Vision Clearing with Ortho-K and a Plus Lens.

#12 01-28-2007, 10:23 PM

Not only that, but the majority of -3.00 myopes who happen to be between
the ages of about 36 to 50 years, will DECREASE in minus in the
succeding years if you put a -3.00 lens on them. The ones over 50 will
mostly be pretty stable until they start developing cataracts. The rest
may increase and may not, regardless of whether you put the minus on
them. But then OB likes to generalize his own special personal
experience to the entire world, a sign of megalomania, insecurity, or
just plain ignorant fallacy, I'm not sure which one applies.

Maybe all.

The above conclusions are derived from my own personal experience with
following more than 25,000 patients over a period of more than 40 years.
Not sure what his n value is, but I'm guessing it's a bit fewer.

w.stacy, o.d.

Mike Tyner wrote:
- quote -

> <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote
> > We also know that when you place a minus 3 diopter lens
> > on the eye, its refractive STATE will "follow" that minus
> > lens as a natural process.
> False and misleading. The majority of -3 myopes are NOT getting worse,
> despite wearing glasses full-time.

#11 01-28-2007, 09:59 PM

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote

- quote -

> We also know that when you place a minus 3 diopter lens
> on the eye, its refractive STATE will "follow" that minus
> lens as a natural process.

False and misleading. The majority of -3 myopes are NOT getting worse,
despite wearing glasses full-time.

- quote -

> For an animation of this see Wildsoet blue-tint eye
> changing its refractive STATE from the applied minus.

False and misleading. Wildsoet describes infants. Your patients are not
infants.

- quote -

> > From the best information we have, this
> will probably take from 5 to 8 months.

False and misleading. It doesn't happen.

- quote -

> It is also important to understand that in school our eyes go
> DOWN at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year.

False and misleading. The majority do not.

- quote -

> You will have an impossible job convincing anyone of your
> success -- including your OD!

False and misleading. If it works, it can be measured. If it can't be
measured, it's imaginary.

As if you care.

-MT

#10 01-28-2007, 07:11 PM

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

- quote -

> Otis> I suspect that even with aggressive use of the +3 dioper
> lens, your Snellen will start "down" in about 3 to 5 days.
> The issue is to see how long it takes until your Snellen
> comes down to 20/40 to 20/50. I would be VERY interested in
> how long that takes! So skip another night or so.

Gee, looks to me the last sentence recommending something without the
proper medical training is solid proof that Otis is practicing medicine
WITHOUT a qualified licence.

Whatchyall think?????????

Allen

#9 01-28-2007, 06:49 PM

Dear Ortho-K PREVENTION friends,

Second-opinion science is about alternative methods to clear your
vision to 20/20 -- and keep it there.

Ortho-K has the capability to clear vision from about -2 to
-3 diopters to zero diopters in a few nights.

The real difficulty is that the cornea "springs back" when
the "retainer" lens is removed for several nights.

Yves has used Ortho-K to clear his vision from 20/140 (about
-2 diopters) to 20/20 (Refractive state zero or positive)
with Ortho-K.

(The total power of the eye is changed from approximately 60
diopters to 58 diopters -- relatively speaking.)

We also know that when you place a minus 3 diopter lens
on the eye, its refractive STATE will "follow" that minus
lens as a natural process.

For an animation of this see Wildsoet blue-tint eye
changing its refractive STATE from the applied minus.

The converse is also shown in this conceptual model
of the natural eye's behavior.

The issue is to get the initial change with Ortho-K,
to allow time for the +3 to have the same effect
it does on the blue-tint model.

- quote -

> From the best information we have, this
will probably take from 5 to 8 months.

This is of course difficult.

Here is a status report:

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

Dear Yves,

Subject: Question About Ortho-K and Plus Prevention

I am VERY PLEASED that you keep yourself in that plus 3
diopter lens.

I think it is very important to understand that "blue-tint"
concept of Wildsoet.

It is also important to understand that in school our eyes go
DOWN at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year. You were at -2 diopters,
and it took at least 2 year to get "down" that far.

