Here is the statement:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za8rhSYv20Q


Enjoy,

Dear Prevention-minded engineers,

Subject:  The "Empowering" of a study for 2013.

I think I should clear this up.

I think we agree that "avoiding" the minus lens -- would be very wise.

In order to avoid the minus, it is necessary to pass the 20/40 line -- by
whatever method you choose.

So when I suggest a FUTURE study, I would suggest that the person himself make
all measurements (consistent with safety).

That would include the person (engineer) being taught to verify his refractive
STATE himself.

I doubt that you would find any engineer/scientist who would OBJECT to being
taught how to make this measurement as part of a scientific study.

In fact, refusing to learn how -- would be reason to exclude the person from the
scientific study -- because there would be no point to the study if the person
can not learn.

I think it takes very strong resolve to use preventive methods -- successfully.

I appreciate Bates advocacy.  But he would go in and claim that all eyes were
"normal" ( I presume passing the 20/20 line), and the NEXT group of MDs would
claim that they were "defective" and would prescribe a strong minus lens.

How do you resolve that issue???

The only way that "I" would resolve the issue is simply to state the "conflict",
and have the person himself check his Snellen and accommodation range.

That is "empowering" in every sense of the word.

Decline that "empowerement" -- and the "cause" is indeed lost.

I have never minimized how diffiult it is to do  it.

Nor have I suggested that it was "easy", or for that matter, that "most" could
do it.

Or that this is even a "medical" issue.

But I do expect that a person who loves his distant vision "clear" would take
plus-prevention seriously, when it can be effective.


Best,


Otis

Here is the video.

You can obtain a Snellen from i-see -- for FREE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl1mW71Zlgw&feature=related

Enjoy,

Otis

As always:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtifYh4KfkA

Enjoy,

Otis

Subject:  How do you "Prove" the "Negative"?

How do you "prove" that you cleared your Snellen from 20/60 to normal?

Who, exactly, is responsible for that type of proof?

Here is the issue as stated by Dr. Bates:

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

PREVENTION OF MYOPIA IN SCHOOL CHILDREN

About ten years ago I introduced my method for the prevention of myopia in
school children in a number of the schools in the City of New York. in one year
I studied the records of twenty thousand children who had been tested before and
after the treatment.

To prove a negative proposition, to prove that something does not occur because
something else is done, is a difficult or impossible proposition. ***

When I recommended my treatment for the school children I claimed that every
child who used the method properly would see better and that no matter how poor
the sight might be or how long the sight had been imperfect the vision would be
improved always.

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

*** This depends on how YOU define SCIENTIFIC PROOF!  If you are deaing with
children, then yes, SCIENTIFIC proof is impossible.  But if you are dealing with
engineer/scientists -- the issue is profoundly different, since proof does
depend on the quality of judmgnet of the person himself.  OSB

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

Here is Dr. Bates paper on the subject:




--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Subject:  The second-opinion -- the public, and "medical".
>
> I would say this -- take responsiblity for YOURSELF.
>
> Understand how to make your own measurements -- or the MEANING of the
measurement.
>
> Become EXPERT of the medical second-opinion (about prevention).
>
> If you wish a "standard", then I would say personally CLEAR your Snellen to
pass the State DMV visual acuity requirement (under YOUR control).  Then go pass
the DMV.
>
> Once you do that, you can get rid of that minus lens -- or NEVER start wearing
it is then FIRST PLACE>
>
> Here is come commentary by Dr. Bates on this difficult subject.
>
>
> http://www.iblindness.org/articles/bates-throwaway.html
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Otis
>

It is very easy to point to a "fixed camera" to "explain everything."

My eyes have a accommodation of two diopters.  Measured with a trial-lens kit
and a Snellen.

My eyes have (at this time) a refractive STATE of +1 diopters.

So, at this time, I have the effect described by Jim Kirkconnell.

