Clearing pseudo-myopia of -1.5 diopters (20/60) to 20/20

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Apr 19, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: Passing 20/20 -- no problem! Jon

    Please rememver, science and medicine is NEVER a "finished
    business". New cocenpts and scientific facts must be
    introduced. The "traditional" method of the minus lens
    was put in place 400 years ago -- and has not
    changed one iota since then.

    The following approach is supported by SOME ODs, and
    opposed by others -- of that truth their is no doubt.

    Specifically, the following approach is supported
    by Steve Leung, and you can review his commentary

    Since these issues have NEVER been resolved -- is it
    a person's right to be duly informed, and pursue the
    PREVENTIVE method of the plus lens.
    People should not get "hot" about these discussions,
    but should understand this as a "learning" process.

    This is the basis of the following report of
    vision clearing -- as an HONEST second-opinion.

    The "majority opinion" insists that this "can't happen",
    and that the concept that the natural eye -- as dynamic -- must
    be destroyed. (Jan-OD)

    As always, enjoy these pleasant conversations
    about the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye.




    Jon contacted me about eleven months ago and asked if I could
    help him. He said his vision was 20/60 and -1.5 diopter
    (prescription). I asked about his examination. He said he passed
    all medical tests, but the OD said he could not read the 20/50,
    line and that it took a -1.5 diopter lens to "clear" to 20/20.

    I asked him to read his eye-chart. He did, and reported
    about 20/60. I explained to him that since he was 13, there were
    no "legal" (driver-license) requirements on him, and he could "get
    along" without any minus. If there were a requirment that he real
    the "board" then he should use his -1.5 dipoter lens for that
    purpose -- but remove them when not necessary. I asked him to NOT
    wear the minus at any other time -- as a first step. He took me

    I asked him to read my FREE book on He did.
    I asked him to down-load an eye chart from that site.

    I explained that "results" could not be guarnteed -- and
    would take a considerable amount of time.

    Once he "accepted" that he PERSONALLY would have to be in
    COMPLETE control. He chose to take the next step.

    The proceedure was to obtain a "plus" lens as strong a
    possible, consistent with his "reading" distance.

    This means "pushing print" to the point of "just blur" and
    reading at that point -- checking every 10 minutes or so to make
    certain you have not pulled the work in closer. The point of this
    work is to keep the book at "optical infinity".

    Furhter, as an option, I asked him to obtain a "weak" plus of
    about 1.5 diopters -- to be worn as soon as you get up -- and
    around the house most of the time.

    Obviously this is not "child's play", and will turn most
    people "off" before they even start. It was a matter of his
    personal resolve -- to see if he could accomplish the same result
    that Dr. Stirling Colgate did. Jon accepted this self-dicipline.

    The purpose of this work is to "optically" move you eyes "out
    of the house". This is equivalent to moving "outdoors" and living
    there -- all the time.

    Vision clearing is indeed a slow process, clearing at about
    +3/4 diopters per year -- if you work this effort consistently.

    His first success was passing the 20/40 line. That meant
    that he could PASS the DMV-Snellen, and avoid being sent to an OD
    -- for an over-prescribed minus lens.

    He continued with the plus but "hung" at 20/25 for about 6
    weeks. Most people would have quit -- he kept on goint with his

    Finally, 20/20 began to "come in". This process is a matter
    of two-steps forward, and one step back. A real test of your
    fortitude -- in the face of adversity.

    Today he is a 20/20. When he enters college, he knows the
    "down" rate (for the un-protected eye) is about -1.3 dipters in
    four years.

    He is well-aware of the consequences of this behavior of the
    natural eye. Knowledge of these basis scientific facts simply
    means that he must monitors his eye chart, and when he starts
    reading 20/25, he simply restarts the "preventive" process --
    which he knows he has successfuly used.

    Once you have done this successfully, there will be no doubt

    1. It works.

    2. And is necessary.

    3. And the consequences to YOU if you refuse to do it -- when you
    enter a four year college.


    To: Jon

    Subject: Reporting current 20/20 status.

