Former myope at 20/20 -- working towards fighter-pilot vision

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Otis Brown, Nov 28, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Subject: Working towards "fighter pilot" vision (20/15)

    Dear Jon,

    Subject: Official Standards of Measurement

    Re: Jon: Comments on stair-case myopia


    "Tentative efforts lead to tentative outcomes. Therefore
    give yourself fully to your endeavors. Decide to construct your
    character through excellent actions and determine to pay the price
    of a worthy goal. The trials you encounter will introduce you to
    your strengths. Remain steadfast...and one day you will build
    something that endures; something worthy of your potential."

    Epictetus, Philosopher, 55-135 AD

    I am deeply impressed with your success. Your reports to me
    are very valuable. I needed to know how "repeatable" your
    eye-chart readings were. The "variation" of 1/4 to 1/3 diopter
    are normal. Your willingness to continue at the 20/25 "plateau"
    put you far above the ability of most people. (They would have
    quit at that point.)

    When you contacted me, I was concerned that you get rid of
    that minus lens, by exceeding the legal requirement of 20/40 or
    better. When you did that, the medical issue was resolved.

    The "official" standard of measurement says that when you
    read 20/20 your refractive status is zero or better. This is also
    the definition of "emmetropia".

    What you are now "seeing" through a -3/4 D lens is called
    "best visual acuity". Thus your retina is capable of 20/15, 20/12
    and even 20/10.

    If you wish to continue this work, then it is "pure
    scientific" work indeed. It does mean that your refractive status
    must change by about +0.75 diopters to get to that level.

    It should be helpful to know that monkeys in the wild have
    refractive status from zero to +2.0 diopters, with the average
    being about +0.75 diopters. This is a valuable and normal
    refractive status.

    The people entering the Naval Academy with superior vision
    have a refractive status of about this level.

    This will again require more work of you. You are now in
    total control. It is of value to me -- just to know that you can
    do it.

    Some additional commentary:


    Jon > I still retain my 20/20 vision, reading 5/5 characters on
    the 20/20 line! I've been busy lately which is why i
    haven't been emailing you as often. Things are so clear --
    I don't really notice any blur -- what a change from last

    Otis> I know when you were "fighting" towards 20/20 you had many
    doubts. But after you get to 20/20, and look back, it does
    not seem as difficult as it was when you were doing the
    work. Well done!

    Jon > I have heard that clearing vision with the plus lens takes
    longer than for your vision to get worse, I disagree. The
    fact that I managed to delete two to three years of myopia
    in about 9 months suggests otherwise.

    Otis> That is because of the total effort you made. Most people
    simply do not have that "drive" to succeed.

    Jon > If I had never worn glasses before and had never heard of
    nearsightedness ...

    Otis> The great value to you in doing the work successfully is
    that you

    1. Know you can do it.

    2. You now believe and KNOW it is possible.

    3. As a scientist-engineer -- you made all the measurements
    yourself. In my mind, that is the ONLY way this method will
    work at the present time. In the future, some optometrists
    may be able to use the method on their own children's.

    Jon > I wouldn't notice blurry vision at this point, because my
    vision seems to clear, and its going to get twice as clear
    in the coming months.

    Otis> Your awareness of the eye chart, and your "clearing" work is
    the final proof of results seen by Francis Young, Stirling
    Colgate and Howard Howland.

    Jon > Today in class the teacher turned off all the lights and put
    a projected image on the board. It was a little blurry but
    i could make it out, as was the same for a lot of other

    Otis> A large number of people do have the zero-diopter 20/20

    Jon > ...naturally the teacher asked me to read some of it, I made
    it out and read it. The is one instance where i am so happy
    i have improved my vision with the plus lens.

    Otis> You are happy. I am ecstatic! It is great to see you
    succeed -- given the profound hostility I get from my

    Jon > There was one person in particular who sat behind me that
    wore glasses for nearsightedness who couldn't make out some
    of the smaller print.

    Otis> The minus lens (tragically) only temporarily clears. Inside
    of 9 to 12 months, the vision continues "down". This is the
    tragic situation for that poor kid.

    Jon > The boys started making fun of him because he wore glasses
    and could barely read it, and they didn't wear glasses and
    could read it perfectly,

    Otis> While they may make "fun" of that poor child young now, in
    the coming years many of them will become nearsighted
    themselves. The "laughter" will be about THEIR POOR VISION.