The problem is NOT a "stiff lens", because the entire eye "accommodates" by two
diopters.

It is because (at this time) my refractive STATE is at +1 diopter.

Here is ONE explanation of this situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVTOuJJa_5Y&feature=channel

Enjoy,

Otis

HiJacked u-tube video.

I get a cotton advertisement when I click on this video -- sometimes:



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Here is the video by Jim Kirkconnel.
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4zgta_1gdc
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Otis
>

Re: The Bates 1913 Study
by David on Sun Sep 20, 2009 3:03 pm

DavidK>  It's misleading to be posting this 1913 article by Bates without
qualifying it with a contextual explanation of Bates's opening sentence:


Bates>  Myopia with elongation of the eyeball is incurable.

The above sentence is why I removed it years ago from the articles I have posted
on http://www.iblindness.org/articles.

Otis> Tragically it is a bitter truth.  I think anyone reading Dr. Bates should
be very clear in his mind about this specific issue.

Otis> To try to "smudge" this issue out of bates is mis-leading.

Otis> This is truly a problem I have with the "interpertation" of Dr. Bates.

Otis

Dear Judy,

Subject: Your "flawed" assumptions.

But let us review them.

=====

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@> wrote:
> >

Otis> > Dear Judy,

Otis> > You keep on saying 'my study'.

Judy> I stand corrected, I incorrectly assumed that you would be an author when
it was published.

Otis> No, the "authorship" would be by the engineer/scientists who would be
leading their scientific study.  I hope you are clear on that point.

Judy> I look forward to reading the results of a study of the effect of plus
reading glasses on the refractive error...

Otis> That is your FAILED ASSUMPTION.  They would have measured refractive
STATES, and clearing their STATE in a postive direction would be a large part of
the study, and again, under THEIR INTELLIGENT CONTROL.  This is based on the
judgment (over the last 100 years) that prevention on the threshould would be
possible and reasonable FOR THE PERSON WITH THE MOTIVATION TO DO IT RIGHT.)

Judy> ...of student pilots in a four year engineering program when it is
published.

Otis> It would be based on their onw judgment of their own measurements.  It
would also depend on a "competent" understanding of measurements ans statistics.
An success would depend on exceeding the "highly significant" level in nine
months.  But I am certain you don't know what I am talking about.  But, with the
necessary education and science behind them, I am certain they would be a
successful as Dr. Stirling Colgate was -- if they have the same intellectual
ability that he had.

Otis> I also think that Dr. Orfield's experience should be presented to them as
a "general discussion".  If Orfield could "clear off" -3 diopters, then I would
expect a highly motivated pilot could "clear off" -1.0 diopters.

Otis> That is indeed the proper use of the "medical" second-opinion.

Prevention best,

Otis




>
> Judy
>

Dear Judy,

Subject: Was Dr. Stirling Colgates competent to clear his Snellen at age 14?

Judy, why don't you read my book on the subject of PREVENTION on threshold.

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

No, I don't "deal" with children.  I only talk to people who have a strong
motivation for true-prevention on the threshold.

Further, I doubt that you have the intellectual preparation to understand a
techncial control system.  I think you would be technically incompetent to judge
such a study -- as I have proposed.

That requires ablities that an engineer would be developing in a four year
ENGINEERING college, and for motivation, HIS desire to clear his Snellen (and
change his refractive STATE) back to normal.

I NEVER ASKED YOU TO DO ANYTHING.  HAVE I?  Others might have asked you to tell
them scientific truth -- but your "truth" is your "function" in your office.

I have a "trial lens kit", and I could "prescribed" a lens -- in concept.  But I
would never do that -- because it would only make the person's long-term
refractive STATE worse, not better.

I think that a student who wishes to clear his Snellen would understand the
concept -- even as you don't -- or have no  "clue" about the issue.

But I do enjoy hearing your "side" of the story -- as the majority-opinion.

