--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> Here is my suggested SCIENTIFIC STUDY.

Since it is proposed, has not been done and has not been published,
it doesn't help me to answer the questions my patients will have.

The questions are below.

> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@> wrote:
>
> >
> > What, exactly, do patients need to do to improve their vision?
> >
> > What percentage of persons doing that activity are able to
achieve
> > 20/20 uncorrected vision?
> >
> > What percentage of persons are able to achieve zero refractive
> error?
> >
> > If 20/20 uncorrected vision and zero refractive error is not
likely
> > to be achieved, how much improvement can be expected?  Is it an
> > absolute number or is it a percentage reduction in pre treatment
> > status?
> >
> > How long does it takes to achieve the improvement?
> >
> > What persons are more likely to see improvements?  Are there
> certain
> > pretreatment measures that would mean more likely or less likely
> > success?
> >
> > How much time per day must be spent doing the program to achieve
> > improvement?  Is there a minimum amount of time, below which
there
> is
> > little chance of success?
> >
> > Will the improvement be permanent?  Is there maintenance activity
> > needed to keep the improvement once achieved?  If maintenance is
> not
> > done, how quickly will the improvement revert to pretreatment
> levels?
> >
> > Are there are any short or long term side effects to the activity?

Dear Judy,

Here is my suggested SCIENTIFIC STUDY.


http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/Embry.html


The concept would be that these people
would be taught to make their refractive
STATE measurements -- as I now make them.

I find that if you "empower" the person to
truly "get control" of his own measurements,
a relatively high degree of success could be
achieved -- BY THEM -- NOT YOU.

If you have any commentary -- I would be
interested in hearing it.

To show your scientific ability (if you wish
to be involved) please post the numerical
value of a "highly significant" result.

If you can't do that -- you are not qualified
to judge.

These engineer/pilots (because of their knowledge
of statistics, will understand that issue.

I doubt that you ever will.

Science best.

Otis





--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
>
> > Re: Many people want a workable program, not glasses, at an eye
> > clinic
> >
> > Tokarski> Has anyone here gone to get an eye exam from and an
> >  Optomitrist/Optomologist that advocates or even mentions NVI. Not
> > me and I been going for years. I would have loved just one tell me
> >  about it, better yet put me on a NVI program that works.
>
> > Judy:
> > Unfortunately, there are no well done studies of NVI programs
> > that show them to work.
>
> Otis:
> > Of course this ignores successful Snellen clearing
> > by Stirling Colgate, Fred Deakins, and other
> > highly motivated and INSIGHTFUL people
>
> Sorry that I missed their study publications.  Could you post a
link
> to the studies?  Based on their published results, please provide
the
> answers to these questions, so that I can pass the informmation
along
> to my patients.
>
> What, exactly, do patients need to do to improve their vision?
>
> What percentage of persons doing that activity are able to achieve
> 20/20 uncorrected vision?
>
> What percentage of persons are able to achieve zero refractive
error?
>
> If 20/20 uncorrected vision and zero refractive error is not likely
> to be achieved, how much improvement can be expected?  Is it an
> absolute number or is it a percentage reduction in pre treatment
> status?
>
> How long does it takes to achieve the improvement?
>
> What persons are more likely to see improvements?  Are there
certain
> pretreatment measures that would mean more likely or less likely
> success?
>
> How much time per day must be spent doing the program to achieve
> improvement?  Is there a minimum amount of time, below which there
is
> little chance of success?
>
> Will the improvement be permanent?  Is there maintenance activity
> needed to keep the improvement once achieved?  If maintenance is
not
> done, how quickly will the improvement revert to pretreatment
levels?
>
> Are there are any short or long term side effects to the activity?
>
> Thanks in advance for your answers.
>
> Judy
>

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

> Re: Many people want a workable program, not glasses, at an eye
> clinic
>
> Tokarski> Has anyone here gone to get an eye exam from and an
>  Optomitrist/Optomologist that advocates or even mentions NVI. Not
> me and I been going for years. I would have loved just one tell me
>  about it, better yet put me on a NVI program that works.

> Judy:
> Unfortunately, there are no well done studies of NVI programs
> that show them to work.

Otis:
> Of course this ignores successful Snellen clearing
> by Stirling Colgate, Fred Deakins, and other
> highly motivated and INSIGHTFUL people

Sorry that I missed their study publications.  Could you post a link
to the studies?  Based on their published results, please provide the
answers to these questions, so that I can pass the informmation along
to my patients.

What, exactly, do patients need to do to improve their vision?

What percentage of persons doing that activity are able to achieve
20/20 uncorrected vision?

What percentage of persons are able to achieve zero refractive error?

If 20/20 uncorrected vision and zero refractive error is not likely
to be achieved, how much improvement can be expected?  Is it an
absolute number or is it a percentage reduction in pre treatment
status?