To get the eye's to go "up" will take a serious amount of
time. So hang in there my friend.

If you are successful (after six to nine months), then the
success will be yours EXCLUSIVELY.

You will have an impossible job convincing anyone of your
success -- including your OD!

Some more commentary:

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

Yves wrote:

Yves> Update: > I skipped a night today. (Wearing the
"retainer" to sleep in). Woke up in the morning and ...
still 20/20. We'll see how it goes towards the end of the
day. I have been using the plus +3 at work all the time
and my vision has remained sharp all day long.

Otis> I suspect that even with aggressive use of the +3 dioper
lens, your Snellen will start "down" in about 3 to 5 days.
The issue is to see how long it takes until your Snellen
comes down to 20/40 to 20/50. I would be VERY interested in
how long that takes! So skip another night or so.

Yves> It is funny since my doctor was saying that after about 3-6
months some of his patients can skip a night.

Otis> It is obvious that he does not insist that they wear a +3
diopter lens for ALL close work. You are truly unique in
this effort.

Yves> I wonder what he'll say when I tell him that it took me a
week.

Otis> As your friend I say -- SLOW DOWN. I know this is exciting
but remember what I said the eye going down at -1/2 dioper
per year. Try to avoid challenging your OD in any way!

Otis> The final success is when you go with no Ortho-K for a MONTH
minimum and you stay at 20/20.

Otis> This success will be EXCLUSIVELY YOUR JUDGMENT, AND OF
COURSE READING 20/20.

Yves> So good news so far. I'll keep you posted.

Otis> I think it is wonderful. And the 20/20 is great! But that
blue-tint model (Wildsoet) shows a response on the order of
MONTHS.

Otis> Try "no night" retainer contact for a week.
And let me know when
your Snellen goes down to 20/40 or less.

Otis> Keep up the excellent work. This could be a profound
break-through for you.

Best,

Otis

On Jan 26, 8:48 am, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
- quote -

> Dear Neil Dense Brooks,
> Since you do not seem to understand
> the concept of the dynamic eye, let me
> reduce it to this analogy.
> Let us say that you spend $1,600 for
> major dental work.
> Let us further sat that the Dentist suggets
> brushing your teeth on a regular
> basis so you do not incur a
> bill for $1,600 on a regular basis.
> Now you go home AND REFUSE TO
> BRUST YOU TEETH.
> It that smart?
> For all practical purposes what Yves is
> doing is protecting his $1,600 investment
> so that he can PERSONALLY VERIFY
> that he keeps his refractive state POSITIVE,
> and his Snellen at 20/20.
> And consistent use of a +3 diopter
> simply protects his $1,600 investment.
> Yves is considerably smarter than
> you Neil on this issue.
> And ONLY Yves "wins".
> Otis
> On Jan 25, 11:21 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > And also, Neil D. Brooks, the concept
> > is based on the dynamic-eye animation
> > provided byt Dr. C. Wildsoet as shown
> > below.
> > http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html
> > If that concept is correct, then Yves will
> > be able to trade a change in corenal
> > radius, for a change in refractive power
> > (or length) induced by systematic
> > use of a plus for all close work.
> > But again, only Yves will be the
> > judge of this scientific model and
> > natural eye's behavior.
> > Otis
> > On Jan 25, 11:15 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > > Dear Neil D. Brooks,
> > > The truth is that ONLY Yves will
> > > know the ture resuls of his efforts
> > > with BOTH Ortho-K AND a plus 3 diopter
> > > lens.
> > > Ortho-K has been used for the
> > > last 30 years for pilots because
> > > it has that impressive result
> > > described by Yeves.
> > > But the "spring-back" of the
> > > cornea means that if he
> > > quits with Ortho-K, his
> > > distant vision will return
> > > to 20/140 and -2 diopters.
> > > So the real issue FOR HIM is
> > > his ability to transistion from
> > > the "spring-back" mode
> > > to the concept expressed
> > > by C. Wildsoet as the blue-tint
> > > dynamic behavior of the natural eye.
> > > The amount of time it takes for
> > > this long-term change in refactive
> > > STATE is about 4 to 6 months.
> > > The majority-opinion OD say
> > > that this type of vision clearing
> > > is IMPOSSIBLE. Perhaps.
> > > But the ONLY person who can
> > > jude the result will be Yves.
> > > And we will not know that until
> > > he "sticks" with this effort
> > > for the next 4 to 6 months.
> > > Not an effort for the faint of heart.
> > > But if he is successful, only HE
> > > will care. Because no one else
> > > does.
> > > Otis
> > > On Jan 25, 3:03 pm, "Neil Brooks" <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Thanks very much for your ongoing participation via single-person
> > > > dialogues and unsubstantiated and unverifiable third-hand anecdotes.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

