplopia

Dear Jo

Subject:  Special Request


Jo > As it happens, in the process of restoring my vision, and
      struggling with a stubborn astigmatism, I have noticed
      "Ghosting" in both eyes.

Otis> I am curious about what you are doing to "restore" your
       vision.

1.  Your starting VA (and refraction)

2.  Your current VA and refraction.

      When did you first see the "ghosting"?

      I now believe that the person (at 20/40) should be checked
for ghosting BEFORE he starts this "vision clearing" work with the
plus.  I know that almost no one checks for it.

      What is your opinion?

      Best,

      Otis

      www.myopiafree.com

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

From:  "Jo

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

Subject:  RE:  Diplopia

Dear Mr.  Brown:

      Thank you for your interest.

      I started my efforts "in-earnest" last June-July, 2004.  I
have followed some of your suggestions.  Basically, I exercise my
vision/eyes about 1-2 hours/day, using Dr Gottlieb's Presbyopia
Exercises, the BaseOutCoins (Black & White) exercise, the
Astigmatic Mirror, and the Snellen chart (at seven & ten feet).

      Glasses I used before starting had the following
prescription:

OD - SPH: +0.50, CYL: -2.50, AXIS: 096, ADD: +2.00

OS - SPH: +0.75, CYL: -1.75, AXIS: 090, ADD: +2.00

      (Trifocal 50%)

      Starting VA (with glasses):  20/20 (Checked by myself in a
normally lighted room, with the Snellen chart at 20 feet.

      Starting VA (wo/ glasses):  Right Eye:  20/70, Left Eye:
20/50

      In May 2004, I did not pass my DMV eye exam, and had the
restriction put on my DL.  In November, 2004, I went to the DMV,
retested, passed the test and had the restriction removed from my
DL.

      When I started my Vision Therapy (VT) efforts, I quit using
my glasses, except for driving (to stay legal).  It was somewhat
troublesome initially; however, as my Presbyopia diminished, it
got more bearable/comfortable.

      I noticed the "Ghosting" from the very beginning.  Before I
could actually see much from a distance, I noticed the ghosting on
the letters of the Gottlieb Presbyopia chart, and the BaseOutCoins
chart. On both eyes, more pronounced on the right eye.  It was
easy to discern with the Astigmatic Mirror, there was (is) a
"shadow" at the tip/base of the lines "in focus." At this point I
can get rid of the ghost in my left eye by giving it time and
blinking while looking at the Snellen chart.  And I notice a
"reduced" ghosting in the right eye, by following the same
practice.

      Current VA (no glasses):  20/20 with both eyes (Checked with
a Snellen chart at 10 feet in a normally lighted room).

      Current VA (no glasses):  20/20 Left eye (get 20/15 with good
lighting), Snellen chart at 10 feet.

      Current VA (no glasses):  20/40 Right eye, Snellen chart at
10 feet.

      I have not gone for an eye exam, nor do I plan to do so, just
to check my "prescription." After some 40 years of being "milked"
by the orthodox/mainstream "professionals," I know better now.

      Regarding my "Opinion" on checking for ghosting before,
BEFORE starting "vision clearing," I would say definitely, yes.
Especially, if one is starting with the advice of a trained
professional VT, and there are complicating issues as discussed in
the reference I sent.  I am also convinced that anyone with any
degree of astigmatism will see some ghosting, and this ghosting
will disappear with additional VT.

      Regards.

      Jo

Dear Mike,

Subject:  Your outstanding success from -2.75 dipoters (20/70)

      Re:  Update

      I am very pleased that you have cleared your distant vision
to better-than 20/40.  That is a major personal accomplishment.

      Your decision to quit "cold turkey" BEFORE you contacted me
was a major step in the right direction.

      Some additional commentary:

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

Mike> I wore my friends +1.5 lens and I looked at my eyechart. I
       read a little better then before I began using the plus. I
       am pretty sure that I have cleared atleast 1.5 diopters off
       of of my origional 2.75 and I still have a year until I see
       my O.D.

Otis> I agree that you are correct.  It would be nice if you had
       your own trial-lens kit, but "borrowing" a lens is a good
       check.  My interest is that you always pass the DMV at
       20/40, and continue working towards 20/20.  (Just don't get
       frustrated -- clearing is a very slow process indeed.)

Mike> I am confident that my next prescription will -1 diopter or
       better and that has me excited.  I am very glad that I made
       decision to use the plus.

Otis> Again, I wish you had your own minus lens to check this.
       Remember, the official (DMV) test is room-illumination.
       Semi-darkness testing yields a profoundly different result.

Mike> I read 20/30 almost all of the time now and the 20/25 quite
       often but 20/20 is still blurry.

Otis> I have received a new "requirement" from Dr.  Judy.  Reading
       1/2 the letters on a line "passes" the line.  The previous
       standard was reading 4 out of 5 letters.

Otis> I have presented you with John M's statement about
       "ghosting".  That is a concern, but I personally would
       prefer to "clear" to 20/20 or 20/15 and "accept" some
       ghosting (slight shadow) if that is part of the "bargin".


Sincerely, Otis

Mike

Dear Friends,

Subject:  Reset of the original MyopiaFree Group.

This NewsGroup has been revised.  Please re-join this group to follow
the analysis and conversations.

Otis

My name is Otis Brown, and I am interested in the prevention of
nearsighedness.  Prevention is not easy -- but with work it is possible
to clear your vision if you begin the preventive process before you
begin wearing a minus lens.  You are invited to post here, and to ask
questions of the group.  We learn best when we help others.