How long does it takes to achieve the improvement?

What persons are more likely to see improvements?  Are there certain
pretreatment measures that would mean more likely or less likely
success?

How much time per day must be spent doing the program to achieve
improvement?  Is there a minimum amount of time, below which there is
little chance of success?

Will the improvement be permanent?  Is there maintenance activity
needed to keep the improvement once achieved?  If maintenance is not
done, how quickly will the improvement revert to pretreatment levels?

Are there are any short or long term side effects to the activity?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Judy

Dear Friends,

Subject: How much responsibility do I have
to conduct prevention for myself.

I have strictly NOT used any medical terms when
takling about the MEASURED refractive STATES
of the eye.

I think that use of the words "clinic", "therapy",
"cure", etc., profoundly distort an accurate
understanding of the proven dynamic behavior
of the fundamental eye.

Here is the discussion.

Enjoy,

Otis

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


Re: Many people want a workable program, not glasses, at an eye
clinic


  John Tokarski <tokarskijh@...> wrote:

Tokarski> Has anyone here gone to get an eye exam from and an
  Optomitrist/Optomologist that advocates or even mentions NVI. Not
me and I been going for years. I would have loved just one tell me
  about it, better yet put me on a NVI program that works.

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

Judy>  Eye docs would also love to know about an NVI program that
works, and
if they knew of one, they would tell you about it and help you with
it.

Judy>  Unfortunately, there are no well done studies of NVI programs
that
show them to work. Doctors, if they told you of any program, would
have to tell you "I don't know if this works. If it does work, I don't
know what percentage of persons trying it see improvement, how much
improvement they get, how long it takes to see improvement and what
persons are more likely to see improvements. I don't know how much
time a day you must do the program to see improvement. I don't know if
any improvement is permanent. I don't know if you will need to do
mainenance therapy to keep the improvement. I don't know if there are
any side effects."

Judy

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Of course this ignores successful Snellen clearing
by Stirling Colgate, Fred Deakins, and other
highly motivated and INSIGHTFUL people who -- recognizing
that they would NEVER get any help in a "medical sense"
relaized that they had no choice at all -- but
to take personal resonsibilty to do it under THEIR
control

That is why I wear a +2.5 diopter lens for all close
work.

That is why I confirm my Snellen at 20/20.

That is why I confirm my objectively measured
refractive STATE at a valuable +1/2 diopter.

But that is a matter of my judgment.

Best,

Otis

Subject:  ODs checking (but not treating) these
conditions.

An "eye exam" is of value.  Before anyone starts
preventive work, they should have these specific
items checked.  Only after these items have
been denied, and the natural eye has
a negative refractive STATE of say -1 diotper,
should the preventive methods (Bates/Prentice)
be started.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9RSP0D1NF4


But that implies knowledge and wisdom, and a
strong desire (in the person) to commit himself
to using these PREVENTIVE methods.

That becomes a matter of my (or your) personal
wisdom, insight and judgment.

Prevention, is something that can never be
"prescribed", and it can never be provided
by an optometrist.

It must be a matter of choice on your part.

Second-opinion,

Otis

Dear Gio Pro Pilot,

Subject: Working on true prevention -- as part of a group.

While I enjoy your questions, from long experience I have
learned that it is better to "work" these issues
as part of a group.

Please log-in to Alex Eulenberg's site:

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/

And I will respond to your questions on i-see.

If you have any problems logging in -- let me know.

See you on "I-See".

Best,

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "giopropilot" <giopropilot@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Just sharing my experiences with plus lens.
> I got almost immediate results using the plus lens, after working
with
> them my vision was clear. But that result disappears after the hour
and
> during the day I get some kind of ghosting.
> I'm only asking how can improve my eyesight to 20/20, I have -0.5.
I
> don't know if I have to use the plus everytime or stop for a while.
> Right know I use a +2.5, I don't know what is the best for mild
myopia
> a strong +3 or a +1.
> Thanks for the help.
>

Subject: No one can tell YOU what you should do.

But, here is what I do.

1.  I confirm my on visual acuity by reading
the Schnider Snellen placed at 20 feet, using
bright light on the Snellen.

2.  This duplicates the office-Snellen, from
my most recent exam by an ophthalmologist.

3.  I have my own trial lens kit, so using the
standard accepted method of measurement, I determine
my refractive STATE to be +1/2 diopter.

4.  I currently use a 2.75 diotper lens for
all work less than 24 inches -- be in computer
or and reading I do.  This this is just "automatic"
that I do this.

5.  I greatly value my clear distant vision
(and objectively confirming it) and am willing
to pay the "price" (use of my plus for
all close work) to keep my refractive STATE
postive.

But each person can (or must) make his own
mind up about what is important to him.