#8 01-27-2007, 06:44 PM

In article <1169898270.402420.109830[at]v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> ,
p.clarkii[at]gmail.com wrote:

- quote -

> thats great!. now you suggest orthoK, which physically pushes on the
> cornea and manipulates it's curvature for a brief time but goes away
> when you stop using it. and you also continue to recommend +3.00
> readers despite the fact that they have been repeatedly shown to be
> totally ineffective.

For most myopes. My wife is +1.0 for distance and an add of +2.0. +3.0
for readers would be just right. But she wears progressives.

- quote -

> > He was about -2 diopters and 20/140. After several months

#7 01-27-2007, 05:02 PM

On Jan 24, 4:20 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
- quote -

> As always, keep an open mind about scientific prevention
> of a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye.
> (Ref: the Wildsoet blue-tint dynamic eye concept.)

Until Dr Wildsoet posts to this group stating that she believes
existing myopia in non neo natal humans can be prevented and reversed
by using plus lenses to read, please refrain from using her website as
a "reference".

Dr Judy

#6 01-27-2007, 10:44 AM

thats great!. now you suggest orthoK, which physically pushes on the
cornea and manipulates it's curvature for a brief time but goes away
when you stop using it. and you also continue to recommend +3.00
readers despite the fact that they have been repeatedly shown to be
totally ineffective.

why don't you add a recommendation for using a special vitamin mixture
that only you sell, along with meditation tapes and bible-reading?
you're almost ready for advertising on Paul Harvey's radio show.

by the way, whatever happened to the State of Pennsylvania's
investigation of you for practicing medicine without a license?
obviously it hasn't curtailed you moronic posts on this newsgroup.

otis you are a zealot and an idiot. you must think people here really
care about your phony ideas. do you like trying to mislead people?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Jan 24, 4:20 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
- quote -

