A myopic parent helps his child clear his vision.

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Dec 12, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention-minded parents,

    As we know from reading:


    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

    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

    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,

    otisbrown, Dec 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    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.

    Neil Brooks, Dec 12, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

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

    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.


    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.


    otisbrown, Dec 13, 2006
  4. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    .... 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.
    Neil Brooks, Dec 13, 2006
  5. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    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

    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,

    otisbrown, Dec 13, 2006
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

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


    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.


    otisbrown, Dec 13, 2006
  7. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

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

    Neil Brooks, Dec 13, 2006
  8. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    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
    CatmanX, Dec 13, 2006
  9. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    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?
    it is NOT a "hot topic". it is a dead issue. it was disproven decades
    ago. what rock have you been living under?

    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?
    p.clarkii, Dec 13, 2006
  10. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I have seen some people bash you unreasonably. So I just
    Naw. I haven't seen Otis being bashed unreasonably. What I have seen
    are reasonable scientists arguing with an unreasonable carmudgeon.
    He won't. Will you let us know when your child's myopia increases
    despite your plus lenses?

    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 13, 2006
  11. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    As a corollary to that statement, will you please let us know when he
    gets tired of trying to function in +2.50 spectacles? After all, if
    there is any prevention, the treatment will have to be maintained all
    during childhood and adolescence...nobody knows, really. Have you
    tried looking through those lenses.

    The COMET study predicts that if plus lenses work, they work for about
    one year, after which time the myopia continues to accelerate as much
    as the controls.

    Also, your son's accommodative ability will atrophy, and he will
    absolutely need to wear the reading glasses to do any close work. So,
    you will be giving him another problem.

    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 13, 2006
  12. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Don Rehm (Author of "The Mypia Myth),

    There are SOME ODs who are compasionate and supportive of
    plus-prevention. They are true-professionals. They will
    offer the public a CHOICE in this matter, unlike other
    ODs with excess hubris who do not respect the
    publics right-of-choice.

    Others are like "Dr" Grant.

    When they ask for PROOF, and when it is supplied, they THEN IGNORE
    IT -- because they think they are Gods. THEN I have a problem
    with them because they are disconnected from objective, scientific




    Your FDA Response letter -- where the FDA says the minus is

    ...In summary, common sense and science seem to count for
    nothing in your world. You seem to think that the eye doctors
    will police themselves and do nothing wrong. Does the tobacco
    industry police itself, or does it do everything in its power to
    make our children addicted to tobacco products? The same thing is
    happening in the optical business. Children are being victimized
    and made into lifelong, addicted customers. Your letter is
    obviously a political decision that is designed to protect the
    multi-billion dollar profits of the eye doctors and the optical

    In short, both the FDA and the NEI act as if your salaries
    are paid by the optical industry, rather than by the taxpayers you
    are supposed to serve.
    Donald Rehm

    President -- International Myopia Prevention Association.


    If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank,
    and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
    can't burn him.

    Mark Twain

    "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
    the point is to discover them."


    Speaking seriously, and as a professional, there are a few
    points I wish to make.

    1) In my consulting room, as you correctly stated, I am god.

    2) I earned that right through study, hard work and developing a
    reputation for quality work, excellent results and caring for
    my patients and their welfare.

    3) You have not earned that right. You are a pathetic little
    pissant that insults the very fibre of prevention of myopia.
    You do not deal with 20 patients a day wanting to see
    clearly, you do not have to ensure that a kid can see the
    board in class, as well as read and function outside the

    4) You have no concept of the issues, I and every other OD must
    face on a daily basis for the best welfare of each and every
    one of our patients. You prefer to pontificate about evil
    minus and second opinion crap, whose supporters are less
    credible than yourself.