Just my second-opinion on keeping
my distant vision clear.

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Pilot,

Before you start:

I suggest you not "depend" on any "prescription".

Check your vision using either this Snellen:


http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html


Or get a Snellen here:


http://www.i-see.org/eyecharts.html

Put a bright light on the printed Snellen and
read it at 20 feet.

Consider that you pass a line if you read
1/2 the letters correctly.

This will help you in:

1. Knowing where you stand now (compared with
legal requirements for vision), and

2.  Further clear as you work with the plus.

The process where our refractive STATE moves
from "postive" to negative is indeed slow,
and the process of Snellen clearing is
also slow.

But it is a major step to see your vision
clear uner YOUR control.

Keep up the excellent work.

Otis







--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "giopropilot" <giopropilot@...>
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Just sharing my experiences with plus lens.
> I got almost immediate results using the plus lens, after working
with
> them my vision was clear. But that result disappears after the hour
and
> during the day I get some kind of ghosting.
> I'm only asking how can improve my eyesight to 20/20, I have -0.5.
I
> don't know if I have to use the plus everytime or stop for a while.
> Right know I use a +2.5, I don't know what is the best for mild
myopia
> a strong +3 or a +1.
> Thanks for the help.
>

Hello,

Just sharing my experiences with plus lens.
I got almost immediate results using the plus lens, after working with
them my vision was clear. But that result disappears after the hour and
during the day I get some kind of ghosting.
I'm only asking how can improve my eyesight to 20/20, I have -0.5. I
don't know if I have to use the plus everytime or stop for a while.
Right know I use a +2.5, I don't know what is the best for mild myopia
a strong +3 or a +1.
Thanks for the help.

Subject: Are there to many optometrists?

Re: They pay a hell of a price to "get there", i.e.,
4 years of their life and $150,000.  No wonder
they are biased.


Andy>  Having been around for 30 years in this field...I find it wise
to check every so often as to how others are doing.

I know this sounds a little weird...but if one checks the want
ads...one can get a feel for how much demand there is for optometric
services. The same thing can be said for the "waiting period" for new
patients to be seen.

For me...the waiting period is down to just about zero. Other ODs
around me are talking similarly. The want ads lack the advertisements
for ODs from the usual suspects (America's bBest, etc).

Both of these are disturbing signs.

Dear Judy,

I always enjoy hearing your majority-opinion
on these subjects.

Best,

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Judy,
> >
> > In other countries you would be prohibited
> > from using the title, "Doctor".
>
> Good thing that I'm living in Canada
>
> >
> > The title "Doctor" being reserved for a
> > true MEDICAL DOCTOR, or OPHTHALMOLOGIST.
>
> Unfortunately for you, not in the USA:
>
> From:
>
> http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/563176
>
> "The call for interdisciplinary practice and education, envisioned
by
> the Institute of Medicine in its report Health Professions
Education:
> A Bridge to Quality, predicts that more professionals with the
> title "Doctor" will be working together in the same settings. Many
of
> these professionals will not be physicians.  ...
>
> According to the 2007 Pearson Report, only 7 states (Georgia,
> Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon) have
statutes
> or regulations prohibiting a nurse practitioner (NP) or other
> doctorally prepared health professional from using the
> title "Doctor."
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> In other countries you would be prohibited
> from using the title, "Doctor".

Good thing that I'm living in Canada

>
> The title "Doctor" being reserved for a
> true MEDICAL DOCTOR, or OPHTHALMOLOGIST.

Unfortunately for you, not in the USA:

From:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/563176

"The call for interdisciplinary practice and education, envisioned by
the Institute of Medicine in its report Health Professions Education:
A Bridge to Quality, predicts that more professionals with the
title "Doctor" will be working together in the same settings. Many of
these professionals will not be physicians.  ...

According to the 2007 Pearson Report, only 7 states (Georgia,
Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon) have statutes
or regulations prohibiting a nurse practitioner (NP) or other
doctorally prepared health professional from using the
title "Doctor."

Judy

Dear Judy,

In other countries you would be prohibited
from using the title, "Doctor".

The title "Doctor" being reserved for a
true MEDICAL DOCTOR, or OPHTHALMOLOGIST.

Second-opinion best,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Judy,
> >
> > I do enjoy reading your judgment on these
> > subjects -- even if I must disagree.
>
> Odd comment by you; my remarks were not "my judgement", they were
to
> point out the laws where I live -- use of the Dr title is regulated
in
> Canada.
>
> So, if you disagree, you disagree not with me but with the
Government
> of Ontario and Canada.
>
> Judy
>

Dear Successful Snellen-clearing friend,

It takes a wise, motivated person to:

1.  Read his Snellen -- and always pass the 20/40 line.

2.  If "blurry out there", then DON'T get a minus.

3.  Begin with the plus until your Snellen is better-than 20/40.

4.  With children -- this is VERY DIFFICULT.

If you have the insight an motivation to do it (very difficult it
seems), then
you can avoid "stair-case myopia" from NOT using the plus with the
great wisdom it requires.