    Dear Jon

    Jon > My vison is slowly improving each day. To give you an idea
    of how well i can see things now, when I'm in class and the
    teacher puts soemthing up on the overhead to copy or read
    and she turns off the lights, then about a handfull of
    peolpe will say, "miss, can you make it bigger?" However I
    can read it fairly well. In otherwords, my vision is about
    the same, or a little better than the few kids in the class
    who dont wear glasses, but still have truoble reading tiny

    Otis> While comparison of other "normal" 20/20 people is important
    for your own confidence, ultimately, you must measure
    objectively, only with your own eye chart. I also wish
    there was a low-cost trial lens kit (with a 3/4 astigmatism
    lens) so you could do ALL measurements as a excellent
    scientist and engineer.

    Jon > Using the plus lens to improve me vison is one of the
    greatest achivements of my life. I have never done
    something this big before, and I'm so happy i chose the
    second opinion.

    Otis> Given all the "talking" I have done with a great mass of
    people -- you are right. As before, I know of only a
    handfull of people who have been willing to carry this work
    forward to complete 20/20. That puts you in a "class" with
    Stirling Colgate, and suggests you will have his scientific
    or engineering future.

    Jon > In my left eye I must have a fair amount of astigmatism,
    because i really notice it now, For example, If i draw a
    right angle 90 degrees on a pice of paper, which has to
    lines, and put it on a bit of a slant sideways, one line is
    extremely sharp, while the other line is very blurry.

    Otis> Entirely possible. The U.S. Airforce allows for 1 diopter
    of astigmatism with no glasses -- no problem -- as long as
    the pilot passes 20/20. THIS IS COMPLETELY NORMAL. While
    one eye might have this degree of astigmatism, the two eyes
    "over-lay" the two images, and the mind "takes out" the
    effect of any astigmatism. The natural eye is not "perfect"
    as many will insist. It does have these "imperfections"
    that should be understood -- but with not excessive concern.
    More to learn here.

    Jon > In order to see the blurry line clearly, I must bring it
    much closer to my face. When i do this I have my plus
    lenses on, I also must allow my eyes to go "lazy" in order
    to look at the image through just one eye, my left eye.
    However, I dont notice this with my right eye because my
    right eye has no astigmatism, do you know why only one eye
    has the astigmatism?

    Otis> As before, we should "design" a low-cost trial lens kit
    (frame) with a -3/4 diopter cylinder lens, which could be
    rotated from zero to 180 degrees. The angle that gives you
    "clearest" vision on the 20/20 chart becomes your
    measurement of "objective" astigmatism. As an
    engineer-scientist you should make this measurement.

    Jon > Passing 20/20 no problem!

    Otis> Our orginal goal was for you to:

    1. Legally get rid of your -1.5 diopter lens and 20/60 vision.

    2. To do that -- use the plus and pass the legal visual
    requirement of 20/40 -- which you did.

    3. Continue to work to 20/20 -- and learn a great deal more from
    this process.

    Otis> This complete process is applied science as far as I am
    concerned -- and you have proven yourself very capable in
    this process of vision clearing to 20/20.



    otisbrown, Apr 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Actually, the majority of optometrists probably have tried to "push the
    plus" on myopes at one time or another in their career, I know I have.
    Most have found that it gives poor and unpredictable (if any) results.
    We don't have to destroy any concept; the thing is dying a natural
    death on its own.

    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, Apr 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    <> schreef in bericht

    Major snip in a bunch of an ever repeating blablabla..............

    As always, Otis is telling big lies, what I realy stated is shown below.
    I suppose your eyes Otis, are far more dynamic than obviously your brains
    And Otis, I never liked your lies and certainly I'm not enjoying your
    laymans ''one direction'' conversations, I rather should call them
    unpleasant ''monologue's''
    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Guest, Apr 19, 2005
  4. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Just look at this piece of work. Are you writing a master's thesis or
    what? Spend some more quality time with the grandkids. Abandon this
    kind of nonsense.

    Dr. Leukoma, Apr 20, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear William,
    As I have suggested a number of times -- the success depends on
    the "understanding" of the person concerned with the issues -- Jon,
    in this instance.

    The major point is that "Jon" figured out what HE WANTED in his life,
    and understood that you could never "prescribe" the type of motivation
    "vision clearing" really takes.

