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

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
second-opinion.)

Otis



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,

Otis

++++++++++


"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
same.

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.

Jon

++++++++++++

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
myopia.

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:

www.chinamyopia.org

Best,

Otis

 

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.

THIS IS THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM AN OPTOMETRIST WILL HAVE WITH
US IF HE ATTEMPTS TO INTRODUCE PREVENTIVE METHODS WITH US -- AND
WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE METHOD.

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.

Best,

Otis

++++++++++++++++++

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
nearsighted.

<Snip>

"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.


<Snip>

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]

<Snip>

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.
OSB]

 

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.

 

schreef:

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)

 

Dear Mike,


THE ESSENCE OF IMAGINATION

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
shock?

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
STATES.

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:

www.chinamyopia.org

Have a pleasant day.

Best,

Otis

 

MT asks:

otisbrown responds:

I guess that pretty much settles it. lol

-Quick

 

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.


Otis

 

I'd like to know how to prevent escalator myopia for those of us who
live in the city.

 

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
.......now back to the reality and hand.

-LB

 

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
intelligence.

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.

Cya
Simon

 

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
whatever.

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. ;-)

 

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.

Otis

+++++++++++

 

There -- that was easy.

Easy for you, maybe - there's no kf on Google Groups!!!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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, http://tree.blargle.homeunix.net 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!

 

I'd be personally embarrassed if my own patients read some of
your "witty" insults and subject lines, especially the pedophile
references.
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).

frank

 

wrote in @i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

Or even better, ignore them and let Bev's periodic post deal with it.

 

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
game.

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

Cheers,

dr grant

 

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??

frank