Here are the "reasons" why doing preventive work is wise:

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

Listed by a Brendan, a "myope" on i-see:

1. They're ugly.
2. They make the world look uglier.
3. They make the wearer less attractive.
4. They make the wearer less `cool'.
5. They stigmatise the wearer.
6. They make young wearers a target for bullying.
7. They seem to make the wearer more tired.
8. They make the wearer seem less friendly.
9. The really high corrections (coke bottle lenses) make the wearer
look mentally challenged.
10. They take out the eye's natural sparkle and leave a flat,
disinterested expression.
11. They put the `window of the soul' in a frame.
12. They are a painful, irritating nuisance to wear.
13. They're expensive – frames, lenses, tests etc.
14. They're subject to fashion (more expense).
15. They take up more of the wearer's time.
16. They constantly need wiping clean.
17. They're another bloody thing you have to carry around.
18. They dilute the world's natural colour.
19. They take the `soul' out of the visual experience.
20. They make the wearer less sexy (and provide considerable
complications when meeting new partners).
21. They provide even more complexity in an already complicated world.
22. They treat symptoms not causes, including causes not directly
related to vision.
23. They make you dependent on them.
24. They don't improve vision, merely sharpen it.
25. They expose the wearer to the risks that their symptoms have
pointed out which haven't been corrected.
26. They make the wearer clumsy.
27. They fog up when you come in from the cold.
28. They're a nightmare in the rain.
29. They're completely unpractical when the sun comes out.
30. They make your eyes sore.
31. They make the world smaller.
32. They make life worse as you get older.
33. They make you less competent – ie, sports, armed forces.
34. They make reading more stressful and less pleasant.
35. They take your eyesight on a trip to worse and worse unaided
vision.
36. They put a barrier between the wearer and the world.
37. They scare children.
38. They're hard to find when you wake up.
39. They're easily lost, broken or scratched.
40. They take ages to choose.
41. They make middle-aged people feel even more middle-aged.
42. They force you to live with an intrusive body augmentation.
43. They're essentially a temporary solution that stops all
possibility of a proper solution.
44. They make people think you're geeky when you're not or, even
worse, bookish when you're not.
45. They distort your peripheral vision and make crossing the road
more dangerous.
46. They are prescribed without any acknowledgement of the dynamic,
constantly changing nature of vision.
47. They are always the solution in conventional ophthalmology, the
same way that Scientology is always the solution for people dumb
enough to take the `stress test'.
48. They are a multi-million dollar industry and about as tolerant,
rruthful and open-minded as other multi-million dollar industries (ie,
Coca Cola).
49. They have stopped ophthalmics in its tracks, unable to proceed
with any other concept of vision improvement.
50. They're so unfit for purpose that I personally prefer to go around
with about 3 diopter of myopia.

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> I do enjoy reading your judgment on these
> subjects -- even if I must disagree.

Odd comment by you; my remarks were not "my judgement", they were to
point out the laws where I live -- use of the Dr title is regulated in
Canada.

So, if you disagree, you disagree not with me but with the Government
of Ontario and Canada.

Judy

Dear Judy,

I do enjoy reading your judgment on these
subjects -- even if I must disagree.

Thanks for your commentary.

Second-opinion best,

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Dear Ms Judy,
> > >
> > > Subject: Optometrists are not allowed to practice
> > > medicine.
> > >
> > > In fact the argument by Charles Prentice was
> > > that the "fitting" of lenses on a person did
> > > NOT constitute the "practice of medicine" in
> > > any sense of the word.
> > >
> > > So don't claim to be a "doctor". You
> > > don't have the required qualifications.
> > >
> > > That is my second-opinion.
>
> Don't know about the USA where you live, but here in Canada the
> title "Dr" is not restricted to use by those with a doctor of
> medicine degree.   Other professionals such as veternarians,
> dentists, chiropractors, optometrists and those with PhD are
allowed
> to use the title.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> > Dear Ms Judy,
> >
> > Subject: Optometrists are not allowed to practice
> > medicine.
> >
> > In fact the argument by Charles Prentice was
> > that the "fitting" of lenses on a person did
> > NOT constitute the "practice of medicine" in
> > any sense of the word.
> >
> > So don't claim to be a "doctor". You
> > don't have the required qualifications.
> >
> > That is my second-opinion.

Don't know about the USA where you live, but here in Canada the
title "Dr" is not restricted to use by those with a doctor of
medicine degree.   Other professionals such as veternarians,
dentists, chiropractors, optometrists and those with PhD are allowed
to use the title.