> Dear Second-opinion friends,
> Yves (name changed) contacted me about the plus.
> He was about -2 diopters and 20/140. After several months
> of using the plus he saw no progress and he suggested Ortho-K.
> So he did Ortho-K and is planning to combine BOTH Ortho-K AND
> the use of a +3 diopter lens for all computer and reading work.
> As always, keep an open mind about scientific prevention
> of a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye.
> (Ref: the Wildsoet blue-tint dynamic eye concept.)
> Here is his commentary for your interest.
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Dear Yves,
> Subject: Question About Ortho-K and Plus Prevention
> I think your reports are great.
> The effect of strong Ortho-K is to make your refractive STATE
> POSITIVE.
> Or, you could read the Snellen through a plus 1 diopter lens.
> I personally think is will take some time to "anchor" your
> 20/20 vision with heavy use of the plus 3 diopter lens.
> So 20/20 is indeed wonderful. But be patient. I think it is
> going to take about 3 months before you "hold" 20/20 with no
> Ortho-K. (As an engineer and pilot I am always "cautious" -- as
> you understand.)
> But you are the "leader" so just do what you think is
> necessary, and report to your fellow pilots on your efforts.
> We are all (including me) learning from YOU.
> More commentary:
> ====================
> Yves wrote:Yves> Today when driving back home from work it was unbelievable.
> I have never been able to see so good at night before,
> everything was as sharp as during the day if not sharper. I
> came home and looked at my snellen and i could see the 20/15
> line with both eyes. In the morning it was 20/20. All day
> at work I wore the +3 lens in front of the computer...
> Otis> You are doing it RIGHT!!
> Yves> The interesting thing i noticed with the plus 3 is that if i
> look at the screen and then take off the glasses and try to
> focus my eyes on the monitor, i really feel how hard my eyes
> are trying to see the screen in front of me. This really
> must stress the eye muscles a lot.
> Otis> I agree with you. We should be TAUGHT to use the plus as
> soon as our refractive STATE moves from a positive value
> (20/20) to slightly minus. This is my major objection to
> Dr. Catman Grants incredible arrogance and associated
> ignorance. But that is the majority-opinion for you.
> Yves> I think i realize now why my vision has gotten so bad with
> prolonged computer use. I can't believe OD's prescribe
> minus glasses and let people wear them in front of the
> computer... that's just plain horrible.
> Otis> I always appreciate HONESTY. I TRUSTED a man like Catman
> Grant. I AM RESPONSIBLE for my bad habits -- but he as a
> PROFESSIONAL responsibility to DESCRIBE the preventive
> second-opinion. And then send us to "myopiafree" to do our
> own research on the issues. I WOULD GLADLY PAY HIM FOR HIS
> PROFESSIONAL TIME!!!
> Yves> My plan is to wear the ortho-k for about one or two more
> weeks now, then i'll try to skip a day and see if I can keep
> my eyes sharp.
> Otis> Excellent idea. But be prepared for a "slip-back" towards
> 20/50. This will take about three months. So "steel"
> yourself to that expectation.
> Yves> Will keep you posted.
> > P.S. If you are tired of your glasses and contacts, give Ortho-k a try, the feeling of not needing anything during
> the day and just seeing through your eyes is amazing, I
> can't believe how much i have been missing. The routine is
> simple: brush your teeth, put ortho-k lenses in, sleep,
> wake up, get lenses out, brush teeth, go...
> Yves

#5 01-27-2007, 06:55 AM

OMFG!!!!!

You are a total moron. You know nothing about nothing and yet make
conversations with yourself to make your stories seem real.

There is no end of crap you have espoused here. Because you are the
total wanker you are, I will not even bother to explain why your
made-up story is such total and utter bullshit. However needless to
say:

STOP THE CRAP AS THE SPATTER STINKS.

Dr Grant

#4 01-26-2007, 12:48 PM

Dear Neil Dense Brooks,

Since you do not seem to understand
the concept of the dynamic eye, let me
reduce it to this analogy.

Let us say that you spend $1,600 for
major dental work.

Let us further sat that the Dentist suggets
brushing your teeth on a regular
basis so you do not incur a
bill for $1,600 on a regular basis.

Now you go home AND REFUSE TO
BRUST YOU TEETH.

It that smart?

For all practical purposes what Yves is
doing is protecting his $1,600 investment
so that he can PERSONALLY VERIFY
that he keeps his refractive state POSITIVE,
and his Snellen at 20/20.

And consistent use of a +3 diopter
simply protects his $1,600 investment.

Yves is considerably smarter than
you Neil on this issue.

And ONLY Yves "wins".

