For Ace -- Avoiding entry into stair-case myopia.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Aug 22, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    "All [people] occasionally stumble upon
    the truth - but most pick themselves up, dust
    themselves off, and carry on as if nothing
    had happened."

    Winston Churchill

    "All great truths begin as blasphemies."

    George Bernard Shaw

    "The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity
    has its own reason for existing".

    Albert Einstein

    To avoid stair-case myopia -- it is necessary to clear your
    vision back to normal, and then just montor your Snellen to make
    certain you always PASS all legal visual-acuity requirements.

    That way, you never develop stair-case myopia from an
    over-prescribed minus.

    Here is the discussion. (Name changed due to
    majority-opinion hostility to an an honest, preventive


    Subject: Preventive success -- from 20/60 to 20/20

    Re: And keeping vision clear through the college years.

    I know that there are those who "object" to the use of the
    "plus" at 20/60 -- and with some reasons. But, as with Bates, or
    any other second-opinion method -- it is DEPENDENT on the person
    himself to make the method work.

    Here is a statement by "Jon" (name changed) who started the
    vision-clearing process at age 14. Two years later, his vision is
    still clear -- and he must now pass the OBJECTIVE DMV level test.

    For your enjoyment,



    "We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are."

    - Anais Nin

    Email from Jon, 8/20/06

    Dear Otis

    I haven't contacted you in a while. Just an update..... i
    tested my eyes outside today on a Snellen (with sunglasses on) and
    I could read 1/4 letters on the 20/20 line.

    I haven't worn the plus lenses for over a year, but I do wear
    them sometimes for extended near work. My vision seems to be the

    I'll be 16 in less than a month - off to the DMV! Ill have
    to do a little work with the plus lens before then - or do some
    eye exercises.



    Dear Jon,

    Good to hear from you. As you know, I receive incredible
    "objections" for my advocacy that you personally protect your
    distant vision -- through the school years.

    Your success is due to your personal persistence when you
    were at 20/60, or about -1.5 diopters.

    You now know the "secret" of plus-prevention.

    It is an issue like "diet" where you simply monitor your
    Snellen, and when your visual-acuity starts moving towards 20/40 to
    20/50 --
    (refracitve STATE moves in a negative direction as a natural process)
    you simply re-start the preventive effort.

    This is a matter of personal responsibility. As long as you
    pass the DMV or better, you can avoid the minus and stair-case

    I will send this to Stirling Colgate, since I am certain he
    is as proud of your success as I am.

    But always keep me posted. "Plus-prevention" is a trade off.

    Use it when necessary -- and be wise about this
    second-opinion developed by Steve Leung at:


    otisbrown, Aug 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Ace,

    "I know that most men ... can seldom accept even the
    simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them
    to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in
    explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
    others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the very
    fabric of their lives."

    Leo Tolstoy

    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

    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
    explained by stupidity.

    Hanlon's Razor

    Subject: The second-opinion on plus-prevention.

    Here is some commentary and a short article on nearsightedness
    research -- FYI.


    For the person who has a low-power minus (-1.0 diopters)
    the pseud-myopia statge that we all go through, the
    bi-focal is not necessary. All that is required is to make a habit
    of using a "relaxing" +2 diopter lens for all reading and
    computer work. The REAL issue is the dicipline it
    thakes to do it -- as Jon did it.




    From: "Trying to get myopia into focus"

    David Holzman, INSIGHT, Feb 16, 1987

    Summary: Numerous researchers are exploring the causes of myopia
    in order to find ways to prevent its onset in children. At
    the heart of the problem is uncertainty whether genetics or
    environmental factors such as close work cause the disorder
    or, as some studies have indicated, it is a combination of
    both. If one geneticist is right, two-thirds of the myopia
    developed by children eventually may be preventable.

    As the eye grows from infancy through late adolescence, the
    shape of its lens must remain precisely in tune with the focal
    length of the eyeball to maintain clear vision. Given the level
    of precision required, it is a wonder that by the end of high
    school only 15 percent to 20 percent of students have become


    "The human eye is beautifully designed for a life of hunting
    for game and foraging for fruit on the savannas of Africa",
    Torsten N. Wiesel of Rockefeller University and Elio Raviola of
    the Harvard Medical School wrote last year in THE SCIENCES
    MAGAZINE. "It is a less than ideal optical instrument for
    creatures who devote their days to grading papers, reading memos,
    and consulting THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.


