Dear Second-opinion Friends,

Subject: Establishing an Award for the Vision Researcher (Medical, Engineering,
Scientific) who has the ability to OBJECT to "standard practice" as it was put
in place 200 years ago.


My first nomination is Dr. Jacob Raphaelson, as described by his daughter.

Best,

Otis Brown

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

1/7/96 - Jacob's Daughter

Dear Maurice and family, 	       February 5

      I just received your letter with the shocking news of the
mistreatment of Maurice because of his courageous efforts to
promote a cause which could be of tremendous benefit to mankind.
I went through this with my Dad, but he did not make a big enough
impact to bring about the kind of retaliation which Maurice is now
being subjected to.  In fact, Dad was afraid his license might be
in jeopardy if he continued to practice; that was one of the
reasons why he retired from active practice and no longer charged
for his services.

      I don't know if you have seen the enclosed newspaper article,
(about my father's efforts with the plus-lens) but I have had some
copies made to send to relatives and friends who donate or become
members of IMPA (International Myopia Prevention Association). My
father would have been so proud of you Maurice, as I am.  I wish I
knew of some way to help, but I, too, have become discouraged by
the attitude of the optometrists here.

      I have tried to interest someone in the profession to help me
start a branch of IMPA in this area, but they don't even bother to
return my phone calls. They are too busy making money, I guess.

      After I received your letter, I went to the public library
and checked out a book that made a tremendous impression on me at
the time I read it many years ago, "The Cry and the Covenant", by
Morton Thompson.  It is the story of Dr.  Ignaz Philipp
Semmelweis' efforts to get the medical profession to accept his
simple remedy of cleanliness.  He was unsuccessful.  The following
quoted passages are apropos.

      "Do you know," said Arneth slowly, "it's true of your
discovery as it has been of every discovery in this whole history
of medicine.  When we take our medical oath we undertake to
lengthen life and ease suffering.  We are all united in seeking
new means.  And every time a man has come forward with a
demonstrable truth, a remedy for good, the profession seems to
have done its best to crush the discover and hide the discovery.
No quackery -- no criminality -- nothing seems to make us so
furious as a discovery." (Page 367)

      In reply to a statement by one of his few medical friends,
who has just told Semmelwiess that he is being called a fool, he
replies:

      "Well they could call me an adulterer and a thief -- they can
spit on me and curse the mother who bore me -- and if they wash
their hands I will smile at them.  I will humbly thank them.  I
will get down on my knees and praise the breath that calls me
fool.  Only let the murdering dogs wash their hands!" (Page 369)

      Ignaz Philipp worked grimly on.  There were evenings when he
walked the streets of Buda alone, fevered for more scope, for more
patients, desperate to spread the truth in a world thunderclap.
And when his legs were tired and his mind had calmed at last, he
made peace with things as they were.  And he planned long dreams
and nourished the small flame he had lit.  He guarded it jealously
and each month was a new hope that tomorrow, surely, tomorrow, at
the very latest, the world would wake with a start and the truth
would be everywhere.  All his hopes were in Budapest now.  From
this small clinic, if he kept proving and saving, month after
month, the news must one day be the world's." (Page 374)

      I wish I had some influence to help you Maurice, but alas,
there is nothing I can do except to let you know how I feel about
you and the dedication you are showing.  Perhaps after Rehm's book
("The Myopia Myth") is published, which he indicates will be
sometime this year, some impact may be made here in the U.S.,
which hopefully will carry over into your country.  If not,
perhaps you might consider coming to the U.S.  to practice your
profession; at least there seems to be more freedom here to
disagree.

      Please keep me advised of future developments.  I'm still
optimistic enough to believe that somehow the worst is over.

Sincerely,

Shira Raphaelson

There is no doubt but that plus-prevention is difficult.  But to deny EVEN THE
RIGHT TO DISCUSS THE SUBJECT -- is tragic beyond belief.

But this is what happens when Dr. Kaisu has advoacted plus-PREVENTION for the
last 30 years.

I publish this because the sad consequences to all of us (stair-case and
permanent myopia for our children).

Here is the Finnish Medical Societie's REJECTION of Kaisu's right to DISCUSS
THIS ISSUE.

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


RECENT  SERIES  OF  EVENTS  IN  ITS ENTIRETY which started from Olavi
Pärssinen´s review  in the Finnish Medical Journal (6/2009)

(This text is translated into English from the original Finnish exchange)

Finnish Medical Journal's discussion policy:

"Public discussion refers to open discussion about material appearing in this
magazine. Its purpose is to give fresh feedback to the editors and to provide
our readers with an opportunity for criticism.

The letters will not be published elsewhere without the express consent of the
writer.

On behalf of the Finnish Medical Journal, the Editors-in chief and Managing
Editor will reply to comments sent in as necessary."

1)  This letter was originally sent in February 12th 2009, by three patients of
mine - which I  have now read - to COMMENT on Olavi Pärssinen's review "Pilaako
lukeminen silmät?" (Will reading spoil your eyes?) (The Finnish Medical Journal
6/2009):

Ophthalmologist, DR.  Kaisu Viikari has been speaking for the prevention of
myopia for more than thirty years.

As we have personal experiences of getting rid of the minus lenses, we have been
actively following the progress of myopia prevention in the world at large.

We are thoroughly familiar with all of Viikari's three works; for example, in
her most recent book "jotta totuus ei unohtuisi" (2004, 2006) she refers to an
article that appeared in Duodecim (2003;119:2475) "Likitaittoisuuden esto
kanoilla ja ihmisillä" (Prevention of myopia in hens and humans).

In this article, Professors of Ophthalmology T. Tervo and L. Laatikainen from
Helsinki state that slowing down of myopia development with plus lenses, which
the article that they were discussing referred to (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
2003:44:2818) was not a new idea.

These are the very problems that Kaisu Viikari has been concerned about for more
than three decades.

This is why we were surprised to find that among the 55 references of Olavi
Pärssinen's review that appeared in the Finnish Medical Journal 6/2009, (Pilaako
lukeminen silmät?) he does not mention this Finnish article that essentially
touches on the prevention of myopia.

It is difficult to think of a problem that would have such in-depth consequences
for the wellbeing of mankind as increasing myopia – and in a wider sense,
accommodation strain – in front of which, however, we do not need to throw our
towel in and put our hands up.

Names withheld.

2)  The Finnish Medical Journal's reply (6 March 2009):

Thank you for your comment.

I will pass it on to the writer of the article, Olavi Pärssinen.

We will not publish your comments in our Letters column, as we feel that in this
connection, it would not be in the best interest of our readers.

With friendly greetings, N. N.

The Finnish Medical Journal

3)  The Finnish Medical Journal (Lääkärilehti), Helsinki.

I was just informed that a comment written by my patients – which I have read
and find extremely appropriate – on Olavi Pärssinen's review was not regarded as
fit for publishing in the Finnish Medical Journal.

You promised to return to the reply that was sent on 12 February, and the
sender, when he contacted you again (after 3 weeks), received a reply, a
negative one, on the 6th of March!

What kind of a magazine can exist on these premises!

If Olavi Pärssinen in his "R e v i e w" of the themes of myopia and its
prevention wishes to overlook a Finnish reference which recognizes the decades
of work I have put in for this valid cause (1), that cannot be helped, but the
Finnish Medical Journal should not join in.

I have now had enough. I have nothing to loose, and this is why I am not going
to make it easy for the Finnish Medical Journal or other indoctrinators.

To spare my offspring (even now, 10 of my close family members are in the field
of medicine; my husband Sauli, my father Artturi Mikkonen and his brothers Hemmi
and Aarne have already departed), I have reined myself in and kept my voice
down, but since Providence has given me such a long life – and kept me in my
senses – there must be a reason.

Besides, I believe that if Sauli were still alive, he would allow me to open my
mouth, as he had plenty of opportunities to witness all my positive achievements
and the personal feedback I received.

Starting from the times of Tapani Kosonen and Duodecim, attempts to suppress
this issue have continued for over 36 years.

The wrongs done to me personally are nothing compared to what the Finnish people
– and in a wider sense, the whole world – have lost in terms of their good
health as my message has been silenced.

PANACEA is full of therapeutic "g e m s" – I am bold enough to say this – which
are too difficult for dimwits to perceive, while they have benefited my circle
of family and friends and hundreds of patients, but that's nothing but a "voice
crying in the wilderness"!

The Finnish Medical Journal is only too willing to give space for repetitions of
the century-old mantra, such as Pärssinen's review, which will not help anybody
to feel better.

Who is responsible for a negligence of this magnitude?

Presumably the Finnish Medical Association, which should be working for people's
good health?

To this outburst I am attaching my response to the review, hoping that the
Finnish Medical Journal will lack the courage to leave it unpublished!

With a collegial greeting

Kaisu Viikari

4)  The Finnish Medical Journal

R E P L Y to Olavi Pärssinen's (1) review, The Finnish Medical Journal 6/2009,
495-8

To begin with, I will content myself with pointing out that in the 55 references
of his review, Pärssinen does not see fit to include the statement by two
Finnish Professors of Ophthalmology, which indicates that I have for several
decades promoted the prevention of myopia by plus lenses (2).

The most aggravating part of the review's message, however, was the firm belief
in the hereditary nature of myopia, which has long since been found faulty by
those who understand anything about these matters.

On page 78 of Tetralogia (3); and page 101 of Panacea (4), I write: "By means of
suggestion, belief in hereditary factors has probably been the most harmful
influence of all. What is indeed inherited is a set of general reactions to
life´s situations, includin spasm of accommodation."

