Captain Fred Deakins cleared his vision 20/50 to 20/20

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Dec 10, 2004.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Allen L.

    "To many people attempt to jump into a solution -- without
    first understanding the problem".

    1960's slogan

    Since you doubt the existance of Fred Deakins, I
    will post his statement about the amount of
    intense effort it took for HIM to clear
    his distant vision to pass the military
    requirement for flight. The military
    requirement is in fact more difficult than
    the FAA requirement.

    You keep on insisting these people are
    "myths". Maybe you should wake up
    and understand the reality of
    true prevention.

    No, it is not easy, and no, it is not
    for eveyone -- but for the person who
    does not wish to become a slave to
    that minus lens -- the prevention
    is possible.

    Rejoyce in Fred's success!

    It may be a better "world" for
    all of us if we could follow
    his lead.




    Note: This is a personal message -- not endorsed by the United
    States Air Force. Captain Deakins understood the explicit
    requirements -- and met and exceeded them.


    From: Captain Fred Deakins

    To: You who must achieve 20/20.

    Hello everyone, I'm a new member of this group of pilots and
    have found your conversations quite interesting. Like most of
    you, I am a believer in alternatives to the western philosophy of
    handing out visual crutches to everyone with eyesight / vision
    problems. Graduating from college, I found that my vision had
    regressed to a myopic 20/50 due to near-point stress. At the
    time, I was in the running for a coveted air force pilot slot, but
    absolutely had to pass the ophthalmology exam with 20/20
    uncorrected (this was back in 1996).

    Through good fortune, I found the concept of plus lens vision
    restoration and began working feverishly to improve my eyesight.
    I worked about 1 hour every day, 5 days a week and gave my eyes a
    rest on Saturday and Sunday. I found that by Friday, my vision
    was terrible, but come Sunday morning, I had eagle vision without
    any squinting or straining. I kept to my schedule leading up to
    my initial military flight physical (4 months later) and read the
    20/15 over and over again without even knowing it. Needless to
    say, my life dream was obtained and I now live in New Jersey
    flying jets out of McGuire AFB.

    It worked for me, and I know that it's worked for countless
    others. Having reset my life goals, I now want to help others who
    are striving for better vision. I have started a company called
    America 20/20, and our purpose is to provide first rate
    instruction and support to those willing to invest time, effort
    and commitment with the goal of achieving sharp vision without
    glasses or surgery. [Note: Fred Deakins subsequently disbanded
    America 20/20 for reasons I am not allowed to talk about. Use your

    I'll warn you, definitely takes work and
    persistence on your part. Think about it, our vision deteriorates
    from prolonged stress and strain in the eye...for most of us
    taking years to develop. Why should we expect to be able to
    correct our vision naturally literally over night? Believe me, 4
    months is a blink of the eye compared to the 6 or 7 years it took
    me to ruin my vision (no pun intended). I stopped doing these
    exercises after my flight physical (3 years ago) and still see
    20/20 with very little effort (this was impossible for me before
    doing this).

    It's true that this method (and others) have failed some
    people. Those with eye disease excluded, I would be willing to
    bet that this is because it took too much effort on their part and
    therefore they decided to give up -- and go with the easy
    solution...corrective minus lenses or some form of eye surgery.

    Anyway, I don't usually write long messages, but this is
    important. I care about each and every one of you who are
    suffering from any form of disease or accommodative errors of the

    Best Regards,

    Captain Fred Deakins, USAF
    otisbrown, Dec 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends.

    Ignore Otis. He makes up stories, and won't have his subjects come to the
    newsgroups and share their experiences.

    Prove your subjects existence and I will stop posting. I have already
    proved you change names to protect the innocent. YOUR WORDS! See

    A Lieberman, Dec 10, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Well, If Fred Deakins does exist, then at least he understands the true
    nature of his problem better than Otis.

    His problem was an ACCOMMODATIVE problem, not true anatomical myopia. Such
    people CAN actually be helped with a plus lens. Unfortunately, they are in
    the minority. Most myopes are not accommodative myopes and have no chance
    of being helped with plus lenses.

    Don't you get it Otis? If we explain it to you five thousand times will you
    ever get it? Will you ever admit it even if you do start to understand?
    RM, Dec 10, 2004
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear "RM",
    You keep on insisting that is a person wishes to clear their vision
    from 20/50 to 20/20 then that is THEIR PROBLEM.
    Oh, I understand YOU PERFECTLY.
    I pay attention to direct, objective factual, repeatable scientific
    experiments -- as a lead-in to having the person learn to use he plus
    correctly. Since you state that true-prevention IS HIS PROBLEM, I
    don't think you are qualified to make statements about the true nature
    of the natural eye's behavior, or to correctly apply the concept to
    achieve effective prevention as Captain Fred Deakins did.
    Incidentally, Fred has two small chileren, and as a result he has them
    wearing a plus lens WHEN THEY DO ANY READING. He has learned a lot
    more about this issue than you ever will my friend.
    otisbrown, Dec 10, 2004
  5. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    The pilot does not exist Otis, admit it or proof it by letting the man speak
    for himself here.