    Animal studies have shed light on the matter but have
    raised as many questions as they have answered. In the early
    1960s, Washington State University psychologist Francis A. Young,
    a pioneer in the field, put hoods over monkeys, severely
    restricting their vision in order to simulate close-work
    conditions. The monkeys became slightly myopic, which Young
    attributed to their eyes being constantly focused on the hoods.
    Other researchers considered the experiments to be somewhat
    inconclusive because of the mildness of the myopia. **

    ** [Since this was published, a great deal more information
    concerning both the chicken and primate eye shows much more
    dramatic effect about the effect both the plus and minus lens have
    on the focal state of the eye. If you consider these studies and
    effort to establish the fact that the natural eye "follows" the
    visual environment, then the "primate" studies would be conclusive.
    To talk exclusively about a "myopia" and ignore to broad general
    question about the fundamental behavior characteristic of all eyes
    is intellectually blind -- in my opinion. OSB]


    Despite the fact that results of studies of children who have
    been given bifocals are highly equivocal, Theodore Grosvenor of
    the University of Houston College of Optometry -- a proponent of
    the role of bifocals in the prevention of myopia -- insists that
    persistent close work causes myopia. (In what researchers
    generally consider to be the most carefully performed study to
    date, the two scientists ** disagree on the results.) Some of the
    studies have not borne out his hypothesis, he says, because they
    were conducted too late. "Once the eye has started to stretch, it
    may be too late to keep it from stretching," he says, explaining
    that most of the children in the study had already become myopic.
    "The ultimate study would be to put reading glasses on
    first-graders before anyone has developed myopia," he says.

    ** [One of the scientists was Dr. Francis Young. His bifocal
    study showed that a combination of under-correction and a
    strong plus stopped the eye's movement into myopia, i.e.,,
    would help the natural eye maintain clear distant vision
    if used when the eye was at the 20/40 to 20/50 level.
    otisbrown, Aug 22, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    Simon Dean Guest

    You f***ing crook, f***ing whore and evil b***ard, trying to leech gain
    from the brilliance and genius of others. You should be ashamed.
    Simon Dean, Aug 22, 2006
  4. otisbrown

    Jan Guest


    several snips made in much blablabla .........
    Otis you cite to much, it is "pseudo" not "pseud" (to much Freud)

    By any chance, can we expect real recent scientifically proof from your
    side , besides your citations from some well known persons, as Mike
    Tyner (see below) did asked?
    I'll think Mike is to polite when he said ''And, perhaps not''
    Let's say, certainly not.

    Otis, charlatan, beat the retread.

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

    In conclusion, I think that the "old plus lens junk recovered by Otis"
    should be destroyed.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Jan, Aug 22, 2006
  5. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,


    What we can easily see is only a small percentage of what is
    possible. Imagination is having the vision to see what is just
    below the surface, to picture that which is essential, but
    invisible to the eye.

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

    John A. Wheeler

    The task of the physicist is to see through the appearances
    down to the underlyling, very simple, symmetric reality.

    Steven Weinberg

    What I said was that SOME ODs preceive the natural, or
    fundamental eye as a dynamic system -- versus your
    concept -- that it is NOT.

    You have every right to your box-camera paradigm, to
    the effect that the fundamental eye will not change
    its refractive STATE when tested in a pure scientific manner.

    Thus you PREDICT that a population of fundamental eyes
    will not change their refractive STATE when you place
    a -3 diopter lens on them. But you never
    submit your box-camera pardigm to objective,
    scientific testing.

    Thus your null hypothesis(Ho) would be this for the natural eye.

    1. Take a population of natural eyes and measure all their refractive

    2. Place a -3 diopter lens on 1/2 of them.

    3. Measure the refractive STATES at 2 week intervals for
    a year.

    4. Verify Mike's box-camera paradigm, but determining
    if a DIFFERENCE in refractive STATE will develop
    between the control group (no -3 diopter lens) and
    the test group.

    I suggest that this scientific test will demonstrate that
    you concept of the eye is NOT VERY ACCURATE -- on
    a pure-scientific level.

    And the very minimium, this test certifies the basis
    for the preventive second-opinion as stated by
    Steve Leung at:

    Have a pleasant day.


    otisbrown, Aug 22, 2006
  6. otisbrown

    Quick Guest

    MT asks:
    otisbrown responds:
    I guess that pretty much settles it. lol

    Quick, Aug 22, 2006
  7. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Simple Simon,

    This thread was adressed to Ace -- and NOT TO YOU.

    I do not see why you are getting "huffy" about -- since
    you don't know what you are talking about.

    Further, people who lurch into vulgar language almost never
    have much intelligence about science, or abstract analysis
    of the natural eye as a dynamic system. You DEFINE
    your self by your language.


    otisbrown, Aug 23, 2006
  8. otisbrown

    serebel Guest

    I'd like to know how to prevent escalator myopia for those of us who
    live in the city.
    serebel, Aug 23, 2006
  9. otisbrown

    LarryDoc Guest

    You folks don't get it.

    Clearly, reading all Otis in this thread, it is obvious he has now
    completed "cracked up", become so completely lost in fantasy he knows
    not what is in the real world.

    He is in desperate need of professional help and not ridicule and torment

    or not back to the reality and hand.

    LarryDoc, Aug 23, 2006
  10. otisbrown

    Simon Dean Guest

    Caveman Otis,

    This is a public newsgroup, not your private selling ground. You want to
    communicate with Ace, get his phone number or email address and stop
    polluting this forum with your spam.

    My language was clearly asterisked out as necessary. Fill those in as
    necessary. Don't ever quote the likes of "Albert Einstein" in order to
    back up your alternative claims. My language was used to show how
    f***ing angry I am.