Have a great day,

Otis





--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Judy> -- only
> > student pilots attending a four year engineering college.
> >
> > Otis> Because they:
> >
> > 1.  Are old enough to study the subject matter with intelligence.  That they
are old enough to make the measurements themselves.  That a degree of success is
possible.  That they have the essential "ingrediant" of being "in control of
their life -- and their long-term distant vision.
>
> If those qualities are needed for success, then do you think that children
under 12 are able to study the subject matter; if they are not, then why do you
suggest that optometrists advise young children to try plus prevention.  If they
are, then why does the proposed study only use college students?
>
> Anyway, back to my original question.  Have you found any statements by anyone
that engineers are not competent to wear plus at near and check their Snellen
acuity?
>
> A simple Yes with one or two links or a simple No will suffice to answer.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Judy> -- only
> student pilots attending a four year engineering college.
>
> Otis> Because they:
>
> 1.  Are old enough to study the subject matter with intelligence.  That they
are old enough to make the measurements themselves.  That a degree of success is
possible.  That they have the essential "ingrediant" of being "in control of
their life -- and their long-term distant vision.

If those qualities are needed for success, then do you think that children under
12 are able to study the subject matter; if they are not, then why do you
suggest that optometrists advise young children to try plus prevention.  If they
are, then why does the proposed study only use college students?

Anyway, back to my original question.  Have you found any statements by anyone
that engineers are not competent to wear plus at near and check their Snellen
acuity?

A simple Yes with one or two links or a simple No will suffice to answer.

Judy

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> You keep on saying 'my study'.

I stand corrected, I incorrectly assumed that you would be an author when it was
published.

I look forward to reading the results of a study of the effect of plus reading
glasses on the refractive error of student pilots in a four year engineering
program when it is published.

Judy

Alex> It won't matter how the experiment turns out; it will have no
> effect on the profession. We will all have to wait until the\
> optometrists take it upon themselves to conduct such an experiment
> -- which will never happen.

Judy>  An experiment like Otis proposes is highly unlikely to happen for the
simple
reason that he proposes a truly bizarre limitation on the subjects...

Otis>  Bizzarre?  That the person study objective science as it concerns the
dynamic, and proven behavior of the fundamental eye?  That he have the WISDOM to
participate in a preventive study where he knows full well the meaing getting
your refractive STATE to change in a positive direction under HIS CONTROL??  I
think your position bizarre, Judy, not the intelligent and successful work of
Dr. Stirling Colgate, Dr. Francis Young, Soon See, Steve Leung, and a Dr. Kaisu.
It is the use of their widom, and a person's wise choice to clear both their
refractive STATE and their Snellen -- that makes for a true scientists.


Judy> -- only
student pilots attending a four year engineering college.

Otis> Because they:

1.  Are old enough to study the subject matter with intelligence.  That they are
old enough to make the measurements themselves.  That a degree of success is
possible.  That they have the essential "ingrediant" of being "in control of
their life -- and their long-term distant vision.  You call THOSE ESSENTIAL
ENGINEERING/SCIENTIFIC qualities "different"?

Judy>  Similar studies of
plus at near using a broader range of subjects have been conducted and
published.

Otis> But NOT ONE STUDY "EMPOWERED" and challenged each individual to THINK
about what he was doing, and why he should be doing it.  Yes it does take a wise
person to be at the core of a scientific effort.  But you don't understand that
concept -- obviously.


Judy>  The concensus is that there is no clinically significant effect.

Otis> You say "concensus"?  What you mean is the majority-opinion.  That is not
science, that is simply a body of people who have been taught that preventing
ENTRY into nearsightedness -- is impossible.

Otis> Sorry, Judy, you are mistaken on a scientific level.

Have a nice day,

Otis


Judy

Dear Judy,

You keep on saying 'my study'.

The effort of true PREVENTION, under the control of the person himself -- MUST
be by his wisdom and personal fortitude.

That is truly the "way" of fundamental science.

Have a nice day,

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > SciPlus.txt
>
> I look forward to reading your study when it is published.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> SciPlus.txt

I look forward to reading your study when it is published.

Judy

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 18, 2009, at 8:25 PM, drjudy65 wrote:
>
> > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@> wrote:
> >>
> >> drjudy65 wrote:
> >>> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Judy,
>
> Otis:
> >>>> I suggest that a scientific study could not be conducted at a
> >>>> "blind study".
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do you have a problem with that issue?
>
> Judy:
> I have
> >>> repeatedly said in other threads that you are free to run your
> >>> study any way you want.
>
>
> OK, now you have (see below). You say that if the study were not
> conducted as a "blind" study you would not respect the results.

If I do not "respect" the results does not mean that Otis is not free to run the
study any way he wants.

Otis has repeatedly said that the purpose of his study is so that engineers can
prove to themselves that they can reverse their myopia and that any involvement
by optometrists is not needed.  So, he can run it any way he wants to and my
opinion or respect is of no importance.

If he wants to get funding to do the study, or if he wants to publish the
results in peer reviewed journals or if he wants the results to influence
clinical practice, then he may have to modify his design to satisfy the funders
or the journal editors.  Again, it is none of my business and I have no effect
on Otis' decisions about his study.

When his study finds success in reversing myopia, is published and replicated
with clinically significant results, then I will be interested.

> "better design"... in other words with the involvement of medical
> people (magic "cycloplegic" drops can only be handled by optometrists or
physicians) a convincing study cannot be done.

I don't know about the US, but in Canada any vision researcher, not just
optometrists and physicians, can use cycloplegic drops for research.  They just
need to get approval from a human research panel.

> It won't matter how the experiment turns out; it will have no
> effect on the profession. We will all have to wait until the\
> optometrists take it upon themselves to conduct such an experiment
> -- which will never happen.

An experiment like Otis proposes is highly unlikely to happen for the simple
reason that he proposes a truly bizarre limitation on the subjects -- only
student pilots attending a four year engineering college. Similar studies of
plus at near using a broader range of subjects have been conducted and
published.  The concensus is that there is no clinically significant effect.

Judy

Dear Judy,

Subject: PLEASE GET THIS STRAIGHT.

I NEVER said what you just stated.

In fact, I think a group of professional Engineer/Scientists would be far more
competent that you are to make these measurements, under THEIR (not your)
control.

Are we very clear on that statement, Judy?

In fact the success of a SCIENTIFIC prevention effort will depend on that
expected competency in engineering by each paticipent in this scientific (not
medical) study.

Thanks for your interest!

Have a nice day.

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> Have you found links to statements other than your own that many think student
engineers are not competent to wear plus lenses and measure their own Snellen
acuity.
>
> Judy
>

Have you found links to statements other than your own that many think student
engineers are not competent to wear plus lenses and measure their own Snellen
acuity.

Judy

SciPlus.txt

Dear Engineering/Scientific friends


Subject: The definition of a pure scientific study of the refractive STATES
changes of the eye.

Re: You can not "blind" this group -- better to put the effort into true
education about prevention and wisdom to do it "right".


Judy says I did NOT propose a control group.   This is false.


While we know the rate at which college students (slightly myopic) go DOWN and
it is established at -1/3 diopter per year, I think it is important that a
control group be maintained.  But these conditions must exist:



   1.. Be aware that they (as a group) will go down by about -1/3 diopter in one
year.  There should be about 60 people total, with 30 in each group.

   2.. Both the control and "test" group will receive EXACTLY the same
instructions.  They will understand that (randomly) 30 will be "control" and 30
will be test. They will review the objective science about the eye's behavior
that is freely available on the Internet.

   3.. They will understand that there must be a DIFFERENCE of 0.5 diopters
between the test and control groups – in about seven to nine months – BASED ON
THEIR OWN COMPETENT MEASUREMENTS.

   4.. I would invite "oversight" by second-opinion OD, who strongly supports the
concept of threshold-prevention.

   5.. The "test group" would do what I am doing.  The test group would be asked
to AVOID the minus – EXCEPT for driving and flying – as required.  The control
group could wear their minus if they wished.

   6.. When the "target" of 0.5 diopter was met – after seven months – then a
review would occur.  I would suspect that a number in the "plus" group would go
from 20/70 to 20/30 – or better.  Some would get to 20/20.

   7.. Then the two groups would be asked to "reverse".

   8.. (That might be difficult. Those who got to 20/20, and KNEW WHAT THEY WERE
DOING, MIGHT have a difficult time "quitting" the plus that got them to 20/20.)


This is why a "control group" will be necessary.

I KNOW engineers.  They would accept these conditions -- if facts, science, and
Dr. Colgate's success were reported to them.

I know I would – for the general purpose of SCIENCE – and far more important –
for my own personal visual welfare.

This seems like a fair minded approach to Engineering/Science to me.  But the
real issue is about accurate science and an engineer's willingness to take
"control" of his own professional work – is at the heart of this issue.



Best,



Otis

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


Alex>> With that in mind, Judy, could you please clarify.


Alex>> If a plus lens study were conducted as Otis has described, with all
  participants fully aware of what they were doing, and of the
  rationale
  behind the method; and the engineers' measurements showed a
  significant
  improvement in their Snellen acuity and a reduction in negative lens> power
required for 20/20 vision (Otis's definition of "refractive
  state")...

Judy>> 1. Would you consider this evidence that the plus lens works as Otis
>> suggests?


Judy> Without a control group,

Alex>  For the record, there is a control group in Otis's proposal, but I
would say that since there have been enough studies of myopia
progression in college so that the study would not need a control group.


Judy> experimenter blinding and without cycloplegic pre and post
  refraction, it would be very weak evidence, suggesting the need for
  further study with better design.

Alex> OK there you have it.


Alex>> 2. Would YOU suggest the use of the plus lens for refractive state
>> management to anyone on the basis of this experiment?
>
Judy> Not until the study was repeated with better design and similar
  results.

Alex>  "better design"... in other words with the involvement of medical
people (magic "cycloplegic" drops can only be handled by optometrists
or physicians) a convincing study cannot be done.



Alex>> 3. Do you think anyone in your profession would do so?

Judy> No, for the same reasons.

Alex>  In other words, Otis is right. It won't matter how the experiment
turns out; it will have no effect on the profession. We will all have
to wait until the optometrists take it upon themselves to conduct such
an experiment -- which will never happen.


Alex> But Otis, as far as I can tell, is not interested in changing
  professional practice with his study. If he was, he would design it
  with randomization, control, cycloplegia and blinding.

Alex>  Meanwhile "the professional practice" goes on blithely prescribing
minus lenses with no such study to prove their "neutral" effect on
refractive state.

Alex> I have no more to say on this matter.

--Alex

On Sep 18, 2009, at 8:25 PM, drjudy65 wrote:

> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@...> wrote:
>>
>> drjudy65 wrote:
>>> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Judy,

Otis:
>>>> I suggest that a scientific study could not be conducted at a
>>>> "blind study".
>>>>
>>>> Why do you have a problem with that issue?

Judy:

>>> I haven't raised that issue at all in this thread.  I have
>>> repeatedly said in other threads that you are free to run your
>>> study any way you want.


OK, now you have (see below). You say that if the study were not
conducted as a "blind" study you would not respect the results.


Judy:
>>> You said that others say engineers are incompetent to do your
>>> proposed study and I find it hard to believe anyone would say an
>>> engineer was incompetent. I am simply asking who said they were
>>> incompetent and where and when.
>>>
>>

Alex:
>> Well put.
>>
>> With that in mind, Judy, could you please clarify.
>>
>> If a plus lens study were conducted as Otis has described, with all
>> participants fully aware of what they were doing, and of the
>> rationale
>> behind the method; and the engineers' measurements showed a
>> significant
>> improvement in their Snellen acuity and a reduction in negative lens
>> power required for 20/20 vision (Otis's definition of "refractive
>> state")...
>>
>> 1. Would you consider this evidence that the plus lens works as Otis
>> suggests?
>
> Without a control group,

For the record, there is a control group in Otis's proposal, but I
would say that since there have been enough studies of myopia
progression in college so that the study would not need a control group.

> experimentor blindng and without cycloplegic pre and post
> refraction, it would be very weak evidence, suggesting the need for
> further study with better design.

OK there you have it.



>> 2. Would YOU suggest the use of the plus lens for refractive state
>> management to anyone on the basis of this experiment?
>
> Not until the study was repeated with better design and similar
> results.

"better design"... in other words with the involvement of medical
people (magic "cycloplegic" drops can only be handled by optometrists
or physicians) a convincing study cannot be done.



>> 3. Do you think anyone in your profession would do so?
>
> No, for the same reasons.

In other words, Otis is right. It won't matter how the experiment
turns out; it will have no effect on the profession. We will all have
to wait until the optometrists take it upon themselves to conduct such
an experiment -- which will never happen.

>
> But Otis, as far as I can tell, is not interested in changing
> professional practice with his study. If he was, he would design it
> with randomization, control, cycloplegia and blinding.

Meanwhile "the professional practice" goes on blithely prescribing
minus lenses with no such study to prove their "neutral" effect on
refractive state.

I have no more to say on this matter.

--Aleix

Here is the statement:


"If there is one child who cannot be cured by my treatment I am wrong about the
whole thing. There is no exception and when a proposition has no exception we
call it a truth."

- W.H. Bates


I think in the hindsight of history -- Dr. Bates should not have made this
statement.

In fact, I would never use the word "cure" to describe preventing the entry into
a negative refractive STATE.

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Judy,

Subject: The fact that a "concerned" parent (Paul's father) PROTECTED PAUL with
a preventive plus.

It is clear that "motivating" a child to use the PREVENTIVE PLUS CORRECTLY -- IS
DIFFICULT.

It  is true that there are contradictory opinions about HOW to help children
with prevention.

There is NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT ISSUE.

But is would be valuable for a pilot to know that a parent (and optometry
EXPERT) thought "well" of the preventive plus, and did not want his own child's
refractive STATE to move from "plus" to "minus" -- as we know will happne (as
science) from the study of the primate eye.

So any review of plus-prevention (by an intelligent pilot) would necessary
consider the evidence of how the "plus" could be used for effective prevention.

Also, the effectiveness of DOCTOR Orfield, and her ability to change her
refractive STATE by +3 diotpers is serious medical evidence that the "control
group" could be effective in clearing their refractive STATE from -1.0 diopters
to normal.

This is not a "jury trial", so the presentation of ALL THE FACTS, and supporting
scientific evidence is crucial for the PREVENTIVE study.

Since each man will be measuring his refractive STATE, and there will be a
"control group" -- (parties not wearing a preventive plus for six months -- but
measuring their refractive STATE) I think they will apprecaite their
intellectual control and judgment as being part of a scientific effort.

Second-opinion best,

Otis






--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Judy,
> >
> > It is with Paul Harris (his father), Antiono Orfield, Jacob Raphaelson,
Steve Leung, Soon See, and other professionals to institute plus-prevention with
their own childrens.
>
> Did you mean to start a new thread?  This one was about student engineers and
pilots attempting to change their refractive state, not about parents and
children.
>
> Have you found links to statements other than your own that many think student
engineers are not competent to wear plus lenses and measure their own Snellen
acuity.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> It is with Paul Harris (his father), Antiono Orfield, Jacob Raphaelson, Steve
Leung, Soon See, and other professionals to institute plus-prevention with their
own childrens.

Did you mean to start a new thread?  This one was about student engineers and
pilots attempting to change their refractive state, not about parents and
children.

Have you found links to statements other than your own that many think student
engineers are not competent to wear plus lenses and measure their own Snellen
acuity.

Judy

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@...> wrote:
>
> drjudy65 wrote:
> > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Dear Judy,
> >>
> >> I suggest that a scientific study could not be conducted at a "blind
study".
> >>
> >> Why do you have a problem with that issue?
> >
> > I haven't raised that issue at all in this thread.  I have repeatedly said
in other threads that you are free to run your study any way you want.
> >
> > You said that others say engineers are incompetent to do your proposed study
and I find it hard to believe anyone would say an engineer was incompetent. I am
simply asking who said they were incompetent and where and when.
> >
>
> Well put.
>
> With that in mind, Judy, could you please clarify.
>
> If a plus lens study were conducted as Otis has described, with all
> participants fully aware of what they were doing, and of the rationale
> behind the method; and the engineers' measurements showed a significant
> improvement in their Snellen acuity and a reduction in negative lens
> power required for 20/20 vision (Otis's definition of "refractive state")...
>
> 1. Would you consider this evidence that the plus lens works as Otis
> suggests?

Without a control group, experimentor blindng and without cycloplegic pre and
post refraction, it would be very weak evidence, suggesting the need for further
study with better design.

> 2. Would YOU suggest the use of the plus lens for refractive state
> management to anyone on the basis of this experiment?

Not until the study was repeated with better design and similar results.

> 3. Do you think anyone in your profession would do so?

No, for the same reasons.

But Otis, as far as I can tell, is not interested in changing professional
practice with his study. If he was, he would design it with randomization,
control, cycloplegia and blinding.

Subject: A few good men.

Jack>  You want ANSWERS?

Tom> I think I am ENTITLED!!

Jack>  YOU WANT ANSWERS!!!

Tom>  I want THE TRUTH!!!

Jack>  YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

The rest of this clip is about a better future -- in song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgabk5B2qJc&feature=related


See the movie -- it is excellent!

And enjoy the song!

Otis

Dear Professional friends,

Subject:  A professional was able to do more than change by +1.5 diotpers.

In the "study" I propose, I limit it to a required change of about +1.0 diopters
-- of course measured by the engineer himself.

That is the ONLY WAY HE WILL BELIEVE THAT HE HAS ACCOMPLISHED HIS DESIRED GOAL.

Engineers believe what they MEASURE -- NOT what others might say about their
COMPETENT MEASUREMENT.

But you ask, has any professional been able to do what you (Otis) suggest is
possible.

Here is a highly competent optometrist who was able to change her refractive
STATE in a postive direction:

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/drorfield.txt

In an "open" scientific study, this would be part of the review process.

I think the engineer, reviewing this result would say -- she did not need a
"blind study" to be effective.

She did it herself.

If she can do it -- then I can do it.

Actions speak louder than words.

Second-opinion best,

Otis

drjudy65 wrote:
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Judy,
>>
>> I suggest that a scientific study could not be conducted at a "blind study".
>>
>> Why do you have a problem with that issue?
>
> I haven't raised that issue at all in this thread.  I have repeatedly said in
other threads that you are free to run your study any way you want.
>
> You said that others say engineers are incompetent to do your proposed study
and I find it hard to believe anyone would say an engineer was incompetent. I am
simply asking who said they were incompetent and where and when.
>

Well put.

With that in mind, Judy, could you please clarify.

If a plus lens study were conducted as Otis has described, with all
participants fully aware of what they were doing, and of the rationale
behind the method; and the engineers' measurements showed a significant
improvement in their Snellen acuity and a reduction in negative lens
power required for 20/20 vision (Otis's definition of "refractive state")...

