A myopic parent helps his child clear his vision.

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

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dear Prevention-minded parents,

I didn't bother reading this.

I recommend that others pass, too.

Third-hand, unverifiable anecdotal stories coming from you--a man with
a proven proclivity to unabashed dishonesty, no understanding of the
scientific method, and a painfully poor grasp of logic--merit no
attention or credibility.

Please put some science into sci.med.vision, Otis. Otherwise, leave
this crap to the alternative sites.

Please.

Dear Mike,

Thanks for putting cure in quotes -- because I NEVER said
cure.

What I said was that the refractive STATE of the natural
eye changes with the applied environment and lens.

This is what Christine presented in her blue-tinted eyes
concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

So you do not believe in scientific facts and analysis -- let
us just call your belief that the natural eye is not
dynamic the "majority-opinion".

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

Otis has told us that plus lenses cannot "cure" myopia, but in this
case the
myopia disappeared.


I do believe, I do believe, I do I do I do.


-MT

Well, Mike, click you heels three times, and
tomorrow you will wake up in front of your
phoropter where you can again apply that
minus lens and create very, very sharp vision
in 5 minutes.

Best,

Otis




Mike Tyner wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
> > I didn't bother reading this.
> >
> > I recommend that others pass, too.
>
> In this case it's a third-hand, unverifiable anecdote describing something
> that also happens to people wearing full minus correction.
>
> Otis has told us that plus lenses cannot "cure" myopia, but in this case the
> myopia disappeared.
>
> I do believe, I do believe, I do I do I do.
>
> -MT

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Well, Mike, click you heels three times, and
> tomorrow you will wake up in front of your
> phoropter where you can again apply that
> minus lens and create very, very sharp vision
> in 5 minutes.

.... and you'll be sitting by the garden, rocking in your chair--the way
that MANY schizophrenics do--awash in your own excrement, and causing
some people to see double ... while helping NOBODY.

How myopic is your niece these days, anyway?

Just curious.

Dear Vision-clearing friends,

Subject: Update -- Ron's son is now reading 20/25


Here is a further report on Ron's helping clear his child's
vision from 20/70 to 20/30.

It does take a parent with a logical mind and scientific
common sense to do it.

But the parent makes the objective measurements himself,
by having the child read the IVAC random Snellen.

Further, his work will be monitored by the correct
authority.

But real responsibility rests with the parent to
understand this second-opinion preventive method,
and to conduct is successfully.


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

Dear Otis,

Thank you for your message. I read those pages of Wildsoet
Lab and Good Vision. I understand the effect of the minus lens.
When I was teen. I needed stronger minus lenses every one or two
years. I don't want my child to do the same thing that I did. I
value his vision.

I test Mike's vision once a week. Yesterday I tested his
vision again. He could read 4 of 5 letters of IVAC 20/25 line.
It amazed me. Last week he could just read 5 of 6 letters of
I-SEE Snellen 20/30 line. He is getting better and better. I
think kid's vision can be restored much easier than adult.

As you know. There are so many people nearsighted in Hong
Kong. I am one of them. Michael is in a grade 3 class with 20
classmates. Unfortunately there are already five students wearing
minus glasses in his class. My wife has talked about plus
prevention to a parent whose child is -1.50 D nearsighted. But
she didn't really believe it. People prefer the minus lens the
optometrists suggest. You are right. The Lord helps the people
who help themselves.

I will get Mike proper medical checks certainly and we will
go to the Polytechnic university to see the optometrist again when
his vision gets better.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Best regards,

Ron





(E-Mail Removed) 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

But, of course these results are expected based
on the scientific fact that the natural eye
is dynamic as demonstrated by direct test. See:


http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/FundEye.html

But confirming that your son's refractive state moves
in a positive direction by "seeing results yourself"
is the best way to do it.

Those blue-tinted dynamic eyes of Christine are
very accurate science indeed.


Best,

Otis



(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Dear Vision-clearing friends,
>
> Subject: Update -- Ron's son is now reading 20/25
>
>
> Here is a further report on Ron's helping clear his child's
> vision from 20/70 to 20/30.
>
> It does take a parent with a logical mind and scientific
> common sense to do it.
>
> But the parent makes the objective measurements himself,
> by having the child read the IVAC random Snellen.
>
> Further, his work will be monitored by the correct
> authority.
>
> But real responsibility rests with the parent to
> understand this second-opinion preventive method,
> and to conduct is successfully.
>
>
> ==================
>
> Dear Otis,
>
> Thank you for your message. I read those pages of Wildsoet
> Lab and Good Vision. I understand the effect of the minus lens.
> When I was teen. I needed stronger minus lenses every one or two
> years. I don't want my child to do the same thing that I did. I
> value his vision.
>
> I test Mike's vision once a week. Yesterday I tested his
> vision again. He could read 4 of 5 letters of IVAC 20/25 line.
> It amazed me. Last week he could just read 5 of 6 letters of
> I-SEE Snellen 20/30 line. He is getting better and better. I
> think kid's vision can be restored much easier than adult.
>
> As you know. There are so many people nearsighted in Hong
> Kong. I am one of them. Michael is in a grade 3 class with 20
> classmates. Unfortunately there are already five students wearing
> minus glasses in his class. My wife has talked about plus
> prevention to a parent whose child is -1.50 D nearsighted. But
> she didn't really believe it. People prefer the minus lens the
> optometrists suggest. You are right. The Lord helps the people
> who help themselves.
>
> I will get Mike proper medical checks certainly and we will
> go to the Polytechnic university to see the optometrist again when
> his vision gets better.
>
> Thank you very much for your attention.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ron
>
>
>
>
>
> (E-Mail Removed) 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

I believe the appropriate syntax for this sort of story is to preface
it with "Once upon a time...."

Thanks.

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

(E-Mail Removed) 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?

> 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.

Naw. I haven't seen Otis being bashed unreasonably. What I have seen
are reasonable scientists arguing with an unreasonable carmudgeon.

>
> I don't know if Mike will reach 20/20. I believe he
> will. I will let you know on the day.

He won't. Will you let us know when your child's myopia increases
despite your plus lenses?

DrG