    You're right, I don't have any medical knowledge of my eye. That's not
    my field. That's why I ask questions here. But don't credit me with no

    I see your obviously supreme "intelligence" can't actually answer
    anybodies questions. It has never answered mine, it has never answered
    anybody elses. When you're asked a direct question, you go cut and paste
    a lengthy document. You are unable to construct a direct response.

    Simple? Pot and Kettle.

    Simon Dean, Aug 23, 2006
  11. otisbrown

    BD Guest

    I see your obviously supreme "intelligence" can't actually answer
    Otis answers direct questions with either the generic old dogmatic
    ramblings, or (as is the case for me) complete absence of any response

    He also treats people who agree with him (ie Ace) with such
    consideration and positive regard... I wonder if he really believes
    he's not transparent as glass.

    The quotation thing is new, though. At least there's variety in his
    style of presentation. New clothes for the Emperor, Otis? Some kind
    of... 'quoting people with credibility will somehow improve my own'
    approach? All-righty then. You just keep on quoting. See how far it
    gets you. I've got a couple of quotes for you, but they're not really
    for public consumption. ;)

    But, Otis - please don't think anyone is fooled, or distracted from the
    essence of your writings. No one is fooled. You're closed-minded
    dogmatic, ignorant and arrogant. So it is, so it ever shall be.

    And you STILL haven't answered my question on accomodation in primates,
    which I asked months ago, and asked several times - all you've said is
    that I should conduct the research myself.

    Foolish old codger. ;-)
    BD, Aug 23, 2006
  12. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    If you do not like what is posted about the dynamic nature
    of the fudamental eye -- then don't read it.

    There -- that was easy.


    otisbrown, Aug 23, 2006
  13. otisbrown

    BD Guest

    There -- that was easy.

    Easy for you, maybe - there's no kf on Google Groups!!!
    BD, Aug 23, 2006
  14. otisbrown

    Simon Dean Guest

    OK Kettle, if you don't like what I write about you, or what anybody
    else writes, don't read it, and don't respond to it. It would cut down
    so much of your spam.
    Simon Dean, Aug 24, 2006
  15. I don't care for the vulgarity, but it offends me less than the
    pseudoscientific and illogical junk you two incessantly bombard people
    with. At least people can understand foul language.

    Fortunately, there aren't very many people that use this part of the
    internet, or I'd be more concerned than I am. Newsgroups are well known
    as the gutter of the internet, and that is well deserved in more ways
    than one.

    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, Aug 29, 2006
  16. otisbrown

    Simon Dean Guest

    unfortunately, you'll find that there are several usenet to web
    gateways, and all this junk is filtering out into the mainstream.

    so for example, if i say, for my family
    tree website, I'll get a few links in return and my page will be ranked
    higher in Google!

    You know what I mean though!
    Simon Dean, Aug 29, 2006
  17. otisbrown

    drfrank21 Guest

    I'd be personally embarrassed if my own patients read some of
    your "witty" insults and subject lines, especially the pedophile
    You do go way over the top at times and I bet that casual posters
    on the fence (after reading your rant(s) ) end up siding with Otis.

    You can be far more effective by debunking the fallacies of Otis's
    post by sticking to facts and allowing posters to make up their
    minds on their own. Otis and Ace will NEVER change their minds
    no matter what facts stare them in the face. They are like
    religious fanatics (really no difference). Using obscenity only
    lowers you to their level (actually, below).

    drfrank21, Aug 29, 2006
  18. wrote in

    Or even better, ignore them and let Bev's periodic post deal with it.
    Scott Seidman, Aug 29, 2006
  19. otisbrown

    CatmanX Guest

    Maybe you should take another Valium.

    I really don't care that you get upset by my language, and readers will
    not side with Cletis and Nancy over anything I say, that is if there
    are any readers anyway.

    I am not going to stand by and allow these clowns propagate garbage,
    and any putdown is acting as a counterpoint to the drivel seeping from
    their keyboards.

    Anything I say simply puts the nonsense into perspective. It is
    meaningless crap that deserves no rational discussion as you can't
    argue logic with a fanatic. I simply ask for proof by way of a
    randomised double-blind trial. After that, any retort, being related to
    Cletis' paedophelia, Nancy's oedipus complex or bed-wetting are fair

    If they don't like it, they may elect not to post.


    dr grant
    CatmanX, Aug 29, 2006
  20. otisbrown

    drfrank21 Guest

    Maybe you should pop a prozac and chill out
    yourself. You arrogantly boasted that no
    peers/colleagues were calling out on your posting
    and I took you up on it.

    So be clever; much more effective than outright obscenity. I don't
    think pedophilia is funny.Hear of the Jon Bent Ramsey media
    circus in the U.S. (Boulder, Co.) and the scary dude that
    confessed?? Only the guy is living in a fantasy world??
    No it doesn't. So who are you embarrassing - Otis/Ace or yourself??

    drfrank21, Aug 29, 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.