A rapidly expanding group of professionals and lay people are beginning to
understand how fateful this doctrine that has been prevailing for centuries is,
especially to prevention of myopia. Parents have found comfort in thinking that
there is nothing they can do about the fate of their children.

The parties who have been the most successful in promoting this cause are
insightful lay persons, mainly physicists (even today, this applies to parents
who contact me), who, concerned about the unexpected myopisation of their
children, have been aroused to use their brains (in the front line, Ronald S.
Rehm (5) and Klaus Schmid (6) to mention a few diligent ones), facilitated by
the fact that they are not constrained by that belief in hereditary nature of
myopia which has been repeated for centuries and which has caused immeasurable
harm to prevention.

What has turned out to be the greatest obstacle is the lack of committed
professionals having mastered the concept. When patients telephone me, their
first question always is if there might be somebody they could turn to in their
own area. But there just isn't!

Klaus Schmid has compiled a "Myopia Manual", (6) (first edition 2002) including
over 1,000 references, page 20 (2004) of which contains the sentence "The
conclusion is that myopia itself is not inherited".

Attempts to stamp out this heresy of myopia's hereditary nature have certainly
emerged from time to time, but they have always been crushed by the overwhelming
majority of those who are unskilled (and maybe a little afraid of taking
trouble).

In this connection, I urge the reader to see on my website (7) the fifth
paragraph under Feedback. It has a illustrative description of what examining a
patient is all about, and the same information can be found nowhere in my
writings.

Further, with reference to the serious global situation of today, the sixth
paragraph of my website under "Miscellaneous", is titled "A Cry for Help",
intended more than anything to wake up employers to see and realize what a great
opportunity for improving their employees' ability to work could be offered by
relieving accommodation strain (= an attempt to reduce minus values in lenses
and, on the other hand, strengthening plus glasses).

And thirdly, I would urge you to read case history nr. 306, which can be found
both in Tetralogia (3) and Panacea (4). It shows how weaning off a patient who
is fond of his minuses from the glasses may require such a level of presence and
almost "violence" from the ophthalmologist that, in practice, this is not even
possible with the great masses.

After visiting my new website, Schmid (6) has this year (2009) first of all
added to his own site the following:

Other sites about myopia and related issues, which are especially worth visiting
http://www.kaisuviikari.com/panacea.htm and
http://www.kaisuviikari/books/PANACEA_by_Kaisu_Viikari_1978.pdf

The Internet article "The Secret of Myopia" (8) has, in the feedback under items
6) and 7), captured the essence of my message: "The problem is no longer
"science" but rather to get the person to understand true-prevention BEFORE
he/she even "starts" with the first destructive minus" and which I in my book
(9), p. 43, on starting prevention as early as possible, have formulated as
"should preferably been born with plus glasses on our noses!"

And further

"That website (www.kaisuviikari.com) pretty much sums up everything in one
phrase.

Truly, the greatest hurdle to getting humanity off its addiction to the minus
lens is going to the universal knowledge of prevention. And prevention, in terms
of myopia, is described, as you often put forth, measures put in place BEFORE
the first minus lens. The problem is that it isn´t usually the grown people who
get their first minus lens, it is young children whose parents have no idea of
the implications of their choices."

What shows up the vagueness of Pärssinen's message is expressions like

- For reasons that are so far unknown

- an obvious connection

- it has been assumed

- is, however, difficult to explain

- is apparent

- the results, however, indicate that

And what a brilliant conclusion to the review: "the only practical method of
preventing myopia is outdoor exercise" – in which people are forced to cast
their eyes further – if not even to the infinity (= the most efficient way of
relaxing the accommodation spasm)!

We should ask if we can regard ourselves as having the rule of law in this
country.

Personally, I have given up even questioning this since 2 July 1973 (7), but
when I now read the description of the Finnish Medical Journal's principles
concerning their "discussions" (see Finnish Medical Journal's discussion policy
at the beginning), even the promises of that magazine – as they reject letters
of pertinent criticism – seem rather false.

Kaisu Viikari

M.D., P.h.D., Specialist in Ophthalmology

References

1. Pärssinen O.Pilaako lukeminen silmät? Suom Lääkäril 2009; 64:495-8.

2. Tervo T, Laatikainen L.Likitaittoisuuden esto kanoilla ja ihmisillä. Duodecim
2003;119:2475-

3. Viikari K. Tetralogia. Turku, 1972.

4. Viikari K. Panacea. Turku, 1978.

5. Rehm D. http://www.preventmyopia.org

6. Schmid K. Myopia Manual, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008.
http://www.myopia-manual.de/

7. www.kaisuviikari.com

8.
http://avalonfalling.wordpress.com/2009/02/07/the-secret-of-myopia-near-sightedn\
ess/_

9. Viikari K. jotta totuus ei unohtuisi. Turku, 2004, 2006.

5)  Medical Editor-in-Chief

The Finnish Medical Journal

A week has passed since I sent in my comment.

I have had no response from you whatsoever; when can I expect to receive one!

Kaisu Viikari

Subject:  Remarks by Dr. Kaisu and the Finnish Medical Journal.

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

5)  Medical Editor-in-Chief

The Finnish Medical Journal

A week has passed since I sent in my comment.

I have had no response from you whatsoever; when can I expect to receive one!

Kaisu Viikari

6)
Dear Professor Viikari,

I forwarded your message to our Editor-in-chief Hannu Ollikainen last week,
but the processing of the matter was unfortunately delayed because of other
urgent issues. We will contact you as soon as possible.

Yours sincerely,

N.N.

7)
Dear Professor Viikari,

Editors of the Finnish Medical Journal have now dealt with your comment. I
apologise for the delay in letting you have our reply.
References in a scientific article (!) are at the discretion of the writer and
the experts having reviewed the article. In case an important and recent
reference of great scientific authority is missed despite the evaluation process
and the editors' input, we advise you to send in a compact contribution to the
discussion. These cases typically concern a randomized investigation or
meta-analysis.

No inherent right of reply is associated with scientific articles, and I regret
to inform you that we feel the references suggested by you do not complement the
review in the manner described above. Should anything new come up in this
matter, however, we will be happy to reopen the discussion.

Yours sincerely,

N.N.

8)
THE FINNISH MEDICAL JOURNAL'S BLIND FAITH IN THE INFALLIBILITY OF SCIENCE

I usually am a very happy child of coincidences.

This morning, for example, when I was drafting this text (in my small writing
pad!) in bed, I happened to hear a rather interesting interview of director
Jaana Vuoksenmaa concerning her film "Toinen jalka haudasta" (One foot in the
grave"). In this review, she provided a very intelligent analysis of how
awareness of death and the ending of life makes us understand what we must do.

I have for some time now been sorting this out in my own little head: I must
once more bring this issue (prevention of myopia and accommodation strain) to
the attention of the world – no one else will do it for me.

And neither could anyone do it, as only I have studied the question and worked
it out.

I understand that it is difficult for my colleagues to believe that one woman in
the rank and file, Kaisu Viikari, could be behind a significant discovery of
this magnitude, but that does not justify their fanatic attempts to gag me, and
it is indeed appalling that the medical profession, and particularly its leading
members, should do so in their principal mouthpiece.

I will always remember the time when my husband (a surgeon) understood the idea;
he said he could never have imagined that the status of ophthalmology in
Finland, and the whole world, could be so substandard.

Even if there are legions of patients and others following this issue who
understand the idea and have seen the results, they are not up to putting it
into practice in every respect. The departure of my colleague Aune Adel was an
irrevocable loss to the cause, as she had so fully embraced it and did her own
share to enrich our experiences.

Unbelievably, the Finnish medical society Duodecim and the Finnish Medical
Journal have managed to smother any possible aftergrowth; the media – excluding
a few outstanding positive exceptions (= magazine Anna and newspaper Turun
Sanomat) – have mainly joined in the chorus.

It is fateful that in the face of this global plight, it has not been possible
to make use of the boost of strength offered by relieving accommodation strain,
which would be within an easy reach.

The Finnish Medical Journal has now revealed its bigoted and outrageous
resistance to myopia prevention, which presumably is evidence of shrinking in
front of the money mafia, even in Finland? Myopia means, increasingly,
frequently repeated, easily managed visits to an ophthalmologist or optician due
to this complaint, profitable trade of glasses, plenty of contact lenses; and
mutilation of healthy eyes that poses a risk to the eyesight and often needs to
be repeated, as well as other surgical inventions, which keep an immense
money-making racket going – a criminal abuse of the doctors' knowledge, which is
intended for the safeguarding of people's health.

A great crime and tragedy, in the cogs of which a poor human being is nothing
but a small pawn to be used.

Without shame, they prevent the facts from being made public to a wider
audience, or even discussed within the medical profession. This issue is too
explosive to be released in public, after all the negligences.

Personally I will not be here much longer to promote this cause, but fortunately
there are intelligent people of all ages who have found help and who, as
inspiring examples, see it as their duty to champion this cause, to say nothing
of growing awareness abroad.

The immense range of symptoms of hyperopes who need plus dioptres is a problem
that will be more difficult for the public at large to understand, as a major
part of this deficiency is latent, but time will also help in this respect. The
subheading of my book Panacea ("The Clinical Significance of Ocular
Accommodation"), although efficient and exhaustive, has not been adequate as a
wakeup call for clinics, but neither the book nor the cause will be any less
topical as time goes by.

But myopia alone, as an important cause of blindness, is a large-scale
catastrophe that could be prevented:

- In England, it accounted for 8.8% cases in the register of blind in 1966

- In 1972, it accounted for 18.2% of cases of blindness in the age group 50 – 59
(this is only exceeded by rhetinopathia in diabetics)

- in Europe and the USA, macular degeneration in myopes ranks seventh as a cause
of blindness in elderly people, but in Taiwan it already is the leading cause.