Otis

On Jan 25, 11:21 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
- quote -

> And also, Neil D. Brooks, the concept
> is based on the dynamic-eye animation
> provided byt Dr. C. Wildsoet as shown
> below.
> http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html
> If that concept is correct, then Yves will
> be able to trade a change in corenal
> radius, for a change in refractive power
> (or length) induced by systematic
> use of a plus for all close work.
> But again, only Yves will be the
> judge of this scientific model and
> natural eye's behavior.
> Otis
> On Jan 25, 11:15 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > Dear Neil D. Brooks,
> > The truth is that ONLY Yves will
> > know the ture resuls of his efforts
> > with BOTH Ortho-K AND a plus 3 diopter
> > lens.
> > Ortho-K has been used for the
> > last 30 years for pilots because
> > it has that impressive result
> > described by Yeves.
> > But the "spring-back" of the
> > cornea means that if he
> > quits with Ortho-K, his
> > distant vision will return
> > to 20/140 and -2 diopters.
> > So the real issue FOR HIM is
> > his ability to transistion from
> > the "spring-back" mode
> > to the concept expressed
> > by C. Wildsoet as the blue-tint
> > dynamic behavior of the natural eye.
> > The amount of time it takes for
> > this long-term change in refactive
> > STATE is about 4 to 6 months.
> > The majority-opinion OD say
> > that this type of vision clearing
> > is IMPOSSIBLE. Perhaps.
> > But the ONLY person who can
> > jude the result will be Yves.
> > And we will not know that until
> > he "sticks" with this effort
> > for the next 4 to 6 months.
> > Not an effort for the faint of heart.
> > But if he is successful, only HE
> > will care. Because no one else
> > does.
> > Otis
> > On Jan 25, 3:03 pm, "Neil Brooks" <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks very much for your ongoing participation via single-person
> > > dialogues and unsubstantiated and unverifiable third-hand anecdotes.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

#3 01-26-2007, 03:21 AM

And also, Neil D. Brooks, the concept
is based on the dynamic-eye animation
provided byt Dr. C. Wildsoet as shown
below.

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

If that concept is correct, then Yves will
be able to trade a change in corenal
radius, for a change in refractive power
(or length) induced by systematic
use of a plus for all close work.

But again, only Yves will be the
judge of this scientific model and
natural eye's behavior.

Otis

On Jan 25, 11:15 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
- quote -

> Dear Neil D. Brooks,
> The truth is that ONLY Yves will
> know the ture resuls of his efforts
> with BOTH Ortho-K AND a plus 3 diopter
> lens.
> Ortho-K has been used for the
> last 30 years for pilots because
> it has that impressive result
> described by Yeves.
> But the "spring-back" of the
> cornea means that if he
> quits with Ortho-K, his
> distant vision will return
> to 20/140 and -2 diopters.
> So the real issue FOR HIM is
> his ability to transistion from
> the "spring-back" mode
> to the concept expressed
> by C. Wildsoet as the blue-tint
> dynamic behavior of the natural eye.
> The amount of time it takes for
> this long-term change in refactive
> STATE is about 4 to 6 months.
> The majority-opinion OD say
> that this type of vision clearing
> is IMPOSSIBLE. Perhaps.
> But the ONLY person who can
> jude the result will be Yves.
> And we will not know that until
> he "sticks" with this effort
> for the next 4 to 6 months.
> Not an effort for the faint of heart.
> But if he is successful, only HE
> will care. Because no one else
> does.
> Otis
> On Jan 25, 3:03 pm, "Neil Brooks" <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Thanks very much for your ongoing participation via single-person
> > dialogues and unsubstantiated and unverifiable third-hand anecdotes.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vision Clearing Proof -- as requested otisbrown@pa.net: Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: ODs request that the person prove to himself the prevention is effective with plus. Re: As some...	Vision	2	06-07-2005 02:51 AM
Vision clearing from -2.75 diopters to 20/25 otisbrown@pa.net: Dear prevention minded friends, (I have changed Miks name -- for obvious reasons.) Sometimes the natural eye will change its refractive state...	Vision	29	05-08-2005 01:10 PM
Current "vision clearing" by Mike from -2.75 D otisbrown@pa.net: Dear Friends, Given all the "hoopla" about prevention, and specifically Raphaelson's problem with "The Printer's Son", it would be difficult to...	Vision	22	03-17-2005 01:55 PM
Vision clearing from -1.5 diopters (20/70) otisbrown@pa.net: Dear Prevention minded friends Subject: Correct use of the "second opinion" As you know the "traditional method" of the minus lens works...	Vision	9	02-18-2005 02:23 AM
Vision Clearing -1.5 D (20/60) to 20/15 -- is that possible? Neil Brooks: This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",...	Vision	5	02-07-2005 12:24 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode