> <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote
> > Again, you did not hear what I said.
> You said wearing minus causes more myopia. Did you not?
> > 1. When a child's refractive STATE is zero, (measured
> > with a trial lens kit), I think that ENTRY into a negative
> > refractive STATE could be PREVENTED.
> Then all you have to do is show us where you've seen it work.
> > 2. I do not believe that it CAN BE PREVENTED, unless
> > the use wearing of a plus lens IS STARTED AT THAT TIME.
> If it works better than atropine, I'm convinced.
> Does it work better than atropine?
> How do you know?
> > > So you think myopia can be prevented by not wearing glasses. Fine.'
> > No, Mike, I have never said that.
> Yes you said glasses make myopia worse.
> We said they don't. You said they do. We said they don't. You said they do.
> We said they don't.
> So the newsgroup becomes all about what Otis believes.
> > I think that a negative refractive
> > STATE of the natural eye CAN BE PREVENTED by the
> > use of a proper-strength plus (and habit-change) for the child.
> > That would truly depend on the parents and child making a
> > decision or choice in this matter.
> Then all you have to do is point us to some credible evidence that it works
> in humans.
> Without evidence that it works in real humans, all we can discuss is your
> BELIEF.
> Thus this newsgroup becomes about what Otis believes.
> > But I truly DO NOT BELIEVE that is can be prevented (obviously)
> > by "not wearing glasses" -- as you should understand from the above.
> You believe that glasses make it worse. According to what you said, anyway.
> Then we should find kids wearing glasses get nearsighted faster. Problem is,
> they don't.
> But you continue to spout what you believe. So frequently that we've all
> memorized it. Sci.med.Otis.
> -MT

> On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 02:45:16 -0000, p.clar...[at]gmail.com wrote:
> > 1. Why is it that uncorrected myopes who do not wear their minus
> > lenses and are therefore walking around with net plus refractive power
> > in their eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. Why don't they just
> > respond to their environment and revert to emmetropia?
> > 2. How come uncorrected hyperopes do not respond to their
> > accommodative state and become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over
> > time? They are straining to see, in exactly the same way that others
> > do who get very close to their reading material. And they do it
> > 24/7. And it's optically the same as wearing glasses that are
> > overminused. Your "obvious" theory predicts their refraction should
> > change, but it doesn't. How can that be Otis?
> > 3. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
> > Physiol Opt. Feb; 61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were intentionally
> > overminused did not become myopic any more than children who wore
> > their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts they
> > should respond to their accommodative state but the data shows that it
> > doesn't! Why?
> Otis Brown,
> I think these questions are key. I too would like to see you respond
> to them. Please do not change the subject and talk about Dr.
> Raphaelson or some other BS. Speak directly and answer directly
> please.

> 1. Why is it that uncorrected myopes who do not wear their minus
> lenses and are therefore walking around with net plus refractive power
> in their eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. Why don't they just
> respond to their environment and revert to emmetropia?
> 2. How come uncorrected hyperopes do not respond to their
> accommodative state and become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over
> time? They are straining to see, in exactly the same way that others
> do who get very close to their reading material. And they do it
> 24/7. And it's optically the same as wearing glasses that are
> overminused. Your "obvious" theory predicts their refraction should
> change, but it doesn't. How can that be Otis?
> 3. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
> Physiol Opt. Feb; 61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were intentionally
> overminused did not become myopic any more than children who wore
> their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts they
> should respond to their accommodative state but the data shows that it
> doesn't! Why?

> But why continue this same argument year after year after year?
> How does it benefit this newsgroup?

> Again, considering:
> - that your niece, Joy Benson never wore minus lenses, AND
> - that you did have her using PLUS lenses, THEN
> Is she lazy, stupid, or both? That's basically your claim, no?

> <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote
> > Again, you did not hear what I said.
> You said wearing minus causes more myopia. Did you not?
> > 1. When a child's refractive STATE is zero, (measured
> > with a trial lens kit), I think that ENTRY into a negative
> > refractive STATE could be PREVENTED.
> Then all you have to do is show us where you've seen it work.
> > 2. I do not believe that it CAN BE PREVENTED, unless
> > the use wearing of a plus lens IS STARTED AT THAT TIME.
> If it works better than atropine, I'm convinced.
> Does it work better than atropine?
> How do you know?
> > > So you think myopia can be prevented by not wearing glasses. Fine.'
> > No, Mike, I have never said that.
> Yes you said glasses make myopia worse.
> We said they don't. You said they do. We said they don't. You said they do.
> We said they don't.
> So the newsgroup becomes all about what Otis believes.
> > I think that a negative refractive
> > STATE of the natural eye CAN BE PREVENTED by the
> > use of a proper-strength plus (and habit-change) for the child.
> > That would truly depend on the parents and child making a
> > decision or choice in this matter.
> Then all you have to do is point us to some credible evidence that it works
> in humans.
> Without evidence that it works in real humans, all we can discuss is your
> BELIEF.
> Thus this newsgroup becomes about what Otis believes.
> > But I truly DO NOT BELIEVE that is can be prevented (obviously)
> > by "not wearing glasses" -- as you should understand from the above.
> You believe that glasses make it worse. According to what you said, anyway.
> Then we should find kids wearing glasses get nearsighted faster. Problem is,
> they don't.
> But you continue to spout what you believe. So frequently that we've all
> memorized it. Sci.med.Otis.
> -MT

> Again, you did not hear what I said.