Eye diseases due to myopia are numerous, not the least among these being
glaucoma simplex, with its double figures compared to others (Schmid: Myopia
Manual).

Without a care, the world of science still wallows in the same world that
Galilei faced in the turn of the 16th century; dating back to that period, we
have the adjective Copernican, which refers to a great revolution in a field of
scientific research (Nicolaus Copernicus - Wikipedia).

How easy this could have been, if only the fully appropriate comment sent in by
my patients on the references missing in Pärssinen's review (which disprove his
belief in the hereditary nature of myopia that has had such an immensely harmful
impact on prevention) had been immediately published in the Letters column of
the Finnish Medical Journal!

The decision by the editors of the Finnish Medical Journal to reject my
"comment" (was that heading such an erroneous one?) was a hilarious, unrivaled
example of how "a mob has many heads but no brains".

This is another example of what I write about on page 61 of my book "jotta
totuus ei unohtuisi", and what has been a great source of strength to me:  how I
"feel a sadistic triumph when I see them demonstrating their stupidity to the
whole wide world in black and white", blinded by being considered, and
considering themselves, smart.

If they had taken the trouble to read my book, which has been offered to them in
many forms, they might have been able to avoid this blunder!

I am sorry to say I cannot have pity on Päivi Hietanen and temper justice with
mercy. I have offered her enough opportunities to put things right.

This tragedy has no parallel, not even on the global scale. As a crime against
humanity, it would be a case for the tribunals, such as the EU Court of Justice,
but where could we find the necessary expertise in solicitors, when it cannot be
found even here, among doctors that have had the opportunity to follow the cause
closely; intelligence to understand a purely medical question. However, the
Finnish people with common sense have grasped it.

Pärssinen is not the only one who's life's work for the patients, or study of
myopia, has been wasted. He is only one out of thousands and again thousands.

And it is not even a consolation to say that "the most difficult thing to
understand is the fact that you do not understand!"

Kaisu Viikari


19 Apr 2009 Kaisu

As always,

http://www.annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p39.pdf

Enjoy,

Dear Jean,

Subject: This is an excellent question!

Let me answer this in two parts -- my own interest (as an engineer) to make ALL
MEASUREMENTS MYSELF. Part 2 I will review your thoughts on the subject:

Part 1:

With my on trial lens kit -- I can establish all these facts for myself.

By this testing I determine:

1. I can read 20/20 on my Snellen -- with zero diopters through +1/2 diopters.

2. A minus lens will NOT make my vision "sharper" than 20/20.

3. Using STADARD illumintion (100 watt bulb), I can be very consistent in
making my measurements.

4. The LEGAL requiremdnt (DMV) is 20/40, not 20/20.

5. I can sort out if I have a true MEDICAL issue, versus and "un-desired"
refractive STATE.

6. If you want a person to be truly and completely involved in a preventive
study -- the insist that he PERSONALLY make these measurements. People are more
inclined to believe WHAT THEY MEASURE, rather than if you tell them ABOUT a
measurement. This is part of a "learning" process -- in my opinion.


This is my understanding and how I approach the issue of pure-prevention. In
fact, the above would apply to people who are using the Bates method(s) also.

As I suggested, I think Bates 1913 study should be repeated, but with
individuals who are older, and can make BOTH these measurements. That would
reduce the "cost" of the study to a very low level, and would be "convincing" to
the people confirming that their refractive STATE is moving in a postive
direction.

More commentary:



--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Daniel Mimi" <accountant@...> wrote:


> Otis wrote:

> >To do this, I obtained a series of plus and minus lenses in 1/4 diopter
steps.

Each lens costs about $3, and you can get them from Zennioptical for test
purposes.

> >HOW DO I USE THEM.

> >Reading my Snellen at 20 feet, I determine which line I can read accurately.

> >Once I have done this, I just look through a weak 1/4 diopter lens to
determine if it "blurs" the >Snellen. In my case it does not. I then look
through a +1/2 diopter lens. Still no serious blur. >Using a +3/4 diopter lens,
I determine objectively that this "just blurs" the line on the Snellen.

> >This is how a person can determine his refractive STATE.

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

Jean> Dear Otis,

Jean> I have a problem in determining my refractive error at home and perhaps I
will get the same problem in the optometrist office.

Otis> You probably will. But if you make the measurement, the cost is almost
nothing -- and you will TRUST your measurement. At least I do.

Jean> I checked my vision the other day with a -1.00 glasses and at my surprise
I can see the 20/20 clearly, I mean very clearly under artificial light but I
couldn't see the
> 20/15.

Otis> 20/20 is the standard -- not 20/15. In fact the ODs PRESCRIBE for the
sharpest vision possible with a minus lens. They call this, "Best Visual
Aciuty". I think this is what Bates objected to -- that you can do this. I
think his statement of "cure" was when he encountered this "over-prescription"
policy. He then removed the minus lens. I set the goal of passing the 20/40
line, and then in the DMV office. If I can do better than that (naked eye) then
that is wonderful. But I am not going to have "must wear glasses" on my
license. (Obviously I can obtain my own weak minus (from Zennioptical.com) if I
wish.)

Jean> This was annoying me so I grabbed my obsolete minus glasses of -1.5 and I
looked through them.

Jean> My vision was as clear and sharp as with the -1.00 but I still couldn't
see the 20/15 line.

Otis> I just worked on this issue with a friend. He read 20/20, and then I gave
him a -1/2 diopter lens. That gave him 20/15 (which means his retina is
excellent.) But I explained that the eye tends to "adapt" to that minus, and he
was better off not "seeking" 20/15 vision.

Jean> Wearing my -1.75 didn't do it as well and I felt bad wearing them. It was
as if they were strong for my eyes but I didn't get a hyperopic blur with them.

Otis> Have you reported you naked eye acuity in bright light? If I were able to
pass the 20/40 line (and the DMV) I would not wear a minus (except fo driving a
car at night). It was Bates idea with the children (at 20/70) that they AVOID
use of any minus, and get there Snellen to clear.


Jean> So I concluded two things:

Jean>> I will never see the 20/15 under artificial light so if I struggle to see
this line I will be straining to see.

Otis> Obviously, I think an excessive minus will "kill" your goal of getting to
naked-eye 20/20. After all "Perfect" is the enemy of "Best". 20/20 is good
vision!!

Jean> Second an optometrist may prescribed me a minus lens from -1.00 to -1.75
especially if my eyes are tested separately either objectively or subjectively.

Otis> But that tells you nothing about your Snellen at home. After all, the DMV
does not care why your cycloplegic refraction might be. They only are
concerned with what you OBJECTIVELY read on your Snellen.


Jean>> So my question would be what is my real refractive error?


Otis> Personally I think the word "error" is loaded with bias and assumptions.

Otis> So to keep this issue very clear, I take my measurement of my refractive
STATE to be the right way to make a measurement.

Otis> Therefore, with your OWN trial lenses at home, using a bright light on
your Snellen, your refractive STATE would be the MINIMUM minus needed to "just
clear" the 20/20 line on your Snellen.

Best,

Otis

124 "Studies" -- that accomplish almost nothing.

Not ONE of these studies aims as PERSONAL EMPOWERMENT.

Not one.

http://www.clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/results?cond=%22Myopia%22

Enjoy,







http://www.clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/results?cond=%22Myopia%22

Entertainment.

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

Enjoy,

Dear Tina,

It is true that with cataract surgery you can make a DRASTIC change in a
person's refractive STATE.  No question about it.

But it is also true, that people who have had LASIK, and went back to a READING
AND CLOSE WORK SITUATION, got right back into a negative refractive STATE, of
about -1 diopter or so.

This, in my EDUCATED OPINION, could happen to me also.  I have NO DESIRE TO LOSE
MY SLIGHT POSTIVE REFRACTIVE STATE.

So I use a plus 2.5 diopter for all close work to PREVENT THAT REGRESSION BACK
TO MYOPIA IN MYSELF.

It is clear that Judy will dispute this.  By my eyes belong to me, not Judy.

She has no interest (and no capability) to protect my long-term visual welfare
-- but I do.

So that is why I wear the plus CORRECTLY AT THIS TIME.

But I would also point out that some very wise people have "figured this out,
and trough there own wise dedication, used a plus to clear their Snellen from
20/70 to normal.

See:


http://myopiafree.i-see.org/AboutUs.txt

Obviously, because of the "public's" REJECTION OF THE PLUS, and discussed by Dr.
Raphaelson, I judge that is the only way of FUTURE PREVENTION.

Enjoy basic science and physics (as the second-opinion).

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
>> I can ONLY tell you of my experience.
>
> I read the Snellen at home, with relatively poor light.  I read about 20/25
(most of the letters).
>
> I have a 100 watt bulb 1.5 feet from the chart (for a "quality") test.
>
> I read almost all the letters on the 20/20 line at 20 feet.
>
> I read the same thing in an ophthalmologist's office, with his "projected"
Snellen.
>
> In sun light, I read the 20/20 line.
>
> If you want consistent results, then get some strong light on the Snellen, and
have your child read it that way.
>
> Consistency is the basis of excellent science.

Tina:  Otis is not myopic, so his unaided acuity will be the same in sunlight or
indoors.  If unaided acuity it 20/20 and myopia is not present, then the pinhole
effect of bright light makes no difference, you can't make perfect acuity
better.
(BTW, Otis improved his unaided acuity and reversed his myopia by having
cataract surgery, not by using plus lenses).