    5) You keep talking about second opinion doctors, but never name
    any other than Steven Leung. Why is this? I do know several
    OD's in Hong Kong and Singapore and Steven Leung is held in
    the esteem that I hold you and Nancy. He has no basis to his
    method, he just uses the fear of parents to sell his glasses
    for his own profit. His website is a fraud and most of the
    links don't work. There is no scientific validation, just

    All in all, you are a pathetic, miserable sycophant that has
    nothing to provdie other than fear. No answers, no proof,

    Crawl back under your rock and fester away.

    dr grant (CatMan)


    Dear Friends,

    How can anyone learn anything new -- who does not find it a

    John A. Wheeler

    "You cannot by reasoning correct a man of an ill opinion
    which by reasoning he never acquired. We can also say that
    neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts,
    can you convince some people that an opinion which they have
    accepted on authority is wrong."

    William Bates

    "The skeptic will say, 'It may well be true that this system
    of equations is reasonable from a logical standpoint, but this
    does not prove that it corresponds to nature.' You are right, dear
    skeptic. Experience alone can decide on truth.

    Albert Einstein

    Statement by Otis:

    When some one insists that a minus "...has no effect on the
    refractive STATE of the fundamental eye" -- I am inclined to run a
    test to prove his "passive eye" concept, or the "null hypothesis".

    This repeated testing DISPROVES the Donders-Helmholtz theory
    of the eye -- that it is a "frozen" or passive SYSTEM.

    When the FDA INSISTS that there is no scientific evidence
    that the eye is dynamic (i.e., that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on
    the refractive STATE of the eye) -- I get concerned. The reason is
    the whole concept of science and objective facts -- and how they
    are obtained and judged.

    Since working with Francis Young, (and reading the "Smith"
    experiment), it is clear what the result will always be about the
    refractive STATE of the fundamental eye -- when objectively tested.
    Here is the scientific experiment and "projected" results.

    The problem? The FDA takes NO SCIENTIFIC FACTS SERIOUSLY --
    because they do not "like" the consequence if they take science



    Small "N" -- less than 30. Use student's "t"

    Test the proposition that a population of eyes are dynamic,
    rather than passive.

    24 monkeys are tested.

    They are divided into two groups of 12 each.

    The means of the two groups are established by measurement as
    well as the standard deviation.

    Test the hypothesis that the a -3 diopter lens has no effect
    (Ho) on the refractive STATE of the test group.

    The experiment will be run for four months or 120 days. It
    is expected that the refractive STATE of the test group will
    change by at least -1.5 diopters in four months.

    The monkeys will be adolescent and pre-adolescent. Their
    accommodation range is at least 6 diopters, "amplitude of
    accommodation" -- and is normal.

    Check for the 95 and 99 percent confidence level.

    Use small sampling statistical concept.

    Small or group standard deviation is "s"

    Nc = Number in control group

    Nt = Number in test group


    The "s" is 0.7 diopters for both the test and control groups.

    Large standard deviation is "Sigma"

    Sigma = Sqrt [ ( Nc * s^2 + Nt * s^2 ) / ( Nc + Nt - 2 ) ]

    Sigma = Sqrt [ ( 12 * .7^2 + 12 * .7^2 ) / ( 12 + 12 - 2 ) ]

    Sigma = 0.73

    Degrees of freedom or "Nu" = 12 + 12 - 2 = 22


    t = [Xc - Xt] / Sigma * Sqrt [ 1/ Nc + 1/Nt ]

    t = 0.7 - (-.8) / 0.73 * Sqrt [ 1/12 + 1/12 ]

    t = 5.03

    Degrees of freedom = 22
    For 99 percent confidence t = 2.51

    For 99.5 percent confidence t = 2.82

    Since 5.03 profoundly exceeds 2.82, we can conclude that the
    fundamental eye is dynamic and the refractive STATE always
    "follows" the applied -3 diopter lens.

    These numbers come from a number of primate studies.

