<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

So what? What happens when you place a -3 diopter lens on a 3-diopter human
myope?

- quote -

Please define "natural eye". I believe you're the only one I've heard using
that term. What else would you like us to change?

- quote -

OK, you want us to reverse conventions and call nearsighted eyes "minus."

- quote -

Who puts -3 diopter lenses on wild primates? Who puts -3 diopter lenses on
+075 hyperopes?

- quote -

Right. If it were, you'd be testing your hypothesis on people, not chickens.
Then your posts might be on topic.

- quote -

You would do well to learn more about what controls tissue growth.

- quote -

Then why are you posting in a medical newsgroup?

- quote -

What happens to the monkeys that are 3-diopter myopes?

- quote -

Nor anything else relevant.

- quote -

Then you're off-topic and you're in the wrong newsgroup.

- quote -

When you report the few that support you and ignore the rest, you prove
yourself either naive or deceptive. Which is it?

- quote -

So NOBODY GETS MYOPIA UNTIL THEY WEAR MINUS LENSES.

-MT

there is no proof in HUMANS Otis. Forget MONKEYS and CHICKENS. lets
talk about human children. its been tested and proven that putting
minus lenses on human children DOES NOT alter their refractive state.
you know this already. this has been pointed out to you with the
appropriate references many times.

as was said earlier in this thread, you know but you don't even care.
you are on a MISSION to thrust your unfounded opinions on everyone who
reads this newsgroup.

go back to your private alternative medicine newsgroup otis. why not
simply post the web address for your snake-oil forum here and let
anyone who wants to discuss unfounded theories, conjecture, and voodoo
go there instead of here.

"otisbrown[at]pa.net" <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote:

- quote -

If you'd like to follow Jane Goodall into Tanzania (oh, please, oh,
please) with a fistful of +2.00 readers, that'd be swell.

I've already given you a dollar toward the airline ticket. How hard
could it be to raise the rest??
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

Dear RM,

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

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

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

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

So the PURE scientific question is this.

Does this natural eye "follow" the applied -3 diopter
lens -- or not.

(Again, this is pure science, not to be construed as
a "medical test" or a "medical statement". The natural eye
must be credited as a sophisticated control system, and
we are just verifing that scientific truth.

(You keep on attempting to make my statements in
to "medical" statements -- and that is simply not the
case.)

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

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

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

This test proves NOTHING about "error" or "nearsighedness"
at all.

I simply predicts the behavior of the natural eye (as
a dynamic system) when accurately and correctly tested.

I have not made ANY MEDICAL STATEMENT HERE.

I have simply reported the results of scientific tests
of this nature.

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

Best,

Otis

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote in message
news:1129602439.223292.75730[at]f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

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

And what's worse, YOU DON'T CARE! You have either no respect for the
scientific process, or no sense of ethics about what you say, as evidenced
by you continuing to repeat your same "theory" in the face of the withering
proofs presented against it by people who know much more than you.

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


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

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:

- quote -


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

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

DrG

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: When a basic question is asked, and a
opinion expressed -- there is a huge explosion
of denial.

Why is that? Think about it.

Was Dick asking the "wrong" question?
What is wrong with the correct answer?

Otis

______________

Dick> What are the causes of progressive myopia?

Dear Dick,

The correct answer is:

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

2. An over-prescribed minus.

That is also the "second-opinion".

Isn't is amazing how normal everything became in this newsgroup when
troll-boy was away?
Apparently he just can't help himself.

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

"Neil Brooks" <Neil0502[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1f08l1ln4u1bp1eav4as89cvm64gfl8pv5[at]4ax.com...
- quote -

He, apparently, has decided to grace us with his presence once again.
Therefore .....

----

Dear Reader,

Otis Brown is in no way qualified to give medical advice.

Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown
(otisbrown[at]pa.net) writes, I urge you to review all of his previous
posts.

Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy,
but there IS plenty that proves him wrong.

Otis gets the basis of his warped, disproved ideas from concepts
written a century ago and one study done on CHICKENS!

Any of you folks chickens ?

Otis Brown is more than simply bizarre. He's wrong. See the weekly
(Mondays) "welcome to sci.med.vision" for information on how to
block his ramblings.

If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof
of the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression
of myopia in humans then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so
only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist.

"Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted
within the "scientific method" explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Otis's posts can be reviewed at:

http://snipurl.com/e77s
http://snipurl.com/fe3d

OR: http://snipurl.com/i7k2

The results of clinical trials of using plus lens therapy to prevent
the progression of myopia can be found at (hint: it did not work):

http://snipurl.com/fij0

http://snipurl.com/fimq

http://snipurl.com/fimr

The details of a proper, controlled test have been proposed and can be
reviewed at the following site, beginning with Page 40, Section 7(A)
and continuing through Page 42:

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/40.html

The remainder of this text
(http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html) provides significant
information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory.
Much, in fact, directly contradicts it.

--
Live simply so that others may simply live