A myopic parent helps his child clear his vision.

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

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear "Yubast",

    Subject: The stated second-opinion by a professor of optometry.

    The man (and his child) simply helped his child "clear" his Snellen
    from 20/70 to normal by use of a plus.

    This is simply the IMPLEMENTATION of a suggestion of
    Professor Ted Grosvenor. Why do people get "upset" when
    a parent helps his own child clear his Snellen with a plus?

    He only did what Ted suggested. What is wrong with that -- as
    the second-opinion?

    "It is clear that the collective common sense of the profession has
    indicated the type of problem they face and the nature of the expected
    solution. In the article "Trying to Get Myopia into Focus", Dr.
    Theodore Grosvenor of the Houston College of Optometry, insists that
    persistent close work causes myopia. He also states that; "Once the eye
    has started to stretch, it may be too late to keep it from stretching.
    The ultimate study would be to put reading glasses on first-graders,
    before anyone has developed myopia."

    So it is important to get the facts straight as stated by Chris
    Wildsoet on her site, understand them and start the plus before your
    eyes "adapt" to that wretched minus.

    This is simply the process offered by Steve Leung at:


    Only be prepared to start the preventive process BEFORE you begin
    wearing that minus lens.

    Just one man's opinion.


    otisbrown, Dec 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Operative phrases here:

    "one man"

    How about answering my questions, Otis. It's hard to believe that
    nobody notices how long you've dodged them....
    Neil Brooks, Dec 14, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Hey Neil, give it up. Most folks who have hung around this group for a
    while know that Otis cannot answer a question. So we've long since
    given up trying. You are quite right, however, that of late he has
    become dangerous to small children, particularly hyperopic ones.

    He WILL tread carefully in this area, or he WILL pay dearly.
    William Stacy, O.D., Dec 14, 2006
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear YouBast,

    Subject: To types of answers.

    YouBast> indeed he has dodged this question and I would like to know

    Otis> To confirm the effect on the eye's refractive STATE is
    is wise to FIRST test the concept on a population of
    fundamental eyes. There are majority-opinion ODs who
    INSIST, that the fundamental eye is not DYNAMIC, and
    THERFORE, a -3 diopter lens will not, and must not
    have any effect on a population of natural eyes.

    Otis> When this test is actually conducted, and the
    refractive STATES are measured using a retinoscope, the
    refractive STATE of the -3 diopter group changed by
    -2 diopters in less than six months.

    Otis> You can draw your own scientific conclusions.


    otisbrown, Dec 14, 2006
  5. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest



    If you plug that reply into translate.google.com, the answer comes back

    "No. I'm not going to answer you."

    Neil Brooks, Dec 14, 2006
  6. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    Maybe they should move out of Hong Kong? Then they wouldn't get myopic?

    Dan Abel, Dec 14, 2006
  7. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    Au Contraire my dear Mike.

    Firstly, these were academic quacks, not second opinion OD's like the
    world reknowned Steve Leung.

    Secondly, they were not testing fundmental eyes, or natural eyes and
    they were not testing the dynamic eye either, so all those results are

    Why don't you publish the work of respected authors like Oakley and
    Young who found that monkeys and chickens go myopic if you say "BOO"?

    Anyway, I wait for Cletis' response to all your phoney research.


    dr grant
    Second Opinion Specialist
    CatmanX, Dec 14, 2006
  8. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Hmm. Gee, Otis: this goes a long way toward explaining why your niece,
    Joy--despite her never having worn minus lenses AND her regular use of
    plus lenses--is now myopic enough to require a restricted driver's license.

    Wouldn't you think?


    Neil Brooks, Dec 14, 2006
  9. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    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
    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.


    otisbrown, Dec 15, 2006
  10. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    The formulation of a problem is often far more essential than
    its solution, which may be a matter of mathematical or
    experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to
    regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative
    imagination and marks real advances in science.

    Albert Einstein

    You are incredibly arrogant -- which perpetuates your ignorance
    of the second-opinion -- tragically.

    Ron "woke up" to the need to protect his child's vision with
    a proper-strengh plus, and avoid you.

    A wise choice indeed.

    otisbrown, Dec 15, 2006
  11. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    The "final authority" of course is the DIRECT experimental data



    This is very simple. To deterimine if the natural eye is
    dynamic -- you put a -3 diopter lens and SEE that is
    is dyanamic. Ron looked at this a determined
    that the minus was a "questionable" idea at best.

    And then he looked at the effect of a postive lens
    on the refractive STATE of the naural eye, and
    saw that the DIRECT objective FACTS confirmed
    that the eye's refractive STATE would change in
    a positive direction in about six months.

    So, when his child wore that plus, his refractive STATE
    moved in a positive direction (as predicted) and
    his Snellen cleared.

    Why does anyone get their knickers in a twist about
    objective scientific facts, and the a parents use
    of these scientific facts to help his child clear
    his Snellen to normal.

    I mean this is the natural eye that Christine Wildsoet
    presents on her site were the dynamic eye changes
    its refractive STATE (length) as a minus lens is applied
    to it.

    What? You don't believe in the science of
    the natural eye's behavior as presented
    by Christine in her blue-tined eye?

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


    otisbrown, Dec 15, 2006
  12. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    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.

    Since there is a difference of opinion, and we
    can not resolve it, let us just say that you
    have an un-verified majority opinion that
    the natural eye is NOT DYAMIC, and
    therefore you can do nothing to help
    a parent and child clear the child's eyes
    from -1.5 diopters (about 20/70) to -0.25 diopters (about
    20/25), and that the parent will have to
    learn to accept Wildsoets dynamic-eye paradigm
    and work plus-prevention under the parent's control -- as
    Ron did it.

    After all, once the parent figures out how to do it successfully,
    he has no need for you -- except for medical checks (and
    I agree with the pure-medical checks).


    otisbrown, Dec 15, 2006
  13. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Neil Brooks, Dec 15, 2006
  14. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    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.


    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.


    otisbrown, Dec 15, 2006
  15. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Neil Brooks, Dec 15, 2006
  16. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    otisbrown, Dec 15, 2006
  17. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Mike> indeed MANY are not successful using plus prevention.

    Otis> No doubt true. Plus-prevention requires understanding
    and aboves all else MOTIVATION to be effective. This
    becomes a matter of personal choice for the parent or
    child concerned with this issue. It is clear that you can
    NEVER "prescribe" the type of personal insight and motivation
    necessary to successfully PREVENT entry into a negative
    refractive STATE. This is the problem that was solved
    by Ron, when he had his child read the Snellen, use a
    preventive plus, and verify that the child's vision cleared
    to 20/40 or better.

    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?
    otisbrown, Dec 16, 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.