Your son, who is myopic and has poor unaided acuity, will see large differences
in unaided acuity as pupil size changes.  If you want to monitor whether or not
his unaided acuity is improving, you will need to measure indoors.  Measuring in
bright light with a small pupil is just fooling yourself.  It is not accurate.

Judy

Dear Tina Li,

Subject: My Engineering/scientific questions -- and a book about the natural
eye's dynamic (proven) behavior).

Since the subject of a "plus" for your child is moot -- here is an academic
analysis of the natural eye.

http://www.i-see.org/otis_brown/

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Tina Li,

Subject: Describing my motivation to "accept" Raphaelson's analysis of the
dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye.

Here is my biography.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/autobio2.txt

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Tina,

Subject: Why an OD will never put HIMSELF AT PROFESSIONAL RISK to help you.

Re: Why he helped ONLY his own three children with the plus.

Tina>  What do you mean "I just don't think any optometrist can "help" the
public with plus-prevention at this time.".

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

I was not going to respond –- but perhaps Raphaelson's remarks will explain
"why".

But please, Tina, why don't YOU explain how Raphaelson could or should deal with
you and your  child?

I know I can't do anything.

I can only help those close to me, and ONLY IF THEY GET THE "IDEA" -- and are
willing to HELP THEMSELVES.

This is not a "rejection" of and OD, but rather the goal is to get the person to
"empower himself" -- and why he has little choice but to gain scientific
masterly in the art prevention.

So, now, Tina, explain to me how Raphaelson was supposed to overcome the
public's TOTAL REJECTION OF THE PREVENTIVE PLUS.

Maybe that will help you understand why no OD will ever put himself "at risk"
for prevention.  I can't blame them for keeping silent -- can you?

===========

By Dr. Jacob Raphaelson (Second-opinion Optometrist)

WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?

With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you would
think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or ophthalmologist could
introduce a practical and effective method of solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did
exactly that in the following example -- with the following result:

THE PRINTER'S SON

It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting. She told me
about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave her my card and told her
to bring him to my office and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles.

She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was a printer
working in another city. She did not expect him home for the next six weeks. I
told her all this would not matter, that she should bring the boy over and I
would fit him with a pair of spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them
when her husband returned home.

She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his vision for
distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a pair of plus 1.00
diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her husband came back home.

"In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She stated
that her husband was provoked with her for getting the glasses. He had tried the
boy's eyes with different prints, far and near, and had found him to have
perfect vision with his naked eyes. In fact, she said, the boy could see even
better without the glasses than with them.

I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that quickly. I could
hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to bring the boy back to let
me check to see if he could really see well with his naked eyes. She again
brought the boy in and I checked his vision. I found that the father was indeed
right. The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the mother. I
just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor vision before he
received his glasses? And who would believe that vision could be restored by
just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks?

My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for exploration.
It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on children's eyes and on
vision restoration. It also enticed me to investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes
because I was myself nearsighted.

On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in doing such
work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly, did not need them was
almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a
medical doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who
might need or be under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on
the medical profession.

To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the following
precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any form, in print or
verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter and nothing more. Second, I
charged a reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any
special work or relief I gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I
just did it as a matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the
opportunity.

Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship of the eye's
behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept it up, and will continue
to do this work as long as I continue to have the incentive and capability.

Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair of plus one
(+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to the naked eye could be
restored to children whose eyes have a negative focal state? This was true in
1904, and it is also true now, in this decade of 1950." (It continues to be true
in this decade of 1990 -- Otis Brown)

SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION

With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a profound and
adverse effect, you would think that it should be possible to develop scientific
verification for this characteristic of the normal eye. You would be correct.
The testing and verification is impeccable -- if we restrict our attention to
the normal eye's behavior.

=========

Preventive second-opinion best,

Otis

Dear Tina Li,

Subject:  Why I use a Sun-Lit Snellen.

Re:  Duplication of the "Office" Snellen -- by me

I had cataract surgery about nine months ago.

As a result, I got very comfortable reading the "office" Snellen.  This was a
VERY SHARP Snellen.

When I went home, I down-loaded a Snellen from Alex Eulenberg's site.  This
Snellen was not as "crisp" as the Office Snellen, and could not be as accurate.

I took it outside and read 20/20.  Inside I read about 20/25.

I got a 100 watt bulb and placed it 1.5 feet from the chart.  Then I read the
20/20 line.

Thus, if you need to have your child read a Snellen inside, I suggest you do the
same thing.

More commentary:

=======


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Tina Li <tinali123321@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Otis:
>
> What do you mean "preventive plus", something stronger than +1.?

Otis> Tina, you do whatever you wish.  I wear a +2.5 diopter (at least) for all
close work, be it computer or reading.  I also confirm my refractive STATE as
being postive at +1/2 diopter (using a trial lens kit).  I am an engineer --  I
know how to make these measurements.


> Do you mean that a child need sto wear +1 for 20 minutes before then can move
on to stronger lense, such +1.5?

Otis> No, Tina.  I don't deal with children, nor do I tell them "what to do".  I
hope we are clear on that point.


> Does it mean that I should have my son continue to try +1 even he gets
headache in less than 10 minutes?

Otis>  I think you son is "plus intollerant".  For that reason you must stop any
an all use of the plus -- forever.


> What do you mean the proof for that statement? Some one wrote about that
statement?

Otis> I don't know waht statment you are talking about.  But since you proved to
yourself that you son it "plus intollerant", there is obvously no need for
further discussion -- he will never wear a plus again.


> Does it mean that my son was not screened in the past and it caused the
problem?

Otis> You made and excellent point.  Any OD who would suggest the use of the
plus should have the child wear a +1 for about 15 minutes.  If the child
develops a "headache", then the mother should be informed of this, and there
would be NO FUTURE US OF THE PLUS (FOR PREVENION) FOR THAT CHILD.  But as you
pointed out, this "screening" process is not implemented today.


> Well, based on Don's comment, my son should wear +1.5 when he had -1.5. I just
went ahead to give him +2.5 because I want to make sure he gets blur (without
knowing the "distance" can't be compromised). Don did not tell me that the
distance can't be compromised. I think this "distance" was the main cause of the
past mistakes.

Otis> It is hard for me to understand why your son is "plus intollerant" (which
you find out today), if he has been wearing a plus since February 2008.

> I am not trying to argue with you about the benefit of "plus"/minus lense.

Otis> I will not argue with you either.  Your son is "plus intollerant".  There
is nothing to discuss or argue about.  The subject is CLOSED.

  All I want to do is to find out what caused the past mistakes and what can I
do NOW to stop and reverse his vision. My husband was very mad with me when I
told him "plus" caused more harm to my son because I used it in a wrong way. I
just have to live with my own mistakes.

Otis>>  The subject is closed as of today.

> I don't need any proof of what is wrong with minus. I think what we need in
the prevention community is to know the potential risk of plus when it is not
used properly.

Otis> For your son, who is plus-intollerant -- the subject is ENDED PERMANENTLY.


> I don't think I read any of this warning from Don and Chinamyopia's website. I
think the pros and cons of the lenses need to be fully disclosed instead of a
promoted image of "absolute safe". I have already told my son that when he has
his children in the future, he will need to do the vision prevention in a
"right" way. Otherwise, it will not do any good to you if you use the "right
tool" the wrong way.

Otis> You son gets headaches from wearing a +1 for 10 minutes.  Never have your
son wear a plus ever again. The subject is closed.


> It is sad that my son has to live with my past mistakes.

Otis>  It is sad that your son is "plus intollerant".  I suggest that he never
wear a plus ever again.  I suggest that you use the Bates method for your child,
and foget about the plus and never discuss these issues ever again.

Otis> I wish you success with your son, and using the Bates methods, you might
be able to get him to go from (20/200) to 20/20.

Otis>  But that subject must be your concern.  No more plus, or plus discussion
about your son -- ever again.

Enjoy,

Otis



>
> Tina
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@...>
> To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:36:23 AM
> Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: sun-lite Snellen chart - weather dependent
>
>  
>
> Dear Tina,
>
> Subject: Child can not were plus and read Snellen.
>
> It is clear now, that no child should be provided with a preventive plus,
until the child is "screened" -- by having the child wear a +1 diopter for 20
minutes.
>
> Tina, thanks for the proof for that statement.
>
> About the Snellen.
>
> I can ONLY tell you of my experience.
>
> I read the Snellen at home, with relatively poor light. I read about 20/25
(most of the letters).
>
> I have a 100 watt bulb 1.5 feet from the chart (for a "quality") test.
>
> I read almost all the letters on the 20/20 line at 20 feet.
>
> I read the same thing in an ophthalmologist' s office, with his "projected"
Snellen.
>
> In sun light, I read the 20/20 line.
>
> If you want consistent results, then get some strong light on the Snellen, and
have your child read it that way.
>
> Consistency is the basis of excellent science.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, "tinali123321" <tinali123321@ ...>
wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I tried the snellen chart checking for my son over the weekend. However, by
the time we got home (around 6pm) yesterday, there is no bright light any more.
So, we could not check the chart.
> >
> > I begin to worry about this weather (sun) dependent checking method. What
happen if we get home late, the weather is not good, and how about a long winter
season?
> >
> > If I have to check snellen chart almost everyday, I can only do it over the
weekend because by the time he gets home, the bright noon time sun is gone.
> >
> > There is big difference in reading when he saw the chart under bright noon
time sun (almost 20/50) and without sun (20/200). I guess his real vision is
20/200, right?
> >
> > I did not expect that his vision any better than 20/200. I just want to get
it stop and even be reversed.
> >
> > I just need a method to have a consistent measurement of his vision. It
seems like the sun-lite method is too weather-dependent.
> >
> > I would like to have some feedbacks on this issue.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Tina
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dear Otis:

What do you mean "preventive plus", something stronger than +1.?

