> otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
> > Dear Prevention-minded parents,
> > > As we know from reading:
> > > www.chinamyopia.org
> > > plus-prevention is the second-opinion.
> No, "we" don't know anything about plus-prevention being a
> second-opinion. it is "Otis' opinion" and that's all. except that it
> could also be called the "disproven opinion" since its been studied in
> controlled studies and found to be just as effective as wearing a full
> minus correction.
> Why do you continue to misrepresent the truth in this forum?
> > > As always, plus-prevention is a "hot" topic.
> > it is NOT a "hot topic". it is a dead issue. it was disproven decades
> ago. what rock have you been living under?
> > And yes, some are successful as described by this
> > parent, and no doubt some are not.
> > indeed MANY are not successful using plus prevention. you might as
> well try using yoga and meditation. over-correction with excessive
> minus has just as good a success rate as plus.
> Why do you repeatedly keep popping-up and trying to mislead people?

> Please explain your belief that:
> 1. The natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC,
> as represented by the C. Wildsoet
> paradigm, and

> 2. When a -3 diopter lens is placed on a young
> primate-eye, and the eye changes its refractive STATE
> by -2 diopers in six months -- why do you
> judge (and what explicit experimental data) tell
> us that the natural six year-old eye will not
> behave the same way?

> 3. The above will explain why Ron's child's
> eyes SLOWLY changed their refractive STATE
> in a positive direction (i.e., Snellen cleared to 20/25),
> in about three months.

> 4. Thus an 8 year-old child's eyes respond as
> per C. Wildsoet's paradigm.

> Dear Mike,
> Subject: Who is resonsible for inducing a negative refractive STATE in
> the natural eye?
> Do not take it too bad, Mike. Afer all YOU are not the
> person inducing a negative refractive state. It
> is in fact a 6 year-old child's "habit" as you see
> in this picture.
> http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/SaveEye.html
> And as BOTH of us know, it is hard to "break" a child
> of this particularly pernecious habit.
> But Christine's dynamic eye paradigm truly tells
> us the problem of children doing this sort of thing.
> It is then up to the parents to RECOGNIZE this type
> of problem -- and stop their children from doing it -- to
> include the use of a plus 2.5 diotper for all close
> work -- and home and at school.
> And for the same reason, a population of natural
> eyes kept in a "caged" or confined environment
> show the development of an AVERAGE negative
> refractive STATE of -1,6 diopters -- for primates
> kept that way for over seven years.
> Christine should be proud of that conceptual
> picture -- because it is so accurate with
> respect to OBJECTIVE measurements made
> with a retinoscope.
> Best,
> Otis
> Mike Tyner wrote:
> > <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote
> > > > Please explaine your rejection of accepted
> > > scientific facts as presented by C. Wildsoet.
> > > Please explain how Wildsoet's model is relevant after age 6.
> > > -MT

> <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote
> > Please explaine your rejection of accepted
> > scientific facts as presented by C. Wildsoet.
> Please explain how Wildsoet's model is relevant after age 6.
> -MT

> <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote
> > Please explaine your rejection of accepted
> > scientific facts as presented by C. Wildsoet.
> Please explain how Wildsoet's model is relevant after age 6.
> -MT

> Please explaine your rejection of accepted
> scientific facts as presented by C. Wildsoet.

