AirQual.txt

Subject:  First Class Requirements for Flight Qualification in the
Airforce.

Re:  Naked eye must be 20/70 or better.

When I discuss "functional" vision (at 20/70) this is the defintion.

It is my belief, that a person with this level of vision could
SLOWLY clear his Snellen (and refractive STATE) by intelligent and
highly-motivated use of a preventive plus lens -- in the
manner of Captain Fred Deakins and Dr. Stirling Colgate.

This type of effort (and its success) has been suggested
by Dr. C. Prentice.

Further, Dr. Young's study intimates that a PREVENTIVE study
could achieve a good degree of success.


Best,

Otis

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


VISION & REFRACTIVE ERROR STANDARDS.

Vision Limits for Each Eye

Flying Class I

Distant Vision

Uncorrected:  20/70

Corrected; 20/20

Near Vision:

Uncorrected 20/20

Corrected:  -

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

Any Meridan:  +2.00 -1.50

Astigmatism:  1.50

Anisometropia: 2.00

Contact lenses, Notes 5, 6, 7, 1, 3


===========

Notes:

Contact Lenses:

1.  Use of hard, rigid, or gas permeable (hard) contact lenses
      within 3 months before the examination or soft contact lenses
      1 month before examination is prohibited. Document SF 88
      appropriately to ensure this requirement has been met.

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

General:


2.  These medical standards apply for USAFA, AFROTC cadets at the
      time of AF commissioning physi cal, AF active duty members,
      civilian applicants for flying training, and applicants from
      the Reserve and Guard components during the initial flying
      physical.


10.  The Air Force Chief of Staff retains Exception To Policy
      (ETP) authority for vision and refractive limits for UFT
      applicants.


12.  For qualification purposes, cycloplegic refraction readings
      should be recorded for that required to read the 20/20 line
      in each eye.  However, continue refraction to best visual
      acuity and report the best achievable corrected visual acuity
      as a clinical baseline.  (Thus, acuity and refractive error
      numbers may not correlate).  Cycloplegic refractions that
      cannot achieve the 20/20 line will need clinical evaluation
      or re-evaluation.


13.  Crewmembers who wear corrective spectacles or contact lenses
      must carry a spare set of clear pre scription spectacles on
      their person while performing aircrew duties, see AFI 11-206,
      paragraph 6.3.3.  Additionally, only 15 percent (N-iS)
      transmittance neutral density gray spectacle lenses are
      approved for flying duty, see AFR 167-3, para 2-4d.  Consult
      other guidance, such as AFMOA or MAJCOM policy let ters
      pertaining to aircrew spectacles.

At last -- some wisdom about the plus --  in
this case +1 diotpers.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=wnDNXAemLjk&feature=related

But my are not Vera Wang.  They
are good quality "readers" of +2.75 diopters
for $5.

Beats paying $350 for minus lenses.

And the trial-lens kit (to confirm refractive STATE
of +1/2 diotper) costs about $50.

Best,

Otis

Dear friend,

If I am a pilot, entering a four year college -- and I am 6 foot tall
and
weight 190 pounds (and I am REQUIRED to weigh 180 pounds to qualify
as a pilot) then I have a "challenge".

I can't afford $500 for a "office" scale, but I can obtain my own
scale for
$50.

Then, I can take necessary steps (go hungry, work-out, etc.) and
confirm
that
my weight gets well below 180 pounds.

It is either that, or I don't qualify.  Losing 10 pounds is not
easy.  It is
a matter of self-training and desire.

In a similar way, if my Snellen is 20/70, and I MUST pass 20/40 (Look
at the current Airforce regulations), then I have a choice.

Either I work with the plus, Bates, and/or any of these methods, but
the end result must be that I PASS THE SNELLEN AT 20/40 OR BETTER.

If you have not previously worn a minus lens, then that could take
from 6 months to a year.

But that complete process would be under my (or the pilots) control.

This is where the Focometer comes in.  The person could self-confirm
his results with the need for NO medical involvement.

You say it can't be done?  The OD says "...it can't be done ...
therefore WE
WILL
NOT LET YOU DO IT!"

Give me a break!

Lead, follow -- or get out of the way.

Engineering-science best,

Otis


========

> Otis Brown wrote:

>> Dear Friend,

Otis>> A retinoscope is a good instrument, and $400 a good price.

Friend> Well the real objection is that you can't measure your own
refraction with a retinoscope, no matter what the price!

Friend> Maybe you were thinking of an autorefractor for $2000?

Otis> No, I was thinking of the Focomter for $500.

Best,

Otis

> Don't use the "cheap readers" for anything more than spotting a phone
number or
  > other very short term tasks.

So says the optician.

Here's what the American Academy of Ophthalmology says:

http://www.medem.com/MedLB/article_detaillb.cfm?article_ID=ZZZKB23HH4C&sub_cat=2\
017

<<What�s Wrong with Drug Store Glasses?

Absolutely nothing. While the glasses that are sold for around $10 in
your local drug store may not be pretty, they are functional as reading
glasses. Cheap glasses, whether low quality or poorly made, will not
harm your eyes. If your Eye M.D. prescribes reading glasses, and you
want to save some money, stop by the local drug store and see if the
glasses there are comfortable. Because that�s the most important thing:
comfort. It won�t matter if you spend $20 or $200 on your new glasses if
they don�t feel right.>>

--Alex

Dear Prevention-minded friend,


I love people in "medicine".  They have an impossible job -- in
dealing with "you and I".

But that is IN THEIR OFFICE.  In that "context" I am not
going to argue about it.

But when they come OUT of their office, and insist that
we are all INCOMPETENT to make OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS,
(as engineers and scientists) then I must truly OBJECT.

I will not bother "posting" this response -- because you are
certain to reject it.

When I make an engineering measurement -- it is OBJECTIVE.

When I measure my Snellen at 20/20 -- IT IS OBJECTIVE.

When I measure my refractive STATE at +1/2 diopter -- IT IS OBJECTIVE.