Do you mean that a child need sto wear +1 for 20 minutes before then can move on
to stronger lense, such +1.5?

Does it mean that I should have my son continue to try +1 even he gets headache
in less than 10 minutes?

What do you mean the proof for that statement? Some one wrote about that
statement?

Does it mean that my son was not screened in the past and it caused the problem?

Well, based on Don's comment, my son should wear +1.5 when he had -1.5. I just
went ahead to give him +2.5 because I want to make sure he gets blur (without
knowing the "distance" can't be compromised). Don did not tell me that the
distance can't be compromised. I think this "distance" was the main cause of the
past mistakes.

I am not trying to argue with you about the benefit of "plus"/minus lense. All I
want to do is to find out what caused the past mistakes and what can I do NOW to
stop and reverse his vision. My husband was very mad with me when I told him
"plus" caused more harm to my son because I used it in a wrong way. I just have
to live with my own mistakes.

I don't need any proof of what is wrong with minus. I think what we need in the
prevention community is to know the potential risk of plus when it is not used
properly.

I don't think I read any of this warning from Don and Chinamyopia's website. I
think the pros and cons of the lenses need to be fully disclosed instead of a
promoted image of "absolute safe". I have already told my son that when he has
his children in the future, he will need to do the vision prevention in a
"right" way. Otherwise, it will not do any good to you if you use the "right
tool" the wrong way.

It is sad that my son has to live with my past mistakes.

Tina




________________________________
From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@...>
To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:36:23 AM
Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: sun-lite Snellen chart - weather dependent

 

Dear Tina,

Subject: Child can not were plus and read Snellen.

It is clear now, that no child should be provided with a preventive plus, until
the child is "screened" -- by having the child wear a +1 diopter for 20 minutes.

Tina, thanks for the proof for that statement.

About the Snellen.

I can ONLY tell you of my experience.

I read the Snellen at home, with relatively poor light. I read about 20/25 (most
of the letters).

I have a 100 watt bulb 1.5 feet from the chart (for a "quality") test.

I read almost all the letters on the 20/20 line at 20 feet.

I read the same thing in an ophthalmologist' s office, with his "projected"
Snellen.

In sun light, I read the 20/20 line.

If you want consistent results, then get some strong light on the Snellen, and
have your child read it that way.

Consistency is the basis of excellent science.

Best,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, "tinali123321" <tinali123321@ ...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I tried the snellen chart checking for my son over the weekend. However, by
the time we got home (around 6pm) yesterday, there is no bright light any more.
So, we could not check the chart.
>
> I begin to worry about this weather (sun) dependent checking method. What
happen if we get home late, the weather is not good, and how about a long winter
season?
>
> If I have to check snellen chart almost everyday, I can only do it over the
weekend because by the time he gets home, the bright noon time sun is gone.
>
> There is big difference in reading when he saw the chart under bright noon
time sun (almost 20/50) and without sun (20/200). I guess his real vision is
20/200, right?
>
> I did not expect that his vision any better than 20/200. I just want to get it
stop and even be reversed.
>
> I just need a method to have a consistent measurement of his vision. It seems
like the sun-lite method is too weather-dependent.
>
> I would like to have some feedbacks on this issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Tina
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Tina,

Subject:  Child can not were plus and read Snellen.

It is clear now, that no child should be provided with a preventive plus, until
the child is "screened" -- by having the child wear a +1 diopter for 20 minutes.

Tina, thanks for the proof for that statement.

About the Snellen.

I can ONLY tell you of my experience.

I read the Snellen at home, with relatively poor light.  I read about 20/25
(most of the letters).

I have a 100 watt bulb 1.5 feet from the chart (for a "quality") test.

I read almost all the letters on the 20/20 line at 20 feet.

I read the same thing in an ophthalmologist's office, with his "projected"
Snellen.

In sun light, I read the 20/20 line.

If you want consistent results, then get some strong light on the Snellen, and
have your child read it that way.

Consistency is the basis of excellent science.

Best,

Otis





--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "tinali123321" <tinali123321@...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I tried the snellen chart checking for my son over the weekend. However, by
the time we got home (around 6pm) yesterday, there is no bright light any more.
So, we could not check the chart.
>
> I begin to worry about this weather (sun) dependent checking method. What
happen if we get home late, the weather is not good, and how about a long winter
season?
>
> If I have to check snellen chart almost everyday, I can only do it over the
weekend because by the time he gets home, the bright noon time sun is gone.
>
> There is big difference in reading when he saw the chart under bright noon
time sun (almost 20/50) and without sun (20/200). I guess his real vision is
20/200, right?
>
> I did not expect that his vision any better than 20/200. I just want to get it
stop and even be reversed.
>
> I just need a method to have a consistent measurement of his vision. It seems
like the sun-lite method is too weather-dependent.
>
> I would like to have some feedbacks on this issue.
>
> Thanks,
> Tina
>

Dear Otis:

My son wears his plus for the last 1.5 years but with the wrong one (+2.5). I
guess the excessive power of the +2.5 is the main cause of his rapid advance of
myopia?????? I still need to find the answer for this question.

I had +2.5 first when he had -1.5 at Feb 2008. Then he had another test at Nov
2008 for -2. I asked him to wear +2.5 in school also based on Don's suggestions.
Then, he had -3 on Jun 2009. It seems like he advanced much faster for the 2nd
time when we add +2.5 to his school work. That's why I think +2.5 is the main
cause of his -1.5 to -3.

Tina

===========

Dear Otis:

Something wrong with my writing. My son can only wear +1 around the hours for
less than 10 minutes (not 40 minutes) and he got headache. Some misunderstanding
here.

Tina

Hi,

I tried the snellen chart checking for my son over the weekend. However, by the
time we got home (around 6pm) yesterday, there is no bright light any more. So,
we could not check the chart.

I begin to worry about this weather (sun) dependent checking method. What happen
if we get home late, the weather is not good, and how about a long winter
season?

If I have to check snellen chart almost everyday, I can only do it over the
weekend because by the time he gets home, the bright noon time sun is gone.

There is big difference in reading when he saw the chart under bright noon time
sun (almost 20/50) and without sun (20/200). I guess his real vision is 20/200,
right?

I did not expect that his vision any better than 20/200. I just want to get it
stop and even be reversed.

I just need a method to have a consistent measurement of his vision. It seems
like the sun-lite method is too weather-dependent.

I would like to have some feedbacks on this issue.

Thanks,
Tina

Dear Tina,

The fact that your child now has "functional" vision in good light is the FIRST
STEP towards effective prevention.

Here are the DMV requirements -- running from 20/60 (for Alabama), to (for most
states) 20/40 with both eyes open.  See:

http://www.lowvisioncare.com/visionlaws.htm

This means that your child needs more work with the plus.  After he gets
comfortable with at 1.5 diotper, and his Snellen clears to a certain extent (as
you confirm it) you can plan to move to a more "preventive" plus.

It is certainly "now or never" as far a functional vision, and avoiding a -3
diopter lens is concerned.

Prevention best,

Otis

Judy:

Thanks for your feedback. Your reply answers my new confusion now.

I gave him another eye test after sunset (but still bright outside) He can't see
20/100 but only 20/200.  The result is almost the same as the indoor test.

So, this last test is the "true" result. right.

Tina




________________________________
From: drjudy65 <mpace99@...>
To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 10:05:30 PM
Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: eye acuity changed in one day : Snellen chart
questions

 
--- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, Tina Li <tinali123321@ ...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All:
>
> Thank you for all the responses to my first messages about "plus lenses do not
work.....".. I did not have time over the weekend to respond most of
them because I  were busy in checking on Snellen chart.
>
> I started having my son look at the chart under the sun yesterday.
>
> The first time he saw it, he told me that he can barely see some letters on
the 2/50. Then, he could not see that line any more later.
>
> Today, when we did the checking again, he told me that he can see the 20/50
again but most of the letters are very blur but are recongnizable. The line
above it 20/70 has less blur than yesterday.
>
> I am wondering what happen here. Is he making some progress in one day with
his eyes?

Likely not. Having him look at the chart in bright sunlight makes his pupils
small which improves acuity -- this is the principle behind the pihhole glasses.
When the pupil gets back to normal size, his acuity will drop as well. If you
want to know if he is improving, you need to check his acuity indoors with the
same light level measure to measure. One way to do this would be to use the same
room and same room light after sunset.

Judy







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Tina Li <tinali123321@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All:
>
> Thank you for all the responses to my first messages about "plus lenses do not
work.....". I did not have time over the weekend to respond most of
them because I were busy in checking on Snellen chart.
>
> I started having my son look at the chart under the sun yesterday.
>
> The first time he saw it, he told me that he can barely see some letters on
the 2/50. Then, he could not see that line any more later.
>
> Today, when we did the checking again, he told me that he can see the 20/50
again but most of the letters are very blur but are recongnizable. The line
above it 20/70 has less blur than yesterday.
>
> I am wondering what happen here. Is he making some progress in one day with
his eyes?

Likely not.  Having him look at the chart in bright sunlight makes his pupils
small which improves acuity -- this is the principle behind the pihhole glasses.
When the pupil gets back to normal size, his acuity will drop as well.  If you
want to know if he is improving, you need to check his acuity indoors with the
same light level measure to measure. One way to do this would be to use the same
room and same room light after sunset.

Judy

Dear Tina,

Subject:  It is indeed VERY difficult to deal with a child.