> Imagination is more important that knowledge...knowledge is
> limited but imagination circles the world. To see with one's own
> eyes, to feel and judge without succumbing to the suggestive power
> of the fashion of the day, to be able to express what one has seen
> and felt in a trim sentence or even a cunningly wrought word...is
> that not glorious? When I examine myself and my methods of
> thought, I come close to the conclusion that the gift of
> imagination has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing
> absolute knowledge.
> Albert Einstein
> It is pleasant to know that Ron has taken the first steps of myopia
> prevention
> himself. Thus his child will not join the rampent myopia of Hong Kong
> of 88 percent. A wise parent indeed. Perhaps he understood
> the type of imagination it took to make plus-prevention effective.
> Best,
> Otis
> otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
> > Dear Prevention-minded parents,
> > > As we know from reading:
> > > www.chinamyopia.org
> > > plus-prevention is the second-opinion.
> > > I have received this today from a parent.
> > > I have changed the names of the these people to
> > protect them from the rather arrogant abuse
> > of people like Catman.
> > > As always, plus-prevention is a "hot" topic.
> > > And yes, some are successful as described by this
> > parent, and no doubt some are not.
> > > But this child can have a good future, of working
> > hard in school, and keeping his refractive STATE zero
> > or positive (pass the DMV) through the high school
> > and college years -- were his fellow students
> > develop stair-case myopia from the minus,
> > to the "tune" of 88 percent myopic in Hong Kong.
> > > > > ==================================
> > > From: Ron
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:23 AM
> > > Subject: Mike's vision 20/70 to 20/30
> > > Dear Otis,
> > > I am Ron and my son is Mike. Mike is eight years old
> > now and can read most of the 20/30 line of i-see random Snellen
> > chart. He has been using plus for three months.
> > > In 2004 when he was 6. My wife and I took him to see the
> > optometrist in a university. We were told that Mike's vision
> > was farsighted +0.75D both eyes and the eyes were healthy.
> > > In 2005 he was 7. We went to the same optometrist. We were
> > told that Mike's farsightedness was gone. We worried he would
> > be myopic soon. But nothing we could do at the time. The
> > optometrist said that they suggest some children to use the hard
> > contact lens to slow down the myopia if myopia grows fast. But he
> > said Mike was not myopic yet and did not need at the time. My
> > wife and I also think the hard contact lens is too dangerous for a
> > young boy like Michael. We do not consider. What we could do was
> > just keep an eye on his vision.
> > > At his regular body check early August this year. The doctor
> > told us Mike needed to see an optometrist. My wife and I took
> > him to see an optometrist on the same day. We were told that
> > Mike was R-1.25 D and L-1.00 D nearsighted. That guy said
> > Mike needed a pair of nearsightedness glasses. I told him
> > Mike's refractive state was 0 diopter last year. That guy said
> > ..you know.. he has grown. he has grown taller. his eyes have
> > grown longer. and heredity. so myopia. I thought only the
> > heredity made sense (not any more now).
> > > I think the NBA players are much taller. Are they all
> > myopic? We rejected to let Michael wear glasses the guy wanted to
> > sell. We went to two more different optometrists at different
> > places in the week (because I don't really trust some of them ).
> > One said Michael was R-1.25 D and L-1.50 D. Another said he was
> > -1.50 D both eyes. Sure enough he was nearsighted. We did not go
> > to the university because it takes months for an appointment. We
> > needed to know earlier.
> > > My wife and I were very sad. We have been doing everything
> > we can to protect his vision since he was a baby, no close reading
> > at home (in school we don't know and can not control), 12 feet
> > away from the TV and only two or three hours a week, no TV game
> > and no computer etc. Unfortunately, he can not stay away from
> > myopia.
> > > In that week. My wife and I searched on the net. We wanted
> > to find some methods to slow down Mike's myopia progress. We
> > found O.K lens then we found plus method on Steve's site and your
> > site. We read as much as possible in a week. Though we read a
> > lot. We could not let Mike try the plus. Because we didn't
> > know too much about this. We worried. So we decided to try the
> > plus lenses by myself first. After a few days using plus lenses.
> > I felt good and my vision improved little. It was no harmful at
> > all. Then we got a pair of +1.50 D lenses for Michael starting.
> > Mike started using plus in the end of August 2006.
> > > Mike's vision improved a little bit in a month. I always
> > check his vision at home with the eye charts on the net. I have
> > read a lot about plus prevention on the net. Too bad Steve
> > doesn't update his website any more for some reason. Some people
> > accused him.
> > > I have read a lot on your site, your forum, the Yabb vision
> > improvement forum, sci.med.vision and i-see etc. I realize the
> > +1.50 D lenses are not strong enough for Michael when he reaches
> > 20/50 or better. So I gave him a pair of +2.50D lenses on 26
> > September 2006. He uses plus at home and his class room. He now
> > can read most of the 20/30. Sometimes 4 of 6 sometimes 5 of 6.
> > His vision was about 20/60 - 20/70 three months ago. He has
> > improved a lot through three months.
> > > Last week Mike had a vision assessment in the department of
> > health. The optometrist put the -0.50D lenses on Mike's face.
> > Michael could read the smallest line each eye separately with
> > those lenses. The optometrist said Mike was -0.50 D nearsighted
> > both eyes. I asked him if the smallest line was 20/20. He told
> > me that was 20/15. He said Mike didn't need glasses.
> > > Otis, is that kind of over-prescription you always say?
> > Anyway, we are so happy about that Michael is just -0.50D
> > nearsighted (may be) confirmed by a professional optometrist
> > though I know his vision level on the eye chart at home, though I
> > don't trust some of them too much.
> > > Mike improves his vision by using plus. So do I. But my
> > vision is too bad can not be restored. One thing is certain.
> > Plus prevention works. Mike doesn't do any eye exercise like
> > zooming, sunning and palming etc. He doesn't even know it. I
> > have given him some blue berry extract with DHA since October
> > 2006. I don't know if it helps. Who knows?
> > > One more thing is certain. God has been helping us. Thank
> > God.
> > > Otis, you are doing great. You are helping a lot of people.
> > Some people overcome myopia with your help. I have learnt much
> > about plus-prevention on your site. Mike can avoid the
> > stair-case myopia. His vision doesn't need to be sacrificed. I
> > can't tell you how excited I am that he doesn't need the
> > nearsightedness glasses in his life even he is just 20/30 now.
> > You are making things better.
> > > I have seen some people bash you unreasonably. So I just
> > want to write this letter to say thank you and encourage you. It
> > is not easy for me to type an English letter like this. But I
> > have to.
> > > I don't know if Mike will reach 20/20. I believe he
> > will. I will let you know on the day.
> > > Thank you very much again Otis.
> > > Best regards,
> > > Ron

> You really make me laugh at your stories Cletis. How long do you work
> on them before publishing them on the net?
> I mean really, this is more ridiculous than your Francis Young story,
> or the shoemaker and the elves.
> Do you really think anyone takes notice of this drivel? Why don't you
> do one on a real person for once?
> dr grant