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Guest, Dec 10, 2004
  6. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    I don't think that would prove a thing. Anybody can open up a hotmail
    account under the name "Fred Deakins" and then post here using Google (at
    least I think so).

    I think that you would be better off analyzing the quote above. Isn't
    that exactly what is happening here? We have a problem, namely myopia,
    and a solution, plus lenses, but there is no understanding of how they
    could possibly be related, and a proof which consists of situations that
    Mike Tyner claims are not similar.
    Dan Abel, Dec 10, 2004
  7. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    I do not keep on insisting anything is THEIR PROBLEM. That phrase is YOUR
    phrase. I simply restated it ONCE to you in a sarcastic reply so that you
    would perhaps see how foolish and narrow minded you were acting. Apparently
    that went over your head like many of the medical/scientific/logical points
    that others make to you in this newsgroup. Do a newgroup search on the
    phrase "THEIR PROBLEM" and see who is the one who keeps stating it.
    What training or clinical experience do you have, Otis the Engineer, that
    qualifies you to give anyone advise about vision problems? You have never
    responded. Just like you never respond to any pointed questions that
    illustrate your ideas are without merit (except for a few accommodative
    myopes like Capt. Deakins).

    Go design a better vacuum cleaner and leave the vision problems to people
    who know better.
    RM, Dec 11, 2004
  8. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    He obviously does not get it. Accommodative dysfunction is not the
    same as myopia.

    This Otis person is amazing.
    retinula, Dec 11, 2004
  9. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends.

    Ignore Otis. He makes up stories, and won't have his subjects come to the
    newsgroups and share their experiences.

    Prove your subjects existence and I will stop posting. I have already
    proved you change names to protect the innocent. YOUR WORDS! See

    A Lieberman, Dec 11, 2004
  10. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    We don't need his statement. All we need to believe is documentation of his
    cycloplegic refraction before and after treatment. You could get it easily
    published as a case study if you had documentation and after publishing
    several studies, you would have researchers and funding agencies interested
    in funding larger controlled studies. Five years or so and voila, your
    ideas about plus therapy would be proven.

    Please consider redirecting the time and effort you spend on this newsgroup
    to getting one or two case studies published.

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Dec 11, 2004
  11. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Judy,
    I am well aware of the "review boards"
    who will not publish ANYTHING
    they do not like.
    They are staffed by black-ball
    experts like RM, and you
    who declared that nothing
    can or should be learned
    from animal experiments.

    In engineering we pay
    attention to objective
    scientific facts to devise
    a method to successfully
    PREVENT a negative
    refractive state of the eye.

    You figure out endless reasons
    to pervert this quality information
    so you can go back in your
    office and prescribe another
    batch of minus lenses.

    It is no surprise why
    Wilber and Orvile invented
    the airplane. All the
    "experts" had their
    heads stuffed with nonsense
    about wings, and the
    details of building
    and flying an airplane.

    otisbrown, Dec 11, 2004
  12. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    I never said nothing could be learned from animal experiments. I said that
    when the results of animal experiments contradict the results from human
    experiments, then one should believe the human experiments. And I said that
    animal experiments about emmetropization of congenital refractive error in
    neonatal animals are not relevant to correction of acquired refractive error
    in non neo nates. But you don't understand the difference and don't believe
    in emmetropization.

    Case reports are simple to publish, can even be done as letters to the
    editor. Stop with the excuses.

    I believe Scott, who is in a position to review and approve funding for
    studies has repeatedly told you that your study, if well designed, would
    qualify for funding.

    So quit yapping on about what MIGHT happen if a study was done and find out
    what DOES happen.

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Dec 11, 2004
  13. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    I never said anything like that Otis.
    I guess in engineering you must not rely on proof or data, because you have
    never shown us any.
    I do not want to denigrate the engineering profession-- I know quite a few
    engineers and everyone of them is quite logical and rational except for
    And you keep ducking all the questions that we ask you that would explain
    your theory. You have no explanations. Only that is seems to work for
    young pilot-engineers who are in a 4 year college and who are intelligent.
    Dramatic Otis sees himself as some kind of romantic figure who is going to
    shift the paradigms of today and prove some new theories. Well get on with
    it and prove it. Do the experiments. Publish the results. Prove it and
    quit pontificating about it!
    RM, Dec 12, 2004
  14. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    If he showed up in person at least we could asked him some specific
    Those questions and the answers on these shall clearify the vision or the
    mind of Otis.
    If you exhange "To many people" for "Only Otis", I fully agree...

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Guest, Dec 12, 2004
    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.