Judy

> Dear Ms Judy,
>
> Subject: Optometrists are not allowed to practice
> medicine.
>
> In fact the argument by Charles Prentice was
> that the "fitting" of lenses on a person did
> NOT constitute the "practice of medicine" in
> any sense of the word.
>
> So don't claim to be a "doctor". You
> don't have the required qualifications.
>
> That is my second-opinion.

>
>
> Best,
>
> Otis

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

Prentice says that "Optometry" should be allowed
because it is NOT MEDICINE.




Charles Prentice: Hail to the 'Father of Optometry'


Charles Prentice's pioneering studies in optics earned him the praise
of prominent ophthalmologists at home and abroad. But his status as a
leading refracting optician also inspired contempt among medical
doctors who regarded Mr. Prentice's trade as a threat to medicine.

Like him or not, turn-of-the-century eye doctors could hardly deny
Mr. Prentice's monumental impact on vision care. The man AOA dubbed
the "Father of Optometry" is the subject of this
month's "Visionaries," a yearlong series on influential people in
optometry's past.

Trained as a mechanical engineer in Germany, Mr. Prentice applied his
knowledge of math and physics to the field of optics. In 1890, his
papers on the "Law of Decentration" and "A Metric System of Numbering
and Measuring Prisms" won him a worldwide reputation as a brilliant
innovator.

In addition to his scientific endeavors, Mr. Prentice spearheaded
efforts to organize, regulate, and educate O.D.s in the profession's
nascence.

Mr. Prentice and a handful of others formed the Optical Society of
the State of New York in 1895, in part to counter M.D.s who accused
refracting opticians of violating medical practice laws.

In 1896, Mr. Prentice drafted and lobbied for a bill that eventually
became New York State's optometry law. Mr. Prentice successfully
argued that fitting glasses constituted the treatment of light, not
disease, and so did not infringe upon medicine's purview.

In 1910, Mr. Prentice persuaded Columbia University to establish an
optometry program. He devised the curriculum, chose instructors, and
lectured frequently.

A 1929 editorial in The Optometric Weekly noted, "It is the
achievements of men like Charles Prentice that have made present day
optometry possible." An editorial in today's press might say the same.


>
>
>
>
> ==============
>
>
>
> There are 9 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1. History -- Chalmers Prentice and Charles Prentice
> From: Otis S. Brown
>
> 2. Medicine -- When Optometry? When Not?
> From: Otis S. Brown
>
> 3. Optometry "Triage" -- When the person must choose.
> From: Otis S. Brown
>
> 4. Re: El Condor Pasa -- and Poems
> From: Otis S. Brown
>
> 5a. Re: Why is a Majority-opinion "Science"??
> From: drjudy65
> 5b. Re: Why is a Majority-opinion "Science"??
> From: Otis S. Brown
>
> 6a. I respect the second-opinion OD as a professional
> From: Otis S. Brown
> 6b. Re: I respect the second-opinion OD as a professional
> From: drjudy65
> 6c. Re: I respect the second-opinion OD as a professional
> From: Otis S. Brown
>
>
> Messages
>
> 1. History -- Chalmers Prentice and Charles Prentice
> Posted by: "Otis S. Brown" otisbrown@... otisbrown17268
> Date: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:51 am ((PST))
>
>
>
> Subject: Information suppled by Alex Eulenberg
>
> In researching the problem provided by Jake Raphaelson
> (prevention possible with plus), I encountered two
> names, written Charles and Chalmers.
>
> This is to clear this issue up for historical research.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Otis
>
>
> ===============
>
> By Alex Eulenberg:
>
>
> Charles Prentice was not an M.D. He was an engineer and optician.
He
> is known as the "Father of Optometry." According to the following
> article, "Mr. Prentice successfully argued that fitting glasses
> constituted the treatment of light, not disease" -- quite different
> from Chalmers Prentice, M.D., who prescribed glasses to prevent and
> cure disease.
>
> http://www.revoptom.com/archive/resource/visionaries.htm#prentice
>
>
> science". It does not say it will ignore all science.
>
>
> > Judy
>

Dear Judy,

It is up to the judgment of a highly motivated
engineer or scientist -- who makes all
the measurements himself -- to determine
if he is "successful", or not "successful."

Thus, if he has the wisdom to understand college
statistics, and the MEANING of a AVERAGE
chage of -1.33 dioters in refractive STATE in
four years -- he might realize you are the
anthsis of science -- and that he better
learn to take actions to PREVENT himself -- because
you are defending the $ 150 k you paid
for your four years in OD school.

You talk about SOME people "making money".

Think about what you LOSE when the science
of prevention becomes clear -- and the
need to avoid you -- except for true
medical CHECKS.

But of course you are not medically qualifed,
as stated in the ORGINAL arguments to
allow the "existence" of optometry.