1. Would you consider this evidence that the plus lens works as Otis
suggests?

2. Would YOU suggest the use of the plus lens for refractive state
management to anyone on the basis of this experiment?

3. Do you think anyone in your profession would do so?

Why or why not?

--Alex

Dear Judy,

It is not 'me' who is going to control the study.

It is with Paul Harris (his father), Antiono Orfield, Jacob Raphaelson, Steve
Leung, Soon See, and other professionals to institute plus-prevention with their
own childrens.

If the person is old enough to "take responsiblity" (away from YOU) and do it
himself -- the prevention is possible.

All you want to do is to over-prescribe by -1 or -2 diopters (Best Visual
Acuity) which creates stair-case myopia, and destory's the poor child's distant
vision PERMANENTLY.

Have a nice day,

Otis





-- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Judy,
> >
> > I suggest that a scientific study could not be conducted at a "blind study".
> >
> > Why do you have a problem with that issue?
>
> I haven't raised that issue at all in this thread.  I have repeatedly said in
other threads that you are free to run your study any way you want.
>
> You said that others say engineers are incompetent to do your proposed study
and I find it hard to believe anyone would say an engineer was incompetent. I am
simply asking who said they were incompetent and where and when.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> I suggest that a scientific study could not be conducted at a "blind study".
>
> Why do you have a problem with that issue?

I haven't raised that issue at all in this thread.  I have repeatedly said in
other threads that you are free to run your study any way you want.

You said that others say engineers are incompetent to do your proposed study and
I find it hard to believe anyone would say an engineer was incompetent. I am
simply asking who said they were incompetent and where and when.

Judy

Questions by John -- who wishes to clear his Snellen back to normal avoid
convernting "pseudo-myopia" into "regular myopia".  This issues was discussed by
Dr. Bates in the first paragraph of his 1913 study.  Here are some clarifying
remarks:

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


Dear John,

Otis> Since the time of Bates -- there has been a problem. The 'conventional" OD
would OVER-PRESCRIBE a person. Then Bates would "cure", and take the minus lens
OFF the face. Then the "conventional" MD would "over-prescribe" and put the
minus back on the person. Since the person did not know what to do -- he just
wore the excessive minus all the time.

Otis>  That is what "converts" pesudo-myopia into permanent (eye-length) myopia.
This is why Bates considered that the Snellen must be restored (1913 study)
before that minus converted "eye strain" myopia into permanent myopia. With this
issue understood, then let me answer your questions.

John> Sorry for all the questions, but I have been reading around and have a
couple more:

Otis> Always glad to clarify the intent of Bates 1913 study. Please read it.

John> (1) When doing close work with plus lenses, should the work be at the
furthest distance away at which it is in focus, or just at the point at which it
is just out of focus?

Otis> Just get about a 2 diotper lens off the shelf. Then take some reading
material and hold it at 20 inches. If it is clear then push away. If not clear
then pull slightly nearer. It should clear about 16 inches. If that is
comfortable for you then read at that distance (or slightly greater) -- to show
you are right at the "edge". Also, always glance at your Snellen on your wall to
confirm your Snellen at 20/30 as you stated.

JOHN> (2) It would appear that recovery (i.e. a decrease of myopia) is
potentially possible when it is caused by a stiff muscle/spasms,

Otis> This is what the "plus" i intended to reduce as much as possible.

Jhn> ...but not when it is caused by a lengthening of the eye.

Otis> If you don't STOP IT -- as per 1913 study, then pseudo-myopia "converts"
to eye-length myopia as Bates stated.
John> Is my understanding correct, and if so, is a optician able to diagnose
from an eye exam the cause in each case?

Otis> The OD is only prepared to make your Snellen very, very sharp. He has NO
CONCDERN other than that.

Otis> Your desire to clear your Snelln is no concern of the "converntional
optometrist" -- at all.  Let us hope you have the concern that he does not.


Best,

Otis
Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 9:36 pm