Re: But I am glad you are making the effort.

GENERAL INFORMATION:

-3 diopters (which you were told), often "translates" to 20/200 vision.

I am VERY PLEASED that you checked.

At 20/70, your son does have "hope" and can avoid the use of the minus 3 diopter
lens for now.

It does not matter if the letter seems "blurred". I only matters that he "makes
out" the letter and can read it correctly to you.  Also, he only has to read 1/2
the letters correctly.

In my opinion -- the minus is the real "killer" of vision.  ANYTHING YOU CAN DO
to help your son clear the 20/60 to 20/50 lines will be of great value to him.

More commentary:

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Tina Li <tinali123321@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, All:
>
> Thank you for all the responses to my first messages about "plus lenses do not
work.....". I did not have time over the weekend to respond most of
them because I were busy in checking on Snellen chart.
>
> I started having my son look at the chart under the sun yesterday.

Otis> GOOD!!!  It is essential that your personally have an objective
measurement of his visual acuity.


> The first time he saw it, he told me that he can barely see some letters on
the 2/50. Then, he could not see that line any more later.

Otis> Human vision does "vary" like that.  That is why it is essential that you
personally monitor his Snellen (with his support) and form a judgment about what
he sees ON THE AVERAGE.

> Today, when we did the checking again, he told me that he can see the 20/50
again but most of the letters are very blur but are recongnizable. The line
above it 20/70 has less blur than yesterday.

Otis> The blur on the letters is normal.  It is essentail that he read 1/2 of
the correctly to you.

> I am wondering what happen here. Is he making some progress in one day with
his eyes?

Otis> He is making GREAT PROGRESS when he AVOIDS WEARING A MINUS LENS!!!

> Well, yesterday I started him one eye exercise from PVS but he gets headache
quickly. He was under the sun twice for the eyes (we never did it in the past).
We also took few short works so that he can have distant vision focusing too..
Of course, he has +1 lense on till he got headache and then he took it off. He
had +1 on for three times, and each time last for 5 minutes.

Otis>  I KNOW THIS IS DIFFICULT.  There is a "balance" between "pushing" and
"backing off" on this issue.  You will have to do what is reasonable -- in YOUR
JUDGMENT.

> That's what we did yesterday  for his eyes.

Otis> That is a MAJOR STEP FORWARD -- IN MY OPINION.

> I would like to have some feedback about his eye treatment (yesterday) . I
want to know whether eye acuity can be affected in such a short time.

Otis> It can be -- but far more important is that you have STANDARD TEST
CONDITIONS (outside in sun) and that you can repeat this test UNDER YOUR
CONTROL.

Otis> This will not be easy -- but if you child is intelligent (as I am certain
that he is) he will respond.

Otis>  When he gets older, and understands more, he will NEVER FAULT YOU FOR
DOING THE "RIGHT THING" FOR HIS LONG-TERM VISUAL WELFARE.

Keep on posting and "talking" about these subjects.  That is how we all learn
together.

Sincerely,

Otis Brown

>
> Thanks,
> Tina
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@...>
> To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 8:22:55 PM
> Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: from 2/320 to 20/30 in six weeks with plus lenses
ONLY ?????
>
>  
>
> Dear Tina Li,
>
> Subject: Clearing your vision under your control.
>
> As you know by now, my advocacy is for mature adults, or people who are old
enough to take prevention very seriously, and will read their own Snellen (i.e.,
for instance they read 20/50 to 20/70).
>
> They then (if they have the motivation) make very heavy use of a plus for all
close work.
>
> Then, by this combination of checking their Snellen, and using the plus, they
monitor their Snellen, until they verify that it "clears" to 20/40 to 20/30.
>
> They then go to the DMV, take and pass the DMV test and get any "restriction"
removed from their diving license.
>
> Once they do that, they continue to use the plus until they are substantially
better than 20/40, or in the 20/30, 20/25 and 20/20 range.
>
> The point is that this process works -- but it is of course difficult and both
of us know.
>
> I wish you success with your child -- and am pleased that Don attempted to
help you.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, Tina Li <tinali123321@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, Otis:
> >
> > What is Snellen clearning?
> >
> > Tina
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@ ..>
> > To: Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com
> > Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:45:04 PM
> > Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: from 2/320 to 20/30 in six weeks with plus lenses
ONLY ?????
> >
> >  
> >
> > Dear Tina Li,
> >
> > Subject: "Improvement" is impossible -- until you read a Snellen.
> >
> > It is pointless to talk about Snellen Clearing -- if your son does not have
a Snellen.
> >
> > So why not work on that issue for now?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Otis
> >
> > --- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, Tina Li <tinali123321@ ...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Otis:
> > >
> > > It is hard to believe this story but I want to blieve it so that I can
give myself another chance to restore my son' myopa from 2/200 to something
lower.
> > >
> > > How can he function without his minus at 20/320 most of time at work? Does
he mean that he wears his plus lenses all time without minus for six weeks?
> > >
> > > My son has -3D. It means that he does not need any plus lense to see
"blur". I was told that his eyes probally will get better after the summer. He
does not have any minus lenses yet. He will have another 6 weeks left to see
whether I can make some improvements on his eyes by adding +1 plus lense to make
it more blur at home.  What do you think?
> > >
> > > Tina
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > > From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@ ..>
> > > To: Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. . com
> > > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 7:55:35 PM
> > > Subject: [Myopiafree2] For Tina -- an example of GROSS OVER-PRESCRIPTION
> > >
> > >  
> > > Dear Tina,
> > >
> > > Subject: Checking your child's visual acuity yourself.
> > >
> > > Typically the OD will not "bother" checking your child's visual acuity..
> > >
> > > He just starts turning "dials" on his Phoropter (trial-lens set), and
provides VERY, VERY SHARP VISION with a strong minus.
> > >
> > > This often produces gross-over prescription.
> > >
> > > Here is an example of a person who (in my opinion) was over-prescribed by
-3 diopers.
> > >
> > > He cleared his Snellen in about six weeks. (The eye simply does not
"change" by 3 diopters in six weeks.) In my opinion, his diopter readings were
excessive -- but he did not find this out until he PERSONALLY CHECKED HIS
SNELLEN.
> > >
> > > =========
> > >
> > > VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT
VISION
> > >
> > > Dennis Romich, July 21
> > >
> > > My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis
Brown discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for restoring the
myopic eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to attempt to use the plus
lens, and see what would happen, since the approach seemed reasonable and much
safer than any other method.
> > >
> > > I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The lens
was a +1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass for people who
have lost their near vision.
> > >
> > > I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus lenses
which I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my vision worsened,
and the Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens. My distance vision without
prescription lenses was very bad through high school, college, and graduate
school. The last professional check (Ophthalmologist) showed that my
prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This
is approximately 20/320 vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I
would be classed as legally blind without my glasses.
> > >
> > > As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed that my
distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I purchased Otis' book, and
checked my eyes against the eye chart. They were 20/30, which means I will pass
the standard driver's license criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription
lenses.
> > >
> > > Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that most
individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but he felt that
returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe. Since I have done it
successfully, I have no doubt that other individuals who have a similar problem
could obtain similar results using Otis' recommended method of vision
restoration.
> > >
> > > I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in
both Engineering and Business Administration.
> > >
> > > ==========
> > >
> > > Had he personally checked his Snellen, I doubt that he would have been
wearing a strong minus lens.
> > >
> > > Otis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Hi, All:

Thank you for all the responses to my first messages about "plus lenses do not
work.....". I did not have time over the weekend to respond most of
them because I were busy in checking on Snellen chart.

I started having my son look at the chart under the sun yesterday.

The first time he saw it, he told me that he can barely see some letters on the
2/50. Then, he could not see that line any more later.

Today, when we did the checking again, he told me that he can see the 20/50
again but most of the letters are very blur but are recongnizable. The line
above it 20/70 has less blur than yesterday.

I am wondering what happen here. Is he making some progress in one day with his
eyes?

Well, yesterday I started him one eye exercise from PVS but he gets headache
quickly. He was under the sun twice for the eyes (we never did it in the past).
We also took few short works so that he can have distant vision focusing too..
Of course, he has +1 lense on till he got headache and then he took it off. He
had +1 on for three times, and each time last for 5 minutes.

That's what we did yesterday  for his eyes.

I would like to have some feedback about his eye treatment (yesterday) . I want
to know whether eye acuity can be affected in such a short time.

Thanks,
Tina




________________________________
From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@...>
To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 8:22:55 PM
Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: from 2/320 to 20/30 in six weeks with plus lenses
ONLY ?????

 

Dear Tina Li,

Subject: Clearing your vision under your control.

As you know by now, my advocacy is for mature adults, or people who are old
enough to take prevention very seriously, and will read their own Snellen (i.e.,
for instance they read 20/50 to 20/70).

They then (if they have the motivation) make very heavy use of a plus for all
close work.

Then, by this combination of checking their Snellen, and using the plus, they
monitor their Snellen, until they verify that it "clears" to 20/40 to 20/30.

They then go to the DMV, take and pass the DMV test and get any "restriction"
removed from their diving license.

Once they do that, they continue to use the plus until they are substantially
better than 20/40, or in the 20/30, 20/25 and 20/20 range.

The point is that this process works -- but it is of course difficult and both
of us know.

I wish you success with your child -- and am pleased that Don attempted to help
you.