When I report it on i-see -- it is magically transformed into
a "subjective" measurement.

No one else OTHER THAT A MEDICAL PERSON thinks that way.

In their arrogance -- everyone except them -- is incompetent.  That
is the
real meaning of the word "subjective".

But some more commentary:


========

Re: Is measuring visual acuity yourself a subjective measure?

"jamestaylor250" <jamestaylor250@...> wrote:

James> Judy,

James> Isn't measuring visual acuity yourself rather objective? To
make a comparison: orthostatic hypotension: when it happens, you know
it happens, and you know it for sure. Even though you measure
your visual acuity yourself, it seems to be rather objective to me?
(at least, if you simply report what you truly saw and so didn't lie.)

James> It seems to be one the positive things about vision and vision
  improvement: if your vision improves, you literally "see" it. Sure
you can lie about it, but I wouldn't call that "subjective" as
opposed to objective.

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

Judy>  Otis and I had a long string about this that I do not wish to
repeat.
You can look it up on i-see archives or on sci.med.vision archives.

Otis> Yes, it is the same "attitude" that prevented Maurice from
presenting his paper arguing FOR prevention.

Judy>  Any measure of visual acuity that involves the person
identifying
symbols is subjective.

Otis> A big BULL____.  on that one.

Judy>  Objective measures of visual acuity do not
involve the person.

Otis> The hell they don't.  When I sit in a chair in an office, and
read
the 20/20 line -- that is objective to me -- same as at home.  When
the person (in the office) hears me read those letters -- it is
subjective
to HER -- because I  am making the measurements.

  Judy>  Examples of objective VA measures include
kinetic nystgmus measures and visual evoked potential (using
electrodes and checkerboard patterns).

Otis> More scientific blindness.

Judy

Subject:  My 20/20, and use of "readers".

I am now objectively checking BOTH my
Snellen (20/20), and my refractive state -- at
+1/2 diopters.

I also check my reasonable "near" FUNCTIONAL
vision by reading and typing this on my
computer screen.

Thus, I am using "readers", not to "see better"
but to keep my refractive STATE postive.

That is a profoundly different reason
for using these PREVENTIVE readers.

Oh, also, an exam costs $200, (which is
reasonable), but the glasses cost $200 -- for
a total of $400.

The readers (of the same quality) cost $5.

Here is the "majoirty-opinion" on
the subject.

Enjoy,

Otis

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

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:42:51 -0700, The Real Bev
<bashley101+use...@...>
wrote:


>Robert Martellaro wrote:

>> silvere2 <sylviaelli...@...> wrote:


>>>I realize glasses (or cheap readers) will
>>>be needed to get the opposite vision of whichever I pick, and no
>>>outcome is 100% predictable.


>> Don't use the "cheap readers" for anything more than spotting a
phone number or
>> other very short term tasks.


>With all due respect, could you explain this comment?  When I wear
my
>contacts (distance) I use cheap (99-Cent-Store, some with those nice
>spring hinges) readers in various diopters depending on what I want
to
>do -- for hours at a time.



It's a good bet that the focal length will be equal for each eye if
they're worn
over CLs, although it's also a good bet that there will be unwanted
prism and
possibly some residual astigmatism.

It gets worse if you don't wear CLs, with the addition of some
disparity in lens
power eye to eye, with the chance for uncorrected astigmatism
increasing to
likely, along with the aforementioned prismatic errors. It would be
bordering on
medical negligence to encourage the use of glasses that are the wrong
prescription for our primary pair of glasses.


It sounds like you can tolerate OTC readers, and can sustain this
tolerance for
long term tasks. Have you ever had Rx readers? Ask your doctor to do
an "over
refraction" and try a pair next time.


Robert Martellaro
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Optician/Owner
Roberts Optical
Wauwatosa Wi.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself."
- Richard Feynman

FYHistor.txt

Dear Scientific Friends,


Subject:  Francis Young's scientific works -- forgotten.

Re:  Summarization about what is possible -- in the future.


I met Francis Young after being invited to a meeting of
behavioral optometrists by Dr. Ron Berger, about
1975.

I thought it would be of great value to understand Francis
Young's work since I felt that the correct answer
had to come from science and the facts.

As a result, He made the results of some un-published
studies and facts available to me, that were essential
to understanding the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye.

In my published works, I always solicited and expert in the
given field of study.  My interest is in engineering and
science, and the facts as they can be understood.

Thus Ron Berger served as a coauthor as did Francis Young
Karel Montor and others.

In 1995 Francis sent me his published works, but since I
was working full time I had no time to review them in detail.

There was some very valuable information in the Eskimo
data that is essential for understanding the behavior
of the fundamental eye (and its refractive STATES) that
simply has not been digested.

The primate studies show much the same thing.  To briefly
summarize the refractive STATES of the fundamental eye:

1.  Primates in the "wild" have a positive refractive STATE that is
positive, by about +0.7 diopters with a Standard Deviation of
0.7 diopters.  This means that 96 percent of the refractive STATES
range from -0.8 diopters to +2.1 diopters.  (Note:  Because this
was a CYCLOPLEGIC measurement, the -0.8 diopter value had excellent
vision.  This is a artifact of a cycloplegic measurement RATHER
than a Snellen measurement.)

2.  Eskimos in the "wild" have a positive refractive STATE that
is positive, about +1.8 diopters with a Standard Deviation of
1.3 diopters This means that 96 percent of these Eskimos.
had excellent vision, with the range being from
-0.8 diopters to +4.4 diopters.  (Again the
difference between cycloplegic measurement does NOT mean
that the -0.8 disputer Eskimos did not good vision.)

The refractive STATES of the fundamental eye in a long-term
"near" environment.  (I must be stated that there is no
QUANTATIVE measurement of "near" or "far" environments.  This
is the problem of judging HUMAN populations.  Only an experiment
where you can CONTROL the accommodation system -- with a negative
lens -- can
yield and accurate model for the natural eye's behavior.)