    It is simply not part of anything you are doing -- or will be doing
    in the future -- unless with your own grandchildren.

    For this reason, I suggest that the ODs who are interested in helping
    children with the "preventive" method be provided with a DISCUSSION
    of this possibility. Obviously you are not going to do this -- which
    is why I describe your approach at the "majority opinion".

    However, Steve Leung judges that the studies by Francis Young
    are convincing -- and that he is going to have his own children
    wearing the plus -- when their refractive state is close to zero.

    This is the reason I describe this "preventive" method as the
    second opinion -- since, to be effective, it must be used BEFORE
    a minus lens is applied.

    It is also true that most people -- even offered the preventive method
    -- might
    choose the minus lens, with full knowledge of the consequences. That
    be a fair an honest discussion.

    It is also clear that this preventive method is low-cost. The
    are free, and the slection of plus lenses are available

    And, most important -- it is essential that the person who wishes to
    "work" this process actually read his own eye chart. Assuming
    he has the motivation (a major problem) and will "stick" with it, then
    eventually he can see his vision clear -- very slowly.

    I would agree that this is the reason why you have not had "success"

    Most people expect ONLY very-sharp vision from you -- and would get
    upset if you attempted to do anyting else. That does "limit" you,
    and defines the difference between true-prevention, and the
    work that you are doing.


    otisbrown, Apr 20, 2005
  6. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Actually, Otis, what you are preaching is not so much a method, but a
    LIFESTYLE based on FAITH, as there is little of scant scientific
    evidence that it works in homosapien. Furthermore, this LIFESTYLE is
    based on total disbelief in and avoidance of minus lenses, which you
    deem to be "poison." I am certain that some people will be willing to
    believe you, just as they believe that fluoridation is a communist
    plot. A more moderate view, and one that would likely be more
    productive, would be to advocate relaxation methods and to advocate for
    reducing or minimizing the time spent by young children on nearpoint
    activities that are non-essential to academics. Calling minus lenses
    "poison," and labeling the scientific community as simply the "majority
    opinion," is rather farcical and has justifiably earned you the enmity
    of many people.

    Dr. Leukoma, Apr 20, 2005
  7. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear DrG,

    It is precisely because of your lack of convern for PREVENTION
    for our grandchildren -- that I AM CONCERNED with
    your attitude.

    All parents should have some knowledge of this second opinion
    before you put their children in a minus lens.

    But you are not going to do that are you?

    They do have certain basic rights, the right to
    an informed, competent second opinion as described
    by Steve Leung,

    Nothing is lost if they turn down prevention with the
    plus -- except for their long-term distant vision -- permanently.

    This, and the "blasts" against preveniton convinced "Jon" of
    your incredible intellectual blindness towards true-prevention -- and
    forced him to take personal reponsibility himself -- so
    he would not become a victim of this "syistem".


    otisbrown, Apr 20, 2005
  8. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I see charlatans peddling snake oil in the guise of PREVENTION and
    self-righteous "concern over our grandchildren." Now, that is
    something to be concerned about. Little children walking around in
    over-the-counter plus lenses trying to "clear" their vision with little
    chance for improvement is a most cynical kind of exploitation. Better
    stick to pilots. At least they are adults and are responsible for
    their own decisions.

    On the other hand, when I talk about prevention, I talk about
    treatments that are at least 50% effective. Now, that is something to
    be excited about.

    Dr. Leukoma, Apr 20, 2005
  9. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    Of course he isn't going to give them advice that he thinks is wrong.
    He's not going to give the third opinion either, about staring at the
    sun. He's not going to give the fourth opinion either, about curing
    myopia with vitamins.
    Dan Abel, Apr 20, 2005
  10. or the 5th, put them in pinhole glasses...

    or the 6th, sell them a Bates reprint...

    or the 7th, have them squish their eyes straight by palming...

    etc. etc. boy has this n.g. deteriorated since the 90's...

    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, Apr 20, 2005
  11. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    IIRC, back in the day, it was just Alex Eulenberg.

    Apparently, cloning has met with some success . . . though I think
    Alex was a far more credible contributor, agree with him or not.
    Neil Brooks, Apr 20, 2005
    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.