Best,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, Tina Li <tinali123321@ ...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Otis:
>
> What is Snellen clearning?
>
> Tina
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@. ..>
> To: Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:45:04 PM
> Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: from 2/320 to 20/30 in six weeks with plus lenses
ONLY ?????
>
>  
>
> Dear Tina Li,
>
> Subject: "Improvement" is impossible -- until you read a Snellen.
>
> It is pointless to talk about Snellen Clearing -- if your son does not have a
Snellen.
>
> So why not work on that issue for now?
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, Tina Li <tinali123321@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Otis:
> >
> > It is hard to believe this story but I want to blieve it so that I can give
myself another chance to restore my son' myopa from 2/200 to something lower.
> >
> > How can he function without his minus at 20/320 most of time at work? Does
he mean that he wears his plus lenses all time without minus for six weeks?
> >
> > My son has -3D. It means that he does not need any plus lense to see "blur".
I was told that his eyes probally will get better after the summer. He does not
have any minus lenses yet. He will have another 6 weeks left to see whether I
can make some improvements on his eyes by adding +1 plus lense to make it more
blur at home.  What do you think?
> >
> > Tina
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@ ..>
> > To: Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. . com
> > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 7:55:35 PM
> > Subject: [Myopiafree2] For Tina -- an example of GROSS OVER-PRESCRIPTION
> >
> >  
> > Dear Tina,
> >
> > Subject: Checking your child's visual acuity yourself.
> >
> > Typically the OD will not "bother" checking your child's visual acuity..
> >
> > He just starts turning "dials" on his Phoropter (trial-lens set), and
provides VERY, VERY SHARP VISION with a strong minus.
> >
> > This often produces gross-over prescription.
> >
> > Here is an example of a person who (in my opinion) was over-prescribed by -3
diopers.
> >
> > He cleared his Snellen in about six weeks. (The eye simply does not "change"
by 3 diopters in six weeks.) In my opinion, his diopter readings were excessive
-- but he did not find this out until he PERSONALLY CHECKED HIS SNELLEN.
> >
> > =========
> >
> > VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT VISION
> >
> > Dennis Romich, July 21
> >
> > My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis Brown
discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for restoring the myopic
eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to attempt to use the plus lens,
and see what would happen, since the approach seemed reasonable and much safer
than any other method.
> >
> > I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The lens was
a +1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass for people who have
lost their near vision.
> >
> > I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus lenses
which I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my vision worsened,
and the Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens. My distance vision without
prescription lenses was very bad through high school, college, and graduate
school. The last professional check (Ophthalmologist) showed that my
prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This
is approximately 20/320 vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I
would be classed as legally blind without my glasses.
> >
> > As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed that my
distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I purchased Otis' book, and
checked my eyes against the eye chart. They were 20/30, which means I will pass
the standard driver's license criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription
lenses.
> >
> > Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that most
individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but he felt that
returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe. Since I have done it
successfully, I have no doubt that other individuals who have a similar problem
could obtain similar results using Otis' recommended method of vision
restoration.
> >
> > I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in both
Engineering and Business Administration.
> >
> > ==========
> >
> > Had he personally checked his Snellen, I doubt that he would have been
wearing a strong minus lens.
> >
> > Otis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This is in China.


http://www.clinicaltrial.gov/ct2/show/NCT00627874


Otis

Dear Tina,

Subject:  At least some medical people were successful.

Here is both the success -- and the public's dislike for the plus as a
preventive.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/prent.txt

Again, I know that children can not be "induced" to use the plus as described
here.  But there are many others who will read this -- and ignore it.

Best,

Otis

Dear Tina Li,

Subject:  Clearing your vision under your control.

As you know by now, my advocacy is for  mature adults, or people who are old
enough to take prevention very seriously, and will read their own Snellen (i.e.,
for instance they read 20/50 to 20/70).

They then (if they have the motivation) make very heavy use of a plus for all
close work.

Then, by this combination of checking their Snellen, and using the plus, they
monitor their Snellen, until they verify that it "clears" to 20/40 to 20/30.

They then go to the DMV, take and pass the DMV test and get any "restriction"
removed from their diving license.

Once they do that, they continue to use the  plus until they are substantially
better than 20/40, or in the 20/30, 20/25 and 20/20 range.

The point is that this process works -- but it is of course difficult and both
of us know.

I wish you success with your child -- and am pleased that Don attempted to help
you.

Best,

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Tina Li <tinali123321@...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Otis:
>
> What is Snellen clearning?
>
> Tina
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@...>
> To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:45:04 PM
> Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: from 2/320 to 20/30 in six weeks with plus lenses
ONLY ?????
>
>  
>
> Dear Tina Li,
>
> Subject: "Improvement" is impossible -- until you read a Snellen.
>
> It is pointless to talk about Snellen Clearing -- if your son does not have a
Snellen.
>
> So why not work on that issue for now?
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, Tina Li <tinali123321@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Otis:
> >
> > It is hard to believe this story but I want to blieve it so that I can give
myself another chance to restore my son' myopa from 2/200 to something lower.
> >
> > How can he function without his minus at 20/320 most of time at work? Does
he mean that he wears his plus lenses all time without minus for six weeks?
> >
> > My son has -3D. It means that he does not need any plus lense to see "blur".
I was told that his eyes probally will get better after the summer. He does not
have any minus lenses yet. He will have another 6 weeks left to see whether I
can make some improvements on his eyes by adding +1 plus lense to make it more
blur at home.  What do you think?
> >
> > Tina
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ____________ _________ _________ __
> > From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@ ..>
> > To: Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups.. com
> > Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 7:55:35 PM
> > Subject: [Myopiafree2] For Tina -- an example of GROSS OVER-PRESCRIPTION
> >
> >  
> > Dear Tina,
> >
> > Subject: Checking your child's visual acuity yourself.
> >
> > Typically the OD will not "bother" checking your child's visual acuity..
> >
> > He just starts turning "dials" on his Phoropter (trial-lens set), and
provides VERY, VERY SHARP VISION with a strong minus.
> >
> > This often produces gross-over prescription.
> >
> > Here is an example of a person who (in my opinion) was over-prescribed by -3
diopers.
> >
> > He cleared his Snellen in about six weeks. (The eye simply does not "change"
by 3 diopters in six weeks.) In my opinion, his diopter readings were excessive
-- but he did not find this out until he PERSONALLY CHECKED HIS SNELLEN.
> >
> > =========
> >
> > VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT VISION
> >
> > Dennis Romich, July 21
> >
> > My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis Brown
discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for restoring the myopic
eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to attempt to use the plus lens,
and see what would happen, since the approach seemed reasonable and much safer
than any other method.
> >
> > I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The lens was
a +1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass for people who have
lost their near vision.
> >
> > I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus lenses
which I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my vision worsened,
and the Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens. My distance vision without
prescription lenses was very bad through high school, college, and graduate
school. The last professional check (Ophthalmologist) showed that my
prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This
is approximately 20/320 vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I
would be classed as legally blind without my glasses.
> >
> > As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed that my
distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I purchased Otis' book, and
checked my eyes against the eye chart. They were 20/30, which means I will pass
the standard driver's license criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription
lenses.
> >
> > Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that most
individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but he felt that
returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe. Since I have done it
successfully, I have no doubt that other individuals who have a similar problem
could obtain similar results using Otis' recommended method of vision
restoration.
> >
> > I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in both
Engineering and Business Administration.
> >
> > ==========
> >
> > Had he personally checked his Snellen, I doubt that he would have been
wearing a strong minus lens.
> >
> > Otis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dear Otis:

Yes, I ordered the prodcuts from Don's website using Paypal..

Tina



________________________________
From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@...>
To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 2:15:39 PM
Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: Question for Tina Li

 

Dear Tina,

Here you state that you "...bought plus lenses/pinhole glasses from his
websites."

Is the correct?

Please confirm.

Best,

Otis

Hi,

I worked with Don on www.myopia.org and bought plus lenses/pinhole glasses from
his websites.

Tina

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

I hope plus lenses can stop and prevent my son's eye's myopia. However, it
continues going bad from -1.5 to -2 in 10 months and then to -3 in another 7
months.

When my son's eyes were -1.5, Don told me to get +1.5 lenses for him. I chose to
get a +2.5 so that he did not need to put the books far away for reading. When
his eyes became -2, Don suggested to get him wear glasses in school also..
However, it is still not working.

I have long discussion with Don about +2.5 lenses. He thinks it is too strong
for my son. However, if my son can read with +2.5 with ease, it may not be a bad
idea. I asked Don will "+2.5" hurt the eyes. He think it may not be effective to
reverse the myopia but it should not be harmful.

Now, than my son has -3. Don told me that my son will not need any plus lenses
to see the "blur"

He think that my son's vision may get better because very few close-work in the
summer (he is 8 year old).

I have not get a minus lenses for his distant vision. He is using pinhole
glasses to watch TV at home.

I don't know whether I should try Don's "myopter" that is $280, including
lenses. Don think it may work and may not work.

I just found the book of "the secret of perfect vision" and find this forum.

I read part of the book and learn more about David's "power vision system".

I just don't know what did I do wrong with the plus lenses for my son for the
last 1.5 years. I don't know whether there is any hope to either stabilize his
myopia and even reverse/reduce his myopia.

I am hoping to get him back to 20/20 when he had only -1.5 with plus lenses.
However, now he has -3 and I guess there is no hope to get 20/20, right?

I am looking into "Orthokeratology" or "Corneal Refractive Therapy (CRT)". Don
told me that CRT is still like using a minus lenses and CRT will not stop or
reverse myopia.

I am very frustrated with my failure in using plus lenses. I hope to receive
some advises to give me some hope.