1.  Primates kept in a changed environment for seven years or more
had an AVERAGE negative refractive STATE.  The average is
-1.6 diopters with a Standard Deviation of 2 diopters.
The range of refractive STATES run between ____________________

2.  Eskimos in a "reading" environment have a refractive STATE
of -2.1 diopters and a Standard Deviation of 2 diopters.  This
means the range is from ___________________

What is very important to obtain the behavior of the entire natural
eye, with specific data concerning the change in Standard Deviation
with a long-term "near" environment.

Basically what happens is that when a population of fundamental
eyes are placed in a long-term "near" environment, the
AVERAGE value of accommodation "follows" the change in
ACCOMMODATION (as a natural process), and the Standard
Deviation will broaden the Standard Deviation.

Thus the characteristic of the refractive STATES of the
natural eye (entire population) is that the refractive
state (standard deviation) changes from 1.3 diopters
to 2.0 diopters.

Why is this information important?

In a number of studies Francis Young recorded:

1.  The average value of refractive STATE for the population.

2.  The Standard Deviation, and

3.  The absolute range of refractive STATES.

In his bifocal study he failed to record the Standard Deviation,
which is a serious omission in my judgment.  I can estimate
it to be about 1.8 diopters, but in any future proposed study
of PREVENTING a negative refractive STATE, collecting
that information would be crucial.

But after this review, (and anyone else who takes
plus-prevention seriously)  can understand this issue.

The so-called bifocal studies.  What the control-group showed
(in six studies) was that the un-protected refractive STATE
went down by -1/2 diopter per year.

Therefore any SUCCESSFUL preventive study must show a growing
DIFFERENCE between the test group and the control group.

The claim of the majority-opinion is that the Oakley-Young
study was a "fluke", and that the preventive-plus had
NO EFFECT on the eye's refractive state.  I Strongly
disagree with that judgment of the eye's behavior.

Francis Young (who ran an excellent study) showed a growing
difference between the test and control groups of
1/2 diopter per year.

Thus, my judgment is that this value is correct, and if
a more forceful effort would have the effect of
of successful PREVENTION.

The question is this -- HOW DO YOU DO IT?

That becomes the real issue for all of us.

More later.

Best,

Otis

When a person says he "does not check", somthing, that
means that I must PERSONALLY do my own checking.

For that reason, I:

1. Read my Snellen, and

2. Confirm my refractive STATE -- myself.

Let us just call this an issue of "trust",
and the true meaning of the second-opinion on
the subject.

Here is the majority-opinion about this subject
by Judy:

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


Although I don't routinely measure unaided acuity, I did today for
patients aged 60+ with low distance prescriptions correcting to at
least 20/20. It provides an sample for you of the natural variation
in acuity and the effect of astigmatism on near uncorrected acuity.

Here are some results

1)
R +1.50 -2.00 x 120 far 20/25 near 20/60
L +0.75 -1.00 x 060 far 20/25 near 20/80

2)
R plano -1.00 x 165 far 20/25 near 20/25
L -0.50 -0.75 x 010 far 20/40 near 20/25

3)
R -0.25 -1.50 x 150 far 20/40 near 20/25
L -0.50 -0.75 x 075 far 20/40 near 20/25

4)
R +0.25 -0.75 x 015 far 20/20 near 20/80
L -0.50 far 20/25 near 20/25

5)
R +1.00 -1.50 x 095 far 20/25 near 20/100
L +1.00 -1.50 x 085 far 20/25 near 20/100

Some of these patients wear progressives full time (#3,#2 ), some
only use readers (#4,#5) and some don't use glasses at all (#1).

What is also interesting is how they describe their vision. Numbers
2,3 and 5 say it's "a little better" with glasses but that they
prefer the clarity. Number 1 and 4 say that their vision is "pretty
good" without glasses and #4 only uses them for fine print and in
low light. Number 1 admitted that she sometimes struggles with
reading labels on pill bottles, she uses a small magnifing glass for
them.

I think this supports Max's call for prescription posting and not
just acuity posting. This was a very typical day for me and I think
you can understand why most eye doctors would not put much stock in
reports about better uncorrected vision meaning refractive error had
been eliminated.

Judy

Subject:  To avoid conflict, and have an exact definition
I use the term "refractive STATE".

If a person RESPONDS by using that exact measurement
term -- then a degree of "intellectual honesty" can
develop.

Here is a discussion of the issue:

http://www.thedesignmatrix.com/content/the-10-signs-of-intellectual-
honesty/

Or, said in another paraphrase:

"To thine own self be true ... for it will then
follow that thou can not be false with any man."

Best,

Otis

Subject: The essence of preventive leadership.

This is a statement by David of "imagination blindness".
(iblindness.org)

For any serious study of PREVENTION, I think this
must be the first step.  It is about education
and true "empowerment".

Here's David:

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

Actually I don't like the word "cure" either, but for a slightly
different reason. When people say that they want to cure their
eyesight, it sounds like they want something to fix them, like a
miracle cure. But it isn't about applying a cure at all. It's at a
deeper level than that. It's about standing up and taking
responsibility for the fact that you have caused and are continually
causing your own problems, and addressing the situation by learning
to handle things differently.

That's why I have no interest anymore in addressing people who are
skeptical about the process or who expend the time or energy to blame
a method or exercise for being ineffective and for ultimately causing
their grief. If someone is going to expend any time or energy in
blaming something other than himself for his current problems, he
simply doesn't currently have the sense of personal responsibility
that I think is necessary to reverse long-standing vision problems.
This sense of responsibility is important not because you are without
help but because nobody can help you as much as you can help
yourself. The words we use are very telling about our actual views.
Some new members arrive here and from what they say or how they say
it they appear to be quite helpless, not only needing to acquire
information but pretty much needing someone to do the work for them
because they do not feel powerful or capable enough.

Ultimately it's a very simple thing: stop straining your eyes. I like
to mention that as a reminder when I feel like I might be giving the
impression that this is a daunting and complicated process.

Dave

Dear Friend,

In science -- you need clear definitions.

With out it -- you just have confusion.

So I define "accommodation" in an objective sense.  The ability
of the retina (by sensing micro-blur, and continouous motion) to
change the TOTAL POWER of the eye within broad limits.

That is stop-to-stop,  (Judy's so-called, "amplitude" of
accommodation).

When the refractive STATE of the eye "moves negative" (through a long-
term
change in AVERAGE accommodation), as per the applied -3 diopter lens,
the eye DOES NOT FAIL, it just develops a  negative refractive STATE.

More commentary:



What accommodation means (was: Snellen clearing for Jean)


--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, John Bershak <jbershak@...> wrote:


John  > The problem I have with the admonition to "read your Snellen"
is
that people with myopia have lost the ability to accommodate at
distance.

Judy>  Not meaning to be a harpie, but you really do need to find
different
words.

Otis> So we have TWO different meanings to the word "ACCOMMODATION"

Judy>  Accommodation means an increase in total power of the eye.


Otis> Better said, change in relative power of the eye.  (See the
eye's
normal response to that applied -3 diopter lens.)

Judy> If a
myope accommodates at distance, the myopia will increase and vision
will get worse.

Otis>  She is making this up!!!  That slight blur is when the
accommodation
system "hits the stops".


Judy> Even in the Bates model of myopia, myopes are
accommodating too much at distance -- not a loss of ability.

Otis>  She is making this up also.  To the best of my knowledge, Bates
never said this.  Can you Judy, or anyone provide a published
reference?

Best,

Otis


Judy

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject: When an "eye exam" is of value.

Please note, the preventive methods I suggest
would have the person doing the following.

1.  Reading his Snellen, to confirm his
Visual acuity as excellent.

2.  Using his own trial-lens kit to determine
his refractive STATE -- to his own satisfaction.

Then, when required a MEDICAL exam, looking
for the following conditions:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EOVwmGvQI5k

But, if all medical issues are elliminated,
and you determine your visual acuity is
excellent, with no medical problems,
then, you should consider using the
plus (for all close work), to clear
keep you distant vision clear for life,
and your refractive STATE positive.

That is how I would say you must separate
true MEDICAL issues from your
own control of your distant vision.

Scientific best,

Otis

Here is a discussion on HOW optometrists
"see" their future.

Enjoy,

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

Subject: [optometrysucks] OD's really aren't needed
To: optometrysucks@yahoogroups.com



One of our members sent this email last week. I agree completely with
the writer.

The thing about optometry... honestly we're not needed. you look at
most countries around the world, there are no optometrists. we created
a market in the u.s. using the law. we made it where you had to get an
rx from us every two years. we're the middle man. most countries have
only opticians and omds. and if you look objectively, seriously only
opticians and omds are needed. i don't have my own private practice so
i don't know how hard it is to start your own business. i've been
weasling w/ corporate optometry decently happy w/ my pay although not
happy w/ work conditions. i would hope private optometry paid more but
as reading from this board (and from the grapevine) private practice
is
war.

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



Re: [optometrysucks] OD's really aren't needed


Private practice, if you depend on third party plans, is pretty
hairy.  You need to have a specialty such at VT, or do some serious
PR to generate private pay patients to do well.  If you are passive
about your practice you may find it easier to slide through your
career as an employee.  My clients are reporting the downturn has
hurt their primary care, but VT is steady or growing.  Think VT is
bunk?  Check out the new data on CI.  VT now has substantial science
showing not only that it is effective, but what makes it work.  That
it is still doing well in the downturn is the usual situation
historically.  Parents may put off their own new glasses, but once
they discover that VT is what their kid needs, they find a way to
handle it.  Now, wait a bit for the usual unknowing response about VT.

Optometrist

Insight2.txt


Subject:  Additional commentary on Maurice Brumer ODs work
           to prevent the development of a negative refractive STATE
           for the eye.

Enjoy,

Otis


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

      Editorial

      INSIGHT September 2008

      Brumer vindicated after 32-year battle with peers over myopia

      "There is evidence to suggest eye strain can be the cause of
short-sight"

      Victoria optometrist Maurice Brumer has been vindicated after
a 32-year battle with colleagues over the causes and treatment of
myopia, with Optometrists Association Australia agreeing with his
claim that eyestrain can cause myopia.

      Mr. Brumer is unemployed and has been forced to draw
unemployment benefits after being pilloried by his colleagues over
the years in regard to his claims about myopia.

      The vindication came when the national professional services
manager of Optometrists Association Australia, Ms Shirley Loh,
said on ABC television's `Midday Show' on 7 August:  "With
children there is evidence to suggest that eye strain can be the
cause of shortsightedness or actually make it worse, and if we can
prevent or reduce that strain as much as possible that will
definitely help with children."

      With those words, the arguments of Mr. Brumer's opponents
collapsed, particularly those of the organizers of the
now-disbanded Section 7 � Optometry at the Australian and New
Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science, the Victorian
College of Optometry and Optometrists Association Australia for
the past 32 years against Mr. Brumer's belief that myopia can be
caused by eyestrain.

      In what has been one of the most scandalous episodes in
optometrical history, possibly worldwide, Mr. Brumer's standing up
for his beliefs ended up with him being ejected from Optometrists
Association Australia AA (Victoria division) after a kangaroo
court of his peers found against him.

      The episode began in late 1976 when, in response to a general
invitation to members of the then Australian Optometrical
Association (Victoria division), now OAA Victoria, Mr. Brumer sent
to the organizers a paper titled `Eyestrain, its causes,
consequences and treatment' that he wished to present at ANZAAS in
1977.

      The thrust of the abstract was that eyes were designed prior
to civilization when prolonged near-seeing did not exist and they
are not in `normal' use in today's society; that prolonged near
seeing is abnormal seeing; that it is that strain which `wears
out' eyes, causes blindness, nervous disorders, headaches,
learning difficulties and general bodily malaise; and that
conventional optometric care, totally ignoring eyestrain, seeks
only the correction of visual defects.

      Also, that the development of myopia is accelerated 20 times
when corrected as a visual defect; the belief that myopia is
inherited is a myth; decades of mounting evidence proves the
validity of the eyestrain concept of myopia development; bifocal
glasses for young myopes which reduce eyestrain and control the
condition have been advocated for 100 years and used in Australia
since 1895; and the eye-care professions have resisted change
irrationally and fearfully, unwilling to admit that what has gone
on before to be wrong and harmful, which is a tragedy for the
public.

      The abstract ended:  "This paper will be an attempt to direct
the future to end the disgrace of the past."

      Mr. Brumer was advised by the executive of the ANZAAS
organizing committee that his paper, by then changed to `The
stargazer who turned scribe', appeared to be a report involving
clinical observations rather than scientific content and as such
did not appear to be properly placed in the scientific congress.

      His abstract must contain details of his conclusions and the
bases on which those had been formulated, the committee's
executive said.

      The abstract ended:  "This paper will be an attempt to direct
the future to end the disgrace of the past."

      Three months later, the committee advised Mr. Brumer his
proposed paper had been rejected on the grounds that it was
presenting theories at times radically different from those
presently held by the ophthalmic professions, without any
documentation of supportive clinical or experimental evidence,
adding that the committee considered a public science congress was
an inappropriate forum for an unsubstantiated paper of that type
and that an effort should be made to find an alternative forum for
his theories.

      Dissatisfied, Mr. Brumer took the matter into the public
arena, specifically on Melbourne radio station 3AW and in The Age
and The Australian newspapers. The Victoria AOA was asked to
provide a spokesman, which it agreed to do, but on the morning of
the interview with Mr. Brumer, the AOA advised 3AW that its
spokesman would not be appearing.

      Mr. Brumer also wrote to the then governor-general, Sir John
Kerr, who was patron of ANZAAS, however he was advised that Sir
John was not able to intervene in the matter.

      Questions were also asked in Federal Parliament about Mr.
Brumer's treatment at the hands of the ANZAAS committee, the
University of Melbourne and the Victoria AOA.

      In October 1977, the Victoria AOA wrote to Mr. Brumer advising
him that many members had complained about the radio and newspaper
appearances and that its council had found his conduct and actions
"injurious to the character and interests of the association."

      Also, that his statements to the media "alleged malpractice
by your colleagues, and you have implied that you have superior
knowledge and techniques � such conduct and statements have
achieved publicity which denigrates other members of the
association and causes anxiety and concern to many of their
patients."

      Furthermore, that the council "now reprimands you in the
strongest terms, and you are cautioned that any continuation of
this recent or similar behavior will be further acted upon."

      In a letter in October 1978 from the then professor of
optometry at the University of Melbourne, Mr. Brumer was told:
"the treatment concepts have been rejected [by the organizing
committee] because of their lack of scientific evidence"; a study
he had referred to "must be rejected because it failed to take
elementary scientific precautions to exclude experimental bias
(the experimenter determining the amount of myopia knew which
patients were in the treatment group and which were in the control
group"; and "the difference in myopia between the two groups is so
small as to be within the measurement tolerance and is most likely
due to experimenter bias".

      One of the studies Mr. Brumer referred to was by Oakley and
Young which found a small but statistically significant reduction
in the rate of progression in myopia in a group of young patients
treated with bifocal glasses when compared to a non-treatment
group, however that was rejected by the professor on the above
grounds.

      Mr. Brumer also cited findings of studies back in the late
19th century to support his views.

      Some years later, Mr. Brumer was permitted to present a paper
at an ANZAAS meeting held in Auckland.

      He was heard in silence.  While he was presenting his paper,
his briefcase was filled with water.

      The then professor of optometry at the University of New
South Wales claimed whilst in New Zealand that Mr. Brumer was "the
Milan Brich of optometry".

      "With children there is evidence to suggest that eye strain
can be the cause of shortsightedness or actually make it worse,
and if we can prevent or reduce that strain as much as possible
that will definitely help with children."

      By the early 1990s, Mr. Brumer had been readmitted to the AOA,
however as he was addressing a meeting of members as a full member
on a matter before the meeting, a gag motion was moved and passed.
Mr. Brumer defied the gag and kept speaking; the chairman of the
meeting threatened to call the police.

      Chaos reigned for some time, as Mr. Brumer made it clear that
he would welcome the arrival of the police.  After half an hour,
he was informed the police would not be called.  At one stage a
red-faced member, breathing heavily and up close to him, strongly
criticized his behavior.

      Then followed a number of clashes with national and state AOA
leaders at various meetings.

      Mr. Brumer's performances at those meetings led to him being
summonsed to appear before the executive of the Victoria AOA in
1993.  After two marathon three-hour addresses to the executive
(on two different occasions), he was formally expelled from the
association for a second time.

      None of his defenses before the executive was ever sent to
association members.

      In recent times, Mr. Brumer has faxed members of OAA and the
Victoria Optometrists Registration Board many times concerning the
rejection of his papers and his continued concern about the
treatment of myopia, eliciting a response by OAA that its members
should buy fax machines that can filter out his faxes. Mr. Brumer
has now ceased sending faxes in volume.

Insight1.txt


Subject: Maurice Brumer ODs work to initiate plus-prevention
          at the threshold.

Enjoy,

Otis


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

      INSIGHT September 2008

      Editorial


      Maurice Brumer's trials and tribulations


      Victoria optometrist Maurice Brumer's 32-year long dispute
with the organizers of meetings of the now-defunct Section 7,
Optometry, Australian and New Zealand Association for the
Advancement of Science, with the Victorian College of Optometry
and with leaders and floor members of the Australian Optometrical
Association (now Optometrists Association Australia) must surely
now be brought to an end, following his vindication by the
national AOA, even though it was OAA Victoria that hounded him
from its membership, not once but twice, for his beliefs about the
causes and treatment of myopia.

      Mr. Brumer's stance on the role of eyestrain in the
development of myopia has been vindicated by a senior staff member
of national OAA on an ABC television program, who said:  "With
children there is evidence to suggest that eyestrain can be the
cause of shortsightedness or actually make it worse, and if we can
prevent or reduce that strain as much as possible that will
definitely help with children."

      It couldn't have been more plainly stated than that.  It is
what Mr. Brumer in 1976 attempted to gain agreement to put before
his colleagues at ANZAAS in 1977, and which years later he was
able to present to an ANZAAS meeting in New Zealand, and it was
what had earlier led to him being subjected to demands for
"scientific evidence" to back up his claims, being abused by
members of his profession, having his defenses against allegations
against him treated in a cavalier manner when considered by
several hostile meetings of AOA members, ending with him being
brought before what can best be described as a kangaroo court that
found against him, leading to him being thrown out of his
professional association for good.

      His going to the media with the story caused considerable
angst among his peers.

      Yes, earlier on Mr. Brumer was supposedly offered an
opportunity to present his viewpoint in an optometrical
publication, but that offer was never made to him.  In any case,
the deal was that he would have to have arranged for "the taking
of elementary scientific precautions to exclude experimental
bias", etc, etc.

      He refused to do so, maintaining that had already been done
in other studies, some going back to the late 19th century, and
that in any case he did not have the resources (he was a sole
practitioner in private practice) to undertake what was required
of him.

      Over the years, he stuck to his guns, not retreating one inch
from his stated beliefs.

      Curiously, while all of this was going on,
behavioral/OEP/holistic optometry was gaining ground, with out
incurring the wrath of either the OAA or the VCO, with the School
of Optometry and Vision Science at the University of New South
Wales adding the study of at least parts of this trinity to its
curriculum.  The majority of optometrists in Australia are said to
not subscribe to the trinity, mainly because they do not see
benefits of the techniques.

      Now, out of the blue, comes a report commissioned by the
College of Optometrists in the United Kingdom containing the
damning news that a recent, second study of behavioral optometry
concludes that many of its techniques should be considered
unproven until more rigorous trials are undertaken, which
corresponds with a previously- published paper reporting the
results of a study in 2000 that also concluded that there was a
lack of controlled clinical trials to support behavioral
management strategies.

      The latest review, complied by Dr. Brendan Barrett, evaluated
the evidence in support of behavioral approaches as it stands in
2008.  Dr. Barrett found that the required studies have not yet
been conducted and, for this reason "the practices advocated by
behavioral optometrists cannot be recommended".  Clearly that is
academic shorthand for the suspicions of the majority of
optometrists (and ophthalmologists) that it is all mumbo jumbo,
without "scientific evidence" to give it legitimacy, similar to
the dubious use of expensive tinted lenses to treat dyslexia, that
was all the rage in the 1960s and 1970s.

      So on one hand, the beliefs of Mr. Brumer seemingly cannot be
tolerated, yet the trinity of behavioral/ OEP/holistic optometry
can be, even though its supporting evidence is thin on the ground.
Where has been the demand for "scientific evidence" in regard to
the trinity?  There hasn't been much if any, according to Dr.
Barrett.  Now the proponents of the trinity, including academia,
will have to come up with the goods.

      Were he to consider he has been victimized, Mr. Brumer could
be forgiven for believing that he has been, and that it's not what
you know, but who you know that counts.

      The whole debacle brings to mind the Dreyfus Affair, which
was a political scandal that divided France from the 1890s to the
early 1900s.  It involved the conviction for treason in November
1894 of Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a young French artillery officer.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment, which he began to serve in
solitary confinement on devil's Island in French Guiana.

      Two years later, in 1896, the real culprit was brought to
light and identified.  However, French high-level military
officials dismissed or ignored this new evidence which exonerated
Dreyfus.  Thus, in January 1898, military judges unanimously
acquitted the real culprit on the second day of his trial.  Worse,
French military counter-intelligence officers fabricated false
documents designed to secure Dreyfus' conviction as a spy for
Germany.

      They were all eventually exposed, in large part due to a
resounding public intervention by writer Emile Zola in January
1898.  The case had to be re-opened, and Dreyfus was brought back
from Guiana in 1899 to be tried again. The intense political and
judicial scandal that ensued divided French society between those
who supported Dreyfus (the dreyfusards) and those who condemned
him (the anti-dreyfusards).

      Eventually, all the accusations against Alfred Dreyfus were
demonstrated to be baseless.  Dreyfus was exonerated and
reinstated as a major in the French Army in 1906.  He later served
during the whole of World War I, ending his service with the rank
of Lieutenant-Colonel.

      Sound familiar?  It probably does to Mr. Brumer.

      What would be interesting to find out is how many of Mr.
Brumer's opponents would have fought as hard as he has in the
interest of his myopic patients, with the limited resources
available to a sole practitioner.

      Mr. Brumer deserves readmission to the Victoria OAA; lifelong
honorary membership would go some way to making amends for his
treatment.  But he most likely won't hold his breath waiting.

Sounds more like academic lynching.

http://www.myopia.org/brumerpaper.htm

I would suggest you read the two links provided by
Don Rehem at the end of this paper.

Enjoy,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:


Subject: What is the role of an optometrist?

From:  Optometry Sucks:
================

Moderator>  One of our members sent this email last week. I agree
completely with the writer.

HonestOD> The thing about optometry... honestly we're not needed. you
look at most countries around the world, there are no optometrists.

we created a market in the u.s. using the law.

we made it where you had to get an rx from us every two years.

we're the middle man. most countries have only opticians and omds.
and if you look objectively, seriously only
opticians and omds are needed.

i don't have my own private practice so
i don't know how hard it is to start your own business.

i've been weasling w/ corporate optometry decently happy w/ my pay
although not happy w/ work conditions.

i would hope private optometry paid more but
as reading from this board (and from the grapevine) private practice
is war.

=========================
This man's objective honesty is indeed refreshing.


Best,

Otis

Additional remark on optometry sucks:

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

Are OD's needed


just finished 10+ hrs (required CE).  The instructors are all ivory
tower profs who are medically oriented. They probably have no idea
what to do with a phoroter/trial frame.These guys and gals are simply
out of touch with mainstream optometry.

Don't get me wrong, it is important to be aware of pathology. Still I
doubt that the general population is going to ditch eyeglasses/'CL's
anytime soon

Tom

For your interest.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5PU-7hGF0sI

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Judy,

Subject: Using CORRECT words to describe measurements.

Please use the language I use to describe exactly
what is measures, i.e., refractive STATE.

What I said was that when you place a -3 diopter
lens on a population of NATURAL eyes, their
refractive STATE change by -2 diopters in
less than a year.

I do not see the word "dangerous" in the above
proven dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye -- why
do you say it?

Judy>  If those who think the minus lens is dangerous did a controlled
study, I fully expect it would also be published.

Otis> A test of the dynamic properties of a population
of natural eye has already been conducted.

Otis> You DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF
THAT KIND OF SCIENTIFIC TESTING.

Otis>  I regret that truth -- but I can't change
your "failed" understanding of objective
science.

Second-opinion best,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> With a refractive STATE of -1 to -1.5 diopter, and
> a Snellen for 20/50 to 20/60, you could probably
> clear your Snellen to a reasonable 20/40 or better
> in about three to six months.

But those who are looking at LASIK are not satisfied with 20/40.
They want, and can get, 20/20.

>
> > I have had cataract surgery.   It was excellent,
>  and I knew the risks.  But it seems to me
>  that Lasik is far greater risk that the
>  the required operation that I had.

Your perception is incorrect.  Cataract surgery has a much higher
complication rate than LASIK.

Judy

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> As I said many times -- all "objection" and
> "questions" about the minus lens -- and its
> PROVEN effect on the eye's refractive STATE -- WILL
> BE REJECTED.

> In fact papers have been submitted -- AND REJECTED -- concerning
> the second-opinion, that a negative refractive STATE of
> the fundamental eye can be prevented.
>
> Dr. Maurice Brumer did exactly that, but since his
> concept was HATED, his analysis was rejected.

Maurice did not do a study, he wrote a paper about his personal
opinions and it was rejected because it was not a scientific paper.

Francis Young did a study with control groups, stats etc and was
accepted.  Many other scientific papers looking at bifocals, drops,
undercorrection, light, near work etc etc etc have been accepted and
published.

If those who think the minus lens is dangerous did a controlled
study, I fully expect it would also be published.

Judy

Dear Judy,

You NEVER "get it".

As I said many times -- all "objection" and
"questions" about the minus lens -- and its
PROVEN effect on the eye's refractive STATE -- WILL
BE REJECTED.

Here is the case-in-point.

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

For your information:

In fact papers have been submitted -- AND REJECTED -- concerning
the second-opinion, that a negative refractive STATE of
the fundamental eye can be prevented.

Dr. Maurice Brumer did exactly that, but since his
concept was HATED, his analysis was rejected.

Here is part of his review. I doubt that these people
have the GUTS to begin a discussion along these
lines.

Been there -- done that.

+++++++++


A COURAGEOUS EYE DOCTOR DOCUMENTS THE SECONDARY EFFECT OF USING A
NEGATIVE LENS


EYESTRAIN - ITS CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND TREATMENT

By Dr. Maurice Brumer, Frankston, 3199, Australia

.. . . A succession of practicing optometrists have followed Fournet
[a
pioneer in the use of the plus lens] to this day, all convinced of
this major shortcoming [use of a negative lens] in eye care. They have
all been successfully ignored or treated as cranks and heretics, and
the issue has remained at this level for 90 years. The clarion cry of
the eye care professions has been "show us proof of the relationship
of eyestrain and eye disease". I will now demonstrate that no shortage
of this proof exists.

At the 1973 annual meeting of the American Academy of Optometry, a
paper entitled, "Bifocal Control of Myopia", was presented by Francis
Young, Director of the Primate Research Center at Washington State
University, and Kenneth Oakley, an ophthalmologist from Bend, Oregon.
Their study found that the effects of properly fitted bifocals (eye
strain reducing glasses) on young myopes are to drop the rate of
progression of this condition from an average of about one half a
diopter per year to about on fortieth of a diopter per year. This
study involved control and experimental subjects who were matched for
age, sex, initial refractive error and duration of wearing bifocals so
that most of the possible causes of failure to achieve results with
bifocals were controlled.

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

My original statement stands.

You live in a "closed" society that is
BLIND to fundamental SCIENCE AND FACT.

It is a wased of MY TIME -- to bother
with this type of intellectual blindess.

Only the ODs who "wake up" to help their
own children -- have got PREVENTION right.

Second-opinion best,

Otis

Dear Friends,

I have acknowledged how EASY it is to impress a person
with a strong minus lens.  That is a "no brainer", or
a "slam dunk".  But what about an optometrist who
finally "wakes up", and realizes that the prevenive-plus
MUST be started BEFORE the minus?

That man was Jacob Raphaelson (1875 - ca 1967).

If we EVER want prevention -- then this is how
it would have to start.

Enjoy,

Otis

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

Subject:  The true heart of a man.

Author: Nancy (Raphaelson) Felson

Subject: Jacob Raphaelson - greetings from a granddaughter

Dear Steve and Otis:

It warms my heart, and that of my 91 year old mother, Virginia
Raphaelson Felson, to see Jacob Raphaelson's decades of work finally
acknowledged and appreciated. I remember, as a child, not only
wearing plus ones as a preventative measure (it worked!) but also
witnessing the painstaking typing of grandpa Jake's manuscripts on
onion-thin paper with corrections by hand (way before computers and
before white-out).

We have an unpublished autobiography he wrote, should anyone want
eventually to publish it.

Jacob and Ida had three daughters -- Nettie, Selma, and Virginia (my
mother), who married Benjamin Felson (my father). Virginia is the
only one still living of the daughters.

Keep up the wonderful work.

Nancy Felson

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

Nancy sent me the onion manuscript, and I typed it up.

It was clear that Raphaelson was an "original thinker",
and from his "close work", finally "woke up" to the
plus, and then need to INSIST that his own
blood-relatives had the preventive support
they needed.

Second-opinion best,

Otis

Dear myopia-prevention friends,

Subject:  Second measure of my refractive STATE.

Materials:

1.  Snellen at 20 feet.

2.  Illuminated with 75 watt bulb.

3.  Trial lens kit, of 1/4 diopter lenses.

Previous check:

Ophthalmologist office -- 20/20 on their projected chart

Results:

1.  Plano -- 20/20

2.  +1/4 diopter --  20/20

3.  +1/2 diopter -- read 20/25, with some 20/20

4.  +3/4 diopter -- can not read 20/20 line

Conclusion:

Refractive STATE is now +1/2 diopter.

Enjoy,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Re: Why not ALLOW second-opinion engineers,
> scientists, and second-opinion medical people
> TO PRESENT THEIR PREVENTIVE AND SCIENTIFIC
> JUDGMENTS?

Have they submitted their work for publication?  If done as a proper
scientific study, I think it would be "allowed".

Judy

Subject: Studies that always IGNORE previous studies.

Re:  Dr. Francis Young and his work.

Re:  Review of EXISTING RESULTS -- would
reduce this endless and costly work.

Re: Why not ALLOW second-opinion engineers,
scientists, and second-opinion medical people
TO PRESENT THEIR PREVENTIVE AND SCIENTIFIC
JUDGMENTS?

Re:  This is a profoudly CLOSED SOCIETY.

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

Purpose


At this time, we do not know what causes a child to become more
nearsighted (myopic). STAMP will help us better understand
nearsightedness in children. Children will be randomly chosen to wear
regular glasses (single vision lenses) or no-line bifocal glasses
(progressive addition lenses) for the first year of the study. All
children will wear regular glasses for the second year of the study.
STAMP will compare how the eye changes shape in the two groups to
help us understand why children become nearsighted. The two theories
of myopia progression that are being evaluated are based on different
factors. One theory is based on environmental factors such as
extended near work while the other theory is based on genetically
coded factors.

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

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00335049

Enjoy,

Otis

Subject: A nuber of checks on my refractive STATE.


Since my Snellen is 20/20 -- the only remaining
issue is to measure my refractive STATE.

Using a yardstick and my plus lens, I find that
an image forms at 14 inches.

The calculates at a diopter power of 39.4/14 = 2.8 diopters.

Using some reading material, I can see clearly at a
distance of 15 inches.  This calculates at
a power of 39.4/15, or 2.6 diopters.

The resultant difference is my refractive STATE
of +0.2 diopters.

I will also check this by using my trial-lens kit
made up of lenses in 1/4 diopter steps (+/- to
one diopter, then in 1 diopters steps to 6 diopters.

Cost of lenses was $3 each.

Best,

Otis

This man is very sincere about the "truth"
about Lasik.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3Lk_xD_0wPg&NR=1

I can say make similar statements about
the use of a strong minus -- on threshold
of myopia.

He talks about "reading glasses".  Interesting,
I have no problem with them.

This is TRULY a matter of personal choice -- and
we SHOULD NEVER FORGET THAT.

Enjoy,

Otis

With a refractive STATE of -1 to -1.5 diopter, and
a Snellen for 20/50 to 20/60, you could probably
clear your Snellen to a reasonable 20/40 or better
in about three to six months.

The costs?  Virtually nothing.

The risks?  Virtually none.

The amount of understanding, motivation and
effort.  Great.

But the above is far better than Lasik performed
on an eye with a refractive STATE of -1.5 to -2 diopters.

This is why I argue strongly for preventive actions
to be takes AT THAT TIME.

Here is another site reviewing "complications" from Lasik.



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=976O9G6Dno0&feature=related


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:


> I have had cataract surgery.   It was excellent,
  and I knew the risks.  But it seems to me
  that Lasik is far greater risk that the
  the required operation that I had.

  Here is the video.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFy20Qey9RE

> Enjoy,

> Otis
>

Subject:  Further details on Magnification


Magnification


The magnification of a magnifying glass depends on where it is placed
between the user's eye and the object being viewed, and the total
distance between the eye and the object. Magnifying glasses are
typically described in terms of their magnifying power, which is
equivalent to angular magnification (this should not be confused with
optical power, which is a different quantity).

The magnifying power is  the ratio of the sizes of the images formed
on the user's retina with and without the lens.

For the "without" case, it is typically
assumed that the user would bring the object as close to the eye as
possible without it becoming blurry. This point, known as the near
point, varies with age. In a young child it can be as close as 5 cm,
while in an elderly person it may be as far as one or two metres.
Magnifiers are typically characterized using a "standard" value of
0.25 m.

The highest magnifying power is obtained by putting the lens very
close to the eye and moving the eye and the lens together to obtain
the best focus. The object will then typically also be close to the
lens. The magnifying power obtained in this condition is MP0=1/4 ��+1,
where �� is the optical power in dioptres, and the factor of 1/4 comes
from the assumed distance to the near point. This value of the
magnifying power is the one normally used to characterize magnifiers.
It is typically denoted "m�~", where m=MP0. This is sometimes called
the total power of the magnifier (again, not to be confused with
optical power).

Magnifiers are not always used as described above, however. It is
much more comfortable to put the magnifier close to the object (one
focal length away).

The eye can then be a larger distance away, and a good
image can be obtained very easily; the focus is not very sensitive to
the eye's exact position. The magnifying power in this case is
roughly MP=1/4 ��.


A typical magnifying glass might have a focal length of 25 cm,
corresponding to an optical power of 4 dioptres.

Such a magnifier would be sold as a "2�~" magnifier.

In actual use, an observer with "typical" eyes would obtain a
magnifying power between 1 and 2, depending on where lens is held. An
older person might obtain an actual magnifying power of 8 or more
with this lens, however, due to the eye's longer near point distance.


Enjoy,


Otis