(Reference Prentice remarks.)

I would suggest that engineers and scientists
can do a far better job at PREVENTION that
you ever can.

Not that you care.

Second-opinion best,

Otis




--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Judy,
> >
> > Subject: If you don't like a successful
> > result
>
> I don't know if you would call the Power Vision trial a success.
The
> average reduction in myopia was 0.29D.  Ten out of twenty-eight
myopic
> eyes in the trial had no change at all.  Certianly not a result
that
> would allow the subjects to throw away their glasses.
>
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> Subject: If you don't like a successful
> result

I don't know if you would call the Power Vision trial a success. The
average reduction in myopia was 0.29D.  Ten out of twenty-eight myopic
eyes in the trial had no change at all.  Certianly not a result that
would allow the subjects to throw away their glasses.


Judy

Dear Judy,

Subject: If you don't like a successful
result -- you can nit-pick it to death.

Yes, Judy, I know NOTHING will ever
meet your "standards".

Until the person himself is willing to
accept FULL responsibility (in a scientific
sense) to do the work under HIS (no
YOUR) control.

That suggest a very wise, insightful engineer
and pilot who will review all the facts
and science (which YOU TOTALLY IGNORE) and
reach the "better" conclusions.

Obviously full success would be denined
publication by your profoundly biased
majority-opinion Journals.

I know that -- and you know it also.

But let us call it for what it is.

I expect absolutly NOTHING from you -- other
that you defending a very old and
damaging practice.

Your are, however, very skilled at defending
that practice.

Second-opinion best,

Otis


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


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Alex>  A study in fact has been done on the similarly-
named "Power
> > Vision
> > Program," previously known as the "See Clearly Method". The study
> > showed a positive effect on refraction, as well as other measures
> of
> > visual performance, and it was submitted to an optometric
journal,
> but
> > the journal refused to publish it.
> >
> > You can read all about it here, and download the full paper:
> >
> > http://www.visiontherapy.net/statement.php
>
> The research was conducted by persons with a financial interest in
> the company selling the Method.  The study had no control group,
> refraction was not measured with cycloplegia and after treatment
> acuities were not measured on several subjects.  These factors make
> the study ineligible for publication.
>
> You can read more about "The See Clearly Method" including how
> published testimonials were by persons with financial interests in
> the company, how the company sold customer names to other
marketers,
> how employees of the company continue to use glasses, how hundreds
> of customers sent in letters of complaint and that $200,000 was not
> enough money to provide refunds to all the dis satisfied customers.
>
>
http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/latest_news/releases/nov_2006/VI
> T.html
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
> Alex>  A study in fact has been done on the similarly-named "Power
> Vision
> Program," previously known as the "See Clearly Method". The study
> showed a positive effect on refraction, as well as other measures
of
> visual performance, and it was submitted to an optometric journal,
but
> the journal refused to publish it.
>
> You can read all about it here, and download the full paper:
>
> http://www.visiontherapy.net/statement.php

The research was conducted by persons with a financial interest in
the company selling the Method.  The study had no control group,
refraction was not measured with cycloplegia and after treatment
acuities were not measured on several subjects.  These factors make
the study ineligible for publication.

You can read more about "The See Clearly Method" including how
published testimonials were by persons with financial interests in
the company, how the company sold customer names to other marketers,
how employees of the company continue to use glasses, how hundreds
of customers sent in letters of complaint and that $200,000 was not
enough money to provide refunds to all the dis satisfied customers.

http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/latest_news/releases/nov_2006/VI
T.html

Judy

You don't believe it?

Here it is.

Second-opinion best,

Otis

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

Study of "Power Vision Program" method


On Jan 23, 2009, at 3:06 AM, aparna_821 wrote:

Aparna> I think that the best way forward would be to conduct some
well-planned studies to determine the effects on NVI on people's
eyesight. Have any been done yet on the Power Vision System? If not,
I think it would be a good idea.


Alex>  A study in fact has been done on the similarly-named "Power
Vision
Program," previously known as the "See Clearly Method". The study
showed a positive effect on refraction, as well as other measures of
visual performance, and it was submitted to an optometric journal, but
the journal refused to publish it.

You can read all about it here, and download the full paper:

http://www.visiontherapy.net/statement.php

--Alex

Relax, Enjoy:

Good Spanish Music.