    I have little doubt but that an actual SCIENTIFIC test would
    produce very high confidence levels consistent with these projected
    results. In other words, I would BET on this outcome against
    EQUAL MONEY with people who honestly want to know SCIENTIFIC


    These are 24 monkeys. If each eye is considered SEPARATELY,
    then Nt = 24 and Nc = 24

    The large-scale statistics are:

    z = [ Xc - Xt ] / Sqrt [ Sigma(c) ^2 / Nc + Sigma(t) ^2 / Nt ]

    z = [.7 - ( -.8 ) ] / Sqrt [ 0.7 ^2 / 24 + 0.7 ^2 / 24 ]

    z = 7.42

    The "Z" value for 99.8 percent confidence is 2.88. This
    calculated value vastly exceeds this level of confidence.
    Anything above 3.9 is considered a virtual certain.

    otisbrown, Dec 13, 2006
  13. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Never forget that--while I'm not sure his METHODS are any more
    SUCCESSFUL than yours-- at least Don Rehm has the stones to be honest
    with people about plus lenses interference with binocular vision and
    possibility of inducing DOUBLE VISION.

    YOU, on the other hand, have NEVER HELPED ANYBODY AND HAVE CAUSED

    Please leave and ask Don Rehm to take your place on s.m.v.

    Neil Brooks, Dec 13, 2006
  14. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Not sure the double vision will be much of a picnic, either....
    Neil Brooks, Dec 13, 2006
  15. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    this guy is another idiot!

    what does the president of the "Earth is Flat" Society think about plus

    by the way Otis, whatever happened to the investigation against you by
    the State of Pennsylvania for practicing medicine without a license?
    p.clarkii, Dec 13, 2006
  16. because he ekes out a meager living doing it?
    William Stacy, O.D., Dec 13, 2006
  17. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    and Bingo was his name-o
    Neil Brooks, Dec 13, 2006
  18. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Neil Brooks filed the statement to PA.

    It turns out that Neil is not a resident of California, and not
    if PA.

    I have been very clear that a person should understand that
    he should always research the SECOND-OPINION by


    And considering plus-prevention when on the threshold.

    It is up to the person himself which of these
    two methods he might prefer:

    1. An impressive quick-fix with the minus, and
    stair-case myopia to follow (witness 88 percent
    of Hong Kong College students myopic), or:

    2. Plus prevention with the plus, with
    close monitoring of the Snellen controlled by
    the parent -- and supported by Steve Leung.

    Sci.med.vision is about providing information to
    the parent about this preventive alternative.

    Choose wisely!

    Because once you START with that minus -- that
    is the last time you will see clear distant vision for
    the rest of your life.

    Just one man's opinion.


    otisbrown, Dec 13, 2006
  19. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Don't let the facts (or typographical errors) stand in the way of a
    good story, Cletis (I LIKE that!)

    Incidentally, before I went globetrotting, the State of PA promised to
    try to contact the injured parties. I'll circle back with PA to see
    how that's coming, though ... some of the families I talked to were
    mortified at what they considered to be their own stupidity in
    listening to Otis and--likely as not--simply wanted to put it behind
    Neil Brooks, Dec 13, 2006
  20. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    His claims have failed in HUMAN scientific testing ... repeatedly;

    He tried his method on his OWN nephew and niece. His niece is myopic
    enough to have a restricted driver's license, so ... that didn't work;

    His logic is absolutely horrible. [1]

    His "science" ... just ain't;

    He doesn't answer ANY relevant direct questions that any "true"
    scientist would HAVE to answer IF what they were looking for was The
    Truth. Instead, Otis starts with a conclusion and tries to work his
    way backward toward his "case." He represents the worst kind of
    religious zealotry.

    He has induced DOUBLE-VISION in nearly a dozen people that I know of,
    prompting me to turn him over to his state's authorities for
    investigation. He knows nothing about the interaction of accommodation
    and convergence and can't be bothered figuring it out.

    And .... BOTH he AND the one guy in the world who (Otis claims) agrees
    with him are trying to sell books. In fact, ALL of Otis's "pals" are
    trying to sell books. Oh, sure: eye doctors sell goods and services,
    too, but ... that's pretty well understood. Otis lies about it ...

    Oh, yeah: did I mention he's a pathological liar?

    Start lobbying for him to answer my (and others') questions. You'll
    have all the information you need....

    [1] Keep this as a scorecard when you look through his posts:

    Neil Brooks, Dec 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.