<p.clarkii[at]gmail.com> wrote in message news:1133528517.673693.131460[at]g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

- quote -

I can't figure why Otis's posts are so difficult to ignore.

I can't imagine that his ramblings about "The Plus" are taken
seriously.

He seems to be taken by some as the banner bearer for some
of us who wonder if wearing distance lenses for reading is good
for myopes.

I think you have to be paranoid to object intellectually to him.
Or maybe you feel that associating him with a view which you
reject is helpful in making your case?

If you feel that he is a nuisance, why not just killfile him?

Shit!!, why not killfile me, too?

--
Dicky

DrG,

You are being too kind.

otis' ideas have no merit period. there is so much evidence piled up
against his plus lens prevention theory that its ridiculous that any
thinking man would continue to propose it. but rather than acknowledge
that his thinking requires an "adjustment", otis conjures up the good
ol' conspiracy theory and continues blindly restating and restating his
same old stuff.

apparently he will never listen to the science (although he tries to
reverse this argument and use it as a defense ?!) and he will never
change his ways. otis is a dinosaur-brain. perhaps he has developed a
touch of alzheimers and cannot recall any of the new studies that have
been published in the last 20 years. he also quickly forgets the
scientific undressing that he endures in this newsgroup everytime he
comes back and starts reposting his crap.

regardless he is pathetic yet he continues to post and potentially
mislead people.

sad, sick. beyond troll.

otis, when people go to such extreme measures as to send letters to
your wife why don't you get the hint? you are acting over-the-top!
you are annoying people with your unlearned inane drivel. go away to
another alternative medicine newsgroup that is not based upon science
and medicine. this place is not a forum for you-- unless you just like
to be disruptive.

otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
- quote -

Otis, the time might be at hand for you to sit back and take stock of
yourself and your ideas. The fact is that there is no such thing as
true prevention via heretofore known optical interventions. You
certainly amuse yourself with such dreams, but the fact is that if they
in fact did exist, they would already have been applied. You fancy
that there is some "grand" conspiracy to withold the truth, but that is
an absurd position because of the many, many competing interests in
eyecare. In fact, it is one of the most fragmented fields of
healthcare, with opticians, ophthalmologists, and optometrists all
competing for a slice of the pie.

For once be a responsible adult and quit jerking everybody's chain.
Your ideas aren't practical in the real world, even if they had merit.

DrG

Dear DrG,

No, it is your classification scheme that I was taling
about.

I personally agree that true-prevention is tough,
and takes considerable foritude in the
individual to accomplish successfully.

I think it takes the subject matter
(of the natural eye's behavior) out
of your hands, and suggests that
the person himself could play
a far stronger role in effective prevention.

I will post the remarks on successful
vision-clearing from -1.25 diopters
to normal for your interest.

Best,

Otis

That's right, Otis. Continue to view yourself as persecuted "heretic,"
or "prophet." It's a requirement for maintaining your status quo.

DrG

Dear Dick Adams,

Any one who "objects" is labled a "heritic" and the ODs brain turns-off
at that point. It seems that they are doing that to you also.

Of course the minus lens "affects" the refractive state of the
natural eye. All you have to do is run the scientific experiment
to prove it to yourself.

The real question is what you are going to do with the proof -- now
that YOU have it.

In fact the plus has been used for true prevention, but the
person finds it "tedious", and unless the person is clear
about this -- it is probable that he will not use it correctly.
But this reflects on the person -- and not on the "prescribing
authority". (Vision clearing was from about -1.25 diopters
to normal. But it took about 6 months to do it.)

But most of us prefer that minus lens that can be
delivered in 15 minutes. But, as seen
in the school records, your refractive
status will move negative at a rate
of about -1/2 diopter per year (average)
if you begin wearing it all the time.

Very few people have the motivation
to reject the minus -- and always
keep their eye-chart at 20/40 or better
through the school years. The person
who does this, never is given a minus lens,
and never develops stair-case myopia as
per above.

But it does take a person with great force-of-will
to do this. Which takes the subject out of the
hands of the OD.

Best,

Otis

"Dick Adams" <bad.addr[at]nonexist.com> wrote

- quote -

Whether concave glasses make myopia worse.

-MT

I'm not a psychologist, but I find the posts by "Dicky" and "Otis"
fascinating. Both of them seem to blame their myopia for various
shortcomings, failures, disappointments, etc., etc.

Sorry that you guys got "shorted." Glasses should have helped level
the playing field. They certainly did for me.

DrG

"Mike Tyner" <mtyner[at]mindspring.com> wrote in message news:SJEjf.7715$N45.2741[at]newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...

- quote -

I think that I understand that some people think that using concave eyeglasses,
which are prescribed to correct myopic vision for distance, for reading and
close work may be a cause of progressive myopia. Usually it is not the people
who pander eyeglasses who believe that. Otis believes that, but what does
he know? He says that the Chinese believe that. Who could argue with
3 Billion Chinese?

- quote -

Of course eyeglasses make a difference. They make a whole bunch of
differences, including holes in your nose. They make you see better, usually.
If you are a girl, they reduced the probability of getting dates. If you are a
boy, they complicate athletics for you. Needing complicated eyeglasses on a
regular schedule makes it less likely that you will have enough money to pay
for your groceries. What kind of difference are we actually talking about?

--
Dicky

"Dick Adams" <bad.addr[at]nonexist.com> wrote

- quote -

If you research the actual facts, you'll find historically it was "common
knowledge" that glasses cause myopia to worsen.

What "goes uphill" is the notion that glasses don't make any difference.

-MT