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Cute, humor -- Classic Guitar.
>
> "Malaguena"
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=N5lDmu08_pM&feature=related
>
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Mike Brant -- Translation:
> >
> > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCeL1XJ7Tw&feature=related
> >
> > Malaguena Salerosa
> >
> > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > And in a quiet Mexican village:
> > >
> > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NKwlhc-ZWBs&feature=related
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown"
<otisbrown@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Excellent!
> > > >
> > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xdSclVx8fd0&feature=related
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown"
<otisbrown@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this group is Peter, Paul and Mary:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1pFXZVfp2mo&feature=related
> > > > >
> > > > > The title is from the book, "And Quite Flows the Don", about
> > > > > the battle of Stalingrad.
> > > > >
> > > > > Enjoy,
> > > > >
> > > > > Otis
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown"
> <otisbrown@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Baby -- the rain must fall.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Glenn and Steve McQueen:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H09g3gZ7XAs&feature=related
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown"
> > <otisbrown@>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Original Limeliters:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?
v=c9zpgBMBSbQ&feature=related
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown"
> > > <otisbrown@>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ron Paul -- 8 minutes.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > He is correct.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown"
> > > > <otisbrown@>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Push-back, Enjoy,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=pmQrADlffmI
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Otis
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Re: The right to make informed decisions


Dear Aparna,

Subject: Being wise -- and being part of an
ORGANIZED preventive effort.

In my opinion, it is very hard to deal with
a person on the threshold of a negative
refractive STATE -- from a medical perspective.

I have no "complaints" or argument from that perspective.

My arguments, and indeed the arguments of Dr. Bates
and Dr. Prentice were PREVENTIVE arguments -- or
in effect, supply enought high quality science
and facts to the person so he has the wisdom
and fortitude to "stick" with a Snellen-clearing
effort.

Your point -- "how to create that choice" -- is
that you must find a group of people who potentially
have both the insight and motivation to do what
is expected of them. Further, I would "restrict"
these people to be mature adults who are on the
threshold, and can be taught to use their own
trial-lens kit (separate lenses in 1/4 diopter steps)
to measure their own refractive STATE. I do this
myself.

Further I use the plus for the purpose of making
accurate measurements -- so I can teach pilots
how to do it.

In my concept, the pilot "owns" his own eyes -- and
can be taught the technique of prevention. (This
would be a "plus" for near, with Bates if the
person wanted to include that as part of his
effort.

To further respond:

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


Medical> The question is how to create that choice!

Otis> A quality of a pilot entering a four year college
could (after considerable thoughtful review -- MIGHT
be willing to "control" his vision. I would
suggest restriction to "threshold", of from zero
to -1.5 dipoters.

Otis> If I were of that age, I would WANT to be
in that scientific study. I use the plus with
no problem at all. It just makes scientific
sense to me to do so.

Medical> I think that the best way
forward would be to conduct some well-planned studies to determine the
effects on NVI on people's eyesight.

Otis> I would please say, the plus for prevention (and a degree
of Snellen clearing). I do this to keep the person focused
on the objective goal of his own efforts. You can
only support him AFTER he has chosen to be part
of a true preventive effort.

Medical> Have any been done yet on the
Power Vision System?

Otis> Not to my knowledge. We attempted to start this effort
in a formal way -- but got endless red-tape.

Medical> If not, I think it would be a good idea.

Otis> This is up to you, but I would like to list
you as a medical person supporting a scientific-preventive
study. You can contact Alex if you would like to help.

Medical> However, planning a study like that is a whole new ball
game, and
unfortunately I'm not at a stage in my career where I know enough to
think about it-

Otis> That is fair. But we must plan for the future, even
if only prevention (with some recovery) is truly possible.

Medical> I should probably just focus on passing my exams
first!

Otis> Yes, I agree.

Medical> But it's an area that I'd perhaps like to look into in the
future, especially if I end up choosing ophthalmology as my specialty.


Otis> If you do, then review of the statistics of our
proposed study would be part of your medical preparation.
In fact the more you know about statistics and science -- the
better.

Sincerely,

Otis Brown

Dear Insightful friends,

Subject: Message posted under "Otis Brown WARNING".

Re: Ignorance "bashing", NOT optometrist bashing.

What this is truly about it people who can not
accept the challenge of THINKING, and about
the concept of it.

If they were honest, they would attack the CONCEPT,
and not the person.

Here is the discussion.

Otis

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


Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Steve -- who cleared from 20/200 to 20/30
in about four months, and his commentary.

These "prevetive" efforts are intense -- no doubt
about it -- and therefore depend on a person's
judgment.

So enjoy the discussions and this
learning process.

Best,

Otis

_______

>From Steve,



Hi everyone,

Just like to add my view.