> 1. When a child's refractive STATE is zero, (measured
> with a trial lens kit), I think that ENTRY into a negative
> refractive STATE could be PREVENTED.

> 2. I do not believe that it CAN BE PREVENTED, unless
> the use wearing of a plus lens IS STARTED AT THAT TIME.

> > So you think myopia can be prevented by not wearing glasses. Fine.'
> No, Mike, I have never said that.

> I think that a negative refractive
> STATE of the natural eye CAN BE PREVENTED by the
> use of a proper-strength plus (and habit-change) for the child.
> That would truly depend on the parents and child making a
> decision or choice in this matter.

> But I truly DO NOT BELIEVE that is can be prevented (obviously)
> by "not wearing glasses" -- as you should understand from the above.

> What I believe is true is this:
> 1. When a child's refractive STATE is zero, (measured
> with a trial lens kit), I think that ENTRY into a negative
> refractive STATE could be PREVENTED.

> 2. I do not believe that it CAN BE PREVENTED, unless
> the wearing of a plus lens IS STARTED AT THAT TIME.
> Further:

> Otis > Scott, please read my words carefully. I SUGGEST that
> > > it MIGHT be possible to avoid ENTRY in a negative
> > > refractive STATE for the fundamental eye.
> Mike> So you think myopia can be prevented by not wearing glasses.
> Fine.'
> No, Mike, I have never said that. I think that a negative refractive
> STATE of the natural eye CAN BE AVOIDED by the
> use of a proper-strength plus (and habit-changes) for the child.
> This step would truly depend on the parents and child making a
> decision or choice in this matter.
> And that type of success would never depend on YOU, but rather the
> ability of the parents to realize how important it is
> that they start with prevention, before the minus is used.

> > it MIGHT be possible to avoid ENTRY in a negative
> > refractive STATE for the fundamental eye.

> In fact in reviewing these issues, David Guyton wondered
> who Neil Brooks was, and exactly what he was doing.
> Otis
> On Jun 28, 12:07 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:47:26 -0700, "otisbr...[at]pa.net"
> > <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 27, 9:24 am, Scott Seidman <namdiestt...[at]mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > Dear Scott,
> > > Scott, please read my words carefully.
> > A courtesy that you never extend to anybody else.
> > Hell. You don't even read YOUR OWN words carefully ... but thanks for
> > posting Guyton's agreement with my recommendations and disregard for
> > yours.
> > > Scott, it is not my intention to arrest "progression". It is rather
> > > that the person avoid ENTRY into a negative refractive STATE
> > > for his natural eyes.
> > > If you learn to respect the proven behavior of a population
> > > of natural eyes (in terms of refractive STATE), our
> > > converstations might improve.
> > But my questions are salient ... and spot-on. Here. Please answer
> > them ... or ... simply run and hide. Your choice:
> > 1. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
> > widely differing visual systems. How is it that you feel so secure in
> > saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly ... in ANY regard?
> > 2. In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
> > the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
> > minus lens, the myopia was prevented?
> > 3. If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
> > corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
> > of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results? If so, how?
> > 4. You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
> > you call "stair-case myopia." Presuming that you mean that it does
> > this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this
> > claim?
> > 5. You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
> > "proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
> > establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time. It
> > doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this. Please explain your
> > position.
> > 6. Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
> > recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia. Are you
> > aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
> > lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
> > esophoria?" This is a convergence disorder. Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
> > that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
> > convergence disorder?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

> Again, you did not hear what I said.

> What I believe is true is this:
> 1. When a child's refractive STATE is zero, (measured
> with a trial lens kit), I think that ENTRY into a negative
> refractive STATE could be PREVENTED.

> 2. I do not believe that it CAN BE PREVENTED, unless
> the use wearing of a plus lens IS STARTED AT THAT TIME.
> Further:
> > > Scott, please read my words carefully. I SUGGEST that
> > > is MIGHT be possible to avoid ENTRY in a negative
> > > refractive STATE for the fundamental eye.
> > So you think myopia can be prevented by not wearing glasses. Fine.'
> No, Mike, I have never said that. I think that a negative refractive
> STATE of the natural eye CAN BE PREVENTED by the
> use of a proper-strength plus (and habit-change) for the child.
> That would truly depend on the parents and child making a
> decision or choice in this matter.
> And success would never depend on YOU, but rather the
> ability of the parents to realize how important it is
> to start with prevention, before the minus is started.