Dear Ace and Dan,


Ace> You make other optometrists keep
- quote -


And who is this author and OD?

Otis> No, the author is an electrical engineer.
However the "author" of the second opinion is all the
ODs who have "second thoughts" about the effect
that a minus lens has on the refractive state of the
primate eye.

Otis> For a clearly articulated second-opinion stated
by a highly qualified optometrist, read:

www.chinamyopia.org

Otis> Remember -- this is ONLY about a choice a
person can make based on scientific facts. The "easy" choice
is to "accept" the minus lens -- and then there is
NO MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT PREVENTION. The
person himself has "accepted" the consequences with
the "acceptance" of using the minus lens.

Otis> I honestly do not know how Ace would have
reacted to being offered a second-opinion choice. But
I just suggest that he did have a right to face scientific
facts, and choose a course of action that MIGHT have
met his desired objective.

Otis> As always, I would be wiiling to PAY A MD for this
information. From my experience with second-opinion
ophthalmologists (who restricted the use of the minus
lens to the 20/40 level) I am certain the would be
receptive to sharing this information -- except
for the Neil Brooks effect. (Read his staement as
the head of the thread.)


Best,

Otis

In article <1139518115.766802.275200[at]g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ,
acemanvx[at]yahoo.com wrote:

- quote -


Unlike yourself, who only believes in the Truth, with a capital "T".


- quote -


He didn't just point it out, he made it up!


- quote -

And who is this author and OD?

--
Dan Abel
dabel[at]sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

Dear Ace,

Subject: The pure science of Francis Young.

Re: Remarks about the sincere RT -- and myself.

Re: "Quick's" Statement.

The primate data proves that the fundamental eye is
dynamic -- as a dynamic system. Ergo, the living
eye can and does have positive or negative refractive
states.

This is pure science -- and not medicine. As long as
we understand the natural eye's behavior in this matter
we can PREVENT a negative refractive states by
ENDING that "near" environment with a plus lens.

That is engineering and science -- and NOT MEDICINE.

As long as we have these "distortion" of understanding
(sematics) and call natural refractive states (organic defects,
or words to that effect) we wind up making scientific
facts and truth into a "medical issue". Let is be
clear -- I make engineering statements about the
behavior of all natural eyes -- which is respect as
dynamic systems -- and I EXPECT this type of
behavior.

It is our "choice of words" that is a failure.

To further respond.

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


- quote -


Quick> ..theme song of Weird Science playin in background.

Otis> General "attitude" of the general public. Quick
understands NOTHING of this issue.

Otis> But I do respect your ingelligence in this matter.
But in a deeper sense -- your right of choice.

Quick> Parse error...

Otis> I get is. Quick is "perfect".

Otis> Ace, your questions are all over the map -- with due
respect.

Otis> What about the one where he asked how much
you've "cleared" your own vision?

Otis> Good question. The Oakley-Young study is clear
on that point. It is possible to PREVENT, and
"cear" PROVIDED YOU START BEFORE YOU
BEGIN WEARING THAT MINUS LENS.

Otis> That is why I suggest that to begin "changing"
this situation we be OFFERED a "choice" in this
matter when your refractive STATE is -1 diopter
(20/60). You can clear your vision at that point,
and under your control (not OD CONTROL). This
is what Stirling Colgate did -- as well as other
pilots. Again, the Oakley-Young study implies
that beyond -1 diopter -- clearing is almost
impossible. Thus I MAKE NO STATEMENT
ABOUT CLEARING BEYOND -1 DIOPTER.
It is a second-opinion choice -- and you must
make it.

Otis> This is the type of choice Keith had -- and
he WORKED AT THE USE OF THE PLUS.

Otis> And consistent with the Oakley-Young study
he kept is vision clear from age 13 to age 40.

Otis> But that is a "statement" of HIS ability.
Others can make their own judgment of it.

Otis> I make my statement about the
behavior of all PRIMATE eyes from the
study of the primate eyes.

Otis> Others who do not like the proof
for the dynamikc living eye -- can "trash" the
science of it -- and wear their minus lens and
get stair-case myopia from it. Is
that what you want?

Otis> Just remember, I "accept" that I did some
"dumb things" with my eyes (described by RT)
so I take personal responsibility for the
consequences to me. No one is to
"blame" but we must take the
first "preventive" steps.

Otis> In my opinion.


Best,

Otis

-Quick

Silly guy! You will choose to believe in what you want to. Otis has
pointed out the Neil Brooks effect. You make other optometrists keep
quiet about the 2nd opinion, being myopia prevention. If you want to
confirm the valadity of those links, why dont you have a talk with the
author and optometrist who did this research?

acema...[at]yahoo.com wrote:
- quote -

Ace-

Thank you very much for providing more anecdotal (or purely made up)
'evidence.'

Perhaps -- just perhaps -- the mushrooms are wearing off. Maybe it's
time you progressed to LSD, mescaline, peyote, or even ayahuasco.

Best,

Neil

http://www.preventmyopia.org/prescription.html


http://www.preventmyopia.org/validation.html


http://www.preventmyopia.org/faq.html


Otis was right!


http://www.preventmyopia.org/images/viciouscycle.jpg


http://www.preventmyopia.org/images/viciouscycle2.jpg

Dear Reader,

Otis Brown is in no way qualified to give medical advice. He is
currently under investigation by the State of Pennsylvania for
practicing medicine without a license.

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. There is not a single MD
or OD who has ever acknowledged agreeing with Otis Brown's theories.

If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof
of either

- the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the
progression of myopia in humans, or
- the notion that a minus lens accelerates the progression of
myopia

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/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.

Don't waste your time with Otis Brown. Don't waste your money with
Otis Brown. Take your children to a qualified optometrist or
ophthalmologist.

--
Live simply so that others may simply live