Initially when I first found out this forum, I was very excited...an
opportunity to improve my vision. This has been a desire since my late
teens, so you can imagine my excitement, then came the disappointment
reading Otis's statement that people with 20/70 or more has slim
chances of improving vision to 20/40 or better. Not exactly those
words
but something to that understanding. Naturally, I was very irritated
of
this "statement", wherelse I can find ppl with 20/200 or worse have
improved to 20/20 vision. So I was thinking why Otis kept saying that
&
dampening people's spirit/motivation to improve their vision. So when
I
started, I was not so happy but persisted to use plus lens, thinking
that I got nothing to lose.....and my vision started to improve

As time went by I understood, why Otis made such statement(after much
reading). IMHO, it is not to dampen a person's spirit or motivation
but
NOT TO OVER CLAIM the "cure/prevention" and secondly, if you read at
this place :
www.google.com

then select Groups and type

sci.med.vision

You'll be astonished how a lot of people bash Otis. In my opinion Otis
has nothing to gain out of this, he just want to spread the knowledge
of the "second opinion" but unfortunately a lot people don't accept
it.


So later I realised and began to have a different view why Otis keeps
saying that. A better view of course.

IMHO,anybody who has no medical problem( eyes) has a very good chance
to improve their vision.They can improve their vision with plus lens
or
with some exercises ( Brian is one of the best proof we have here ).
You can do it with either one or with a combination of both. Which one
works faster or better, I really don't know. To me it is purely an
individual experience & effort. You have to do it yourself with
persistence, testing & innovation.

I hope people will stop bashing Otis(at sci.med.vision) and I hope
people will try which "system" works the best for them. I feel all
methods has its pro & cons. Its a persons choice to pick plus lens or
the exercises to clear their vision. If a person don't believe these
choices we have, then they must just move on in life. Search for the
ultimate natural "thing" to improve their vision.

Nobody can give guarantees & I'm sure there are disclaimers somewhere
in the website.

Everything I said was based on my opinion, so don't use it against
me.I
sincerely hope that I didn't offend anyone in what I said above.

Oh yes, I also want to thank Robert & Patrick for their views,
opinions
& suggestions.

Just my 2 cents.
Chill out everybody

Cheers,


Steve

My belief:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkNsEH1GD7Q&feature=related


There is no doubt that the minus is "easy" and impressive.

But for the "new hope" of science and the
person to do is "right" -- here
is my scientific hope.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=favgoOn-U1I

It takes a strong, wise person to use the plus
correctly.

Wake up ... grow up.

Some of the most pleasant experiences -- flying
the J-3 "Cub" and the Volksplane.

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> The freedom of flight.
>
> Freedom of science and vision.
>
> Freedom to keep your vision clear for
> life -- if you have the wisdom and
> motivation to do it right.
>
> Enjoy,
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Longer Video on the Volks Plane (9 min.)
> >
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SpNl83h1Xl4&feature=related
> >
> > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Subject:  Flight update.
> > >
> > > From Ground -- Volksplane Part 1:
> > >
> > > It was great fun,
> > >
> > >
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1b2d-6qQsv4&feature=related
> > >
> > > An adventure to fly...
> > >
> > >
> > > View in flight looking toward tail of VolksPlane:
> > >
> > >
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=E9frePYcJ5I&feature=related
> > >
> > >
> > > Looking Aft, while landing the VP.
> > >
> > >
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Upv2aPaUowQ&feature=related
> > >
> > >
> > > Part 4 -- The Panel -- in flight:
> > >
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R02APMjcsqQ&feature=related
> > >
> > >  Boy, does this bring back memories!
> > >
> > >
> > > Part 3:  Landing and take off:
> > >
> > >
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5JXPCGeFD9k&feature=related
> > >
> > >
> > > Flight -- Volksplane Part 2:
> > >
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=16Q4ffLWzl8&feature=related
> > >
> >
>

There is nothing like a "sea voyage" to
clear the mind.

You are on your own.  A great experience.

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Sailing -- a wonderful time in our lives.
>
> It teaches independence of mind.
>
>
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1GlVlLy7nZ4&feature=related
>
>
> > Nothing like it!
> >
> > The wind, the sea, and the stars!
> >
> > This is where I truly say, ENJOY!
> >
> > Otis
> >
>

You got to "push back" -- and think.

So enjoy, science, engineering and logic.

And music.

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> El Vuelo Del Condor
>
> Inti-Illimani
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=PLzEjLxDqAY&feature=related
>
>
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Freedom!
> >
> > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hoq5WBB_OJI&feature=related
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ydl_0KUItU8&feature=related
> > >
> > > For a high school friend:
> > >
> > > ==============
> > >
> > >      Do not stand at my grave and weep;
> > >
> > >      I am not there, I do not sleep.
> > >
> > >      I am the thousand winds that blow; I am the diamond glints
on
> > the
> > > snow.  I am the sunlight on ripened grain; I am the gentle
> > > autumn's rain.
> > >
> > >      When you awaken in the morning's hush, I am the swift
> > > uplifting rush of quiet birds in circled flight.
> > >
> > >      I am the soft star that shines at night.
> > >
> > >      Do not stand at my grave and cry, I am not there, I did not
> > > die.
> > >
> > >
> > >      Mary Frye
> > >
> >
>