Thanks,
Tina

--- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@. ..> wrote:
>
>
> Subject: From whom did you obtain the plus lenses for your son.
>
> You stated that you talked to Don Rehm, who recommended that he wear a plus
(for prevention) when yor child was at -1.5 diopers.
>
> QUESTION: How did you obtain the plus lenses:
>
> 1. From the drug store.
>
> 2. From Don Rehm
>
> 3. From an optometrist?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Otis
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi, Otis:

What is Snellen clearning?

Tina



________________________________
From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@...>
To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:45:04 PM
Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: from 2/320 to 20/30 in six weeks with plus lenses
ONLY ?????

 

Dear Tina Li,

Subject: "Improvement" is impossible -- until you read a Snellen.

It is pointless to talk about Snellen Clearing -- if your son does not have a
Snellen.

So why not work on that issue for now?

Best,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, Tina Li <tinali123321@ ...> wrote:
>
> Dear Otis:
>
> It is hard to believe this story but I want to blieve it so that I can give
myself another chance to restore my son' myopa from 2/200 to something lower.
>
> How can he function without his minus at 20/320 most of time at work? Does he
mean that he wears his plus lenses all time without minus for six weeks?
>
> My son has -3D. It means that he does not need any plus lense to see "blur". I
was told that his eyes probally will get better after the summer. He does not
have any minus lenses yet. He will have another 6 weeks left to see whether I
can make some improvements on his eyes by adding +1 plus lense to make it more
blur at home.  What do you think?
>
> Tina
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@. ..>
> To: Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups.. com
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 7:55:35 PM
> Subject: [Myopiafree2] For Tina -- an example of GROSS OVER-PRESCRIPTION
>
>  
> Dear Tina,
>
> Subject: Checking your child's visual acuity yourself.
>
> Typically the OD will not "bother" checking your child's visual acuity..
>
> He just starts turning "dials" on his Phoropter (trial-lens set), and provides
VERY, VERY SHARP VISION with a strong minus.
>
> This often produces gross-over prescription.
>
> Here is an example of a person who (in my opinion) was over-prescribed by -3
diopers.
>
> He cleared his Snellen in about six weeks. (The eye simply does not "change"
by 3 diopters in six weeks.) In my opinion, his diopter readings were excessive
-- but he did not find this out until he PERSONALLY CHECKED HIS SNELLEN.
>
> =========
>
> VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT VISION
>
> Dennis Romich, July 21
>
> My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis Brown
discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for restoring the myopic
eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to attempt to use the plus lens,
and see what would happen, since the approach seemed reasonable and much safer
than any other method.
>
> I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The lens was a
+1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass for people who have
lost their near vision.
>
> I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus lenses which
I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my vision worsened, and the
Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens. My distance vision without
prescription lenses was very bad through high school, college, and graduate
school. The last professional check (Ophthalmologist) showed that my
prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This
is approximately 20/320 vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I
would be classed as legally blind without my glasses.
>
> As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed that my
distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I purchased Otis' book, and
checked my eyes against the eye chart. They were 20/30, which means I will pass
the standard driver's license criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription
lenses.
>
> Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that most
individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but he felt that
returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe. Since I have done it
successfully, I have no doubt that other individuals who have a similar problem
could obtain similar results using Otis' recommended method of vision
restoration.
>
> I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in both
Engineering and Business Administration.
>
> ==========
>
> Had he personally checked his Snellen, I doubt that he would have been wearing
a strong minus lens.
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Otis:

I ordered all the products from Don. The children size plus lenses.

Tina




________________________________
From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@...>
To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:49:37 PM
Subject: [Myopiafree2] Question for Tina Li

 

Subject: From whom did you obtain the plus lenses for your son.

You stated that you talked to Don Rehm, who recommended that he wear a plus (for
prevention) when yor child was at -1.5 diopers.

QUESTION: How did you obtain the plus lenses:

1. From the drug store.

2. From Don Rehm

3. From an optometrist?

Thanks,

Otis







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Tina,

Here you state that you "...bought plus lenses/pinhole glasses from his
websites."

Is the correct?

Please confirm.

Best,

Otis




Hi,

I worked with Don on www.myopia.org and bought plus lenses/pinhole glasses from
his websites.

Tina


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


I hope plus lenses can stop and prevent my son's eye's myopia. However, it
continues going bad from -1.5 to -2 in 10 months and then to -3 in another 7
months.

When my son's eyes were -1.5, Don told me to get +1.5 lenses for him. I chose to
get a +2.5 so that he did not need to put the books far away for reading. When
his eyes became -2, Don suggested to get him wear glasses in school also.
However, it is still not working.

I have long discussion with Don about +2.5 lenses. He thinks it is too strong
for my son. However, if my son can read with +2.5 with ease, it may not be a bad
idea. I asked Don will "+2.5" hurt the eyes. He think it may not be effective to
reverse the myopia but it should not be harmful.

Now, than my son has -3. Don told me that my son will not need any plus lenses
to see the "blur"

He think that my son's vision may get better because very few close-work in the
summer (he is 8 year old).

I have not get a minus lenses for his distant vision. He is using pinhole
glasses to watch TV at home.

I don't know whether I should try Don's "myopter" that is $280, including
lenses. Don think it may work and may not work.

I just found the book of "the secret of perfect vision" and find this forum.

I read part of the book and learn more about David's "power vision system".

I just don't know what did I do wrong with the plus lenses for my son for the
last 1.5 years. I don't know whether there is any hope to either stabilize his
myopia and even reverse/reduce his myopia.

I am hoping to get him back to 20/20 when he had only -1.5 with plus lenses.
However, now he has -3 and I guess there is no hope to get 20/20, right?

I am looking into "Orthokeratology" or "Corneal Refractive Therapy (CRT)". Don
told me that CRT is still like using a minus lenses and CRT will not stop or
reverse myopia.

I am very frustrated with my failure in using plus lenses. I hope to receive
some advises to give me some hope.

Thanks,
Tina





--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Subject:  From whom did you obtain the plus lenses for your son.
>
> You stated that you talked to Don Rehm, who recommended that he wear a plus
(for prevention) when yor child was at -1.5 diopers.
>
> QUESTION:  How did you obtain the plus lenses:
>
> 1.  From the drug store.
>
> 2.  From Don Rehm
>
> 3.  From an optometrist?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Otis
>

Dear Otis:

I took the chart and put it under the bright sun for my son to look at.
He can read 20/100 with a little blur (it was barly blur when we are in the room
under good light).

He sees 20/70 now with some blur but still recognize the line without guessing
(he can't see 20/70 in the room). 

I think I will try to get a new chart to try it because he knows this chart very
well by now. 

Well, pretty much everthing stays the same except the blur is little going away
under the sun.

Thanks,
Tina



________________________________
From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@...>
To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 12:45:04 PM
Subject: [Myopiafree2] Re: from 2/320 to 20/30 in six weeks with plus lenses
ONLY ?????

 

Dear Tina Li,

Subject: "Improvement" is impossible -- until you read a Snellen.

It is pointless to talk about Snellen Clearing -- if your son does not have a
Snellen.

So why not work on that issue for now?

Best,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com, Tina Li <tinali123321@ ....> wrote:
>
> Dear Otis:
>
> It is hard to believe this story but I want to blieve it so that I can give
myself another chance to restore my son' myopa from 2/200 to something lower.
>
> How can he function without his minus at 20/320 most of time at work? Does he
mean that he wears his plus lenses all time without minus for six weeks?
>
> My son has -3D. It means that he does not need any plus lense to see "blur". I
was told that his eyes probally will get better after the summer. He does not
have any minus lenses yet. He will have another 6 weeks left to see whether I
can make some improvements on his eyes by adding +1 plus lense to make it more
blur at home.  What do you think?
>
> Tina
>
>
>
>
> ____________ _________ _________ __
> From: Otis S. Brown <otisbrown@. ..>
> To: Myopiafree2@ yahoogroups. com
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 7:55:35 PM
> Subject: [Myopiafree2] For Tina -- an example of GROSS OVER-PRESCRIPTION
>
>  
> Dear Tina,
>
> Subject: Checking your child's visual acuity yourself.
>
> Typically the OD will not "bother" checking your child's visual acuity.
>
> He just starts turning "dials" on his Phoropter (trial-lens set), and provides
VERY, VERY SHARP VISION with a strong minus.
>
> This often produces gross-over prescription..
>
> Here is an example of a person who (in my opinion) was over-prescribed by -3
diopers.
>
> He cleared his Snellen in about six weeks. (The eye simply does not "change"
by 3 diopters in six weeks.) In my opinion, his diopter readings were excessive
-- but he did not find this out until he PERSONALLY CHECKED HIS SNELLEN.
>
> =========
>
> VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT VISION
>
> Dennis Romich, July 21
>
> My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis Brown
discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for restoring the myopic
eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to attempt to use the plus lens,
and see what would happen, since the approach seemed reasonable and much safer
than any other method.
>
> I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The lens was a
+1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass for people who have
lost their near vision.
>
> I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus lenses which
I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my vision worsened, and the
Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens. My distance vision without
prescription lenses was very bad through high school, college, and graduate
school. The last professional check (Ophthalmologist) showed that my
prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This
is approximately 20/320 vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I
would be classed as legally blind without my glasses.
>
> As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed that my
distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I purchased Otis' book, and
checked my eyes against the eye chart. They were 20/30, which means I will pass
the standard driver's license criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription
lenses.
>
> Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that most
individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but he felt that
returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe.. Since I have done it
successfully, I have no doubt that other individuals who have a similar problem
could obtain similar results using Otis' recommended method of vision
restoration.
>
> I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in both
Engineering and Business Administration.
>
> ==========
>
> Had he personally checked his Snellen, I doubt that he would have been wearing
a strong minus lens.
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]