    Jon > would sound weird to a person who didn't understand,
    but i knew why he couldn't see the board, because of
    stair-case myopia.

    Otis> That is exactly "it". What a profound tragedy of inept
    understanding. I am pleased you now completely understand
    this situation the way you do -- exclusively for your own

    Jon > He had the same problem late in the school year last year
    and got a stronger pair of glasses, now the vicious cycle
    has started all over again.

    Otis> And the ODs on PROMOTE this stair-case
    myopia. Tragic and blind beyond belief! And I am told by
    "Jan" that the concept of true-prevention with a plus,
    "...must be destroyed".

    Jon > I have a focal state of about -1 to -3/4D and yet have 20/20
    vision, I really must have a good retina!

    Otis> Buy the "classical" definition you have 20/20 and a
    refractive status of zero. Your "best visual acuity" is
    20/10 through a -3/4 diopter lens.

    Jon > The fact that a -3/4D lens clears me to the 20/10 line can
    get confusing sometimes, because I can begin to think that
    my vision is better (diopter wise) than it really is.

    Otis> 20/20 is superior vision. If you choose to continue your
    work to better-than 20/20, and achieve 20/15, then your
    refractive status will be "positive" by about +1/2 to +3/4
    diopter by the "classical" and traditional method of

    Otis> Keep me posted on your work and your decision to continue.
    I always enjoy hearing from you! If you do manage to clear
    to 20/15, that will be the final step indeed.

    Otis> Always remember Steve Leung. I can "push" this idea as much
    as possible, but I need the "backing" of a true-professional
    like Steve to make this process work. Please write him a
    few sentences about your successful efforts. He comes under
    severe pressure to "shut up" about prevention with a plus.



    Otis Brown, Nov 28, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Snipped a bunch of drivel.

    Hey Otis, why don't you get your so called "pilots" to post to this
    newsgroup. Or maybe they are a figment of your imagination?

    If these so called Jon's and Shawns are so smart, I am sure they would be
    more then happy to subject themselves to inquisitive minds on this group.

    A Lieberman, Nov 28, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    RM Guest

    I am automatically posting this reply to any newsgroup thread
    that is receiving comments from a certain person named "Otis".

    Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
    training is nill. He is a proponent of a myopia (i.e. nearsightedness)
    prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects even
    been disproven by controlled scientific studies.

    I do not mean to suppress the opinions of anyone. I only mean to forewarn
    anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. Please take
    the remarks made by Otis with a grain of salt.

    Ph.D. O.D.
    RM, Nov 28, 2004
  4. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    Gigantic snip in an ever repeating story......................

    Otis the man who NEVER showed PROOF and NEVER came up with an adept of his
    idea to whom we may address some questions.
    Otis you are without any doubt a nice old grandpa and a nice storyteller,
    keep it that way and beat the retread.

    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, Nov 28, 2004
  5. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Jan,

    You start by stating that "the concept that the
    natural eye is dynamic -- must be destroyed".

    Does that sound like an open fair-minded person.

    Or does it sound like a man whos mind has
    slammed shut a long time ago.

    Yes, I presented objective proof that the
    NATURAL EYE is dynamic. You choose to
    TOTALLY IGNORE all scientific proof that
    you don't like. That, my friend, is
    not "science" that is your own incredible
    intellectual blindness.

    You then ask for "proof" after ignoring
    all the "warning bells" about science,
    and indeed the statemnts made
    by the scientist, Dr. Stirling Colgate.

    Go back in your shop, and continue
    to practice the method put in
    place 400 year ago. No wonder
    there is no progress.


    Otis Brown, Nov 28, 2004
  6. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    You presume to tell people what the should and
    should not do.

    I don't think so.

    Shawn (Jon) cleared his vision by intelligently
    "ending" his "near" environment. He knew
    what he wanted in his life.

    He intelligently reviewed the -1/3 diopter per year
    statistics as the 2 military academies.

    He made a choice in the face of contradictory

    His naked eye vision is now 20/20.

    Is yours?

    Who did the better scientific job?

    Shawn has "won" the battle -- and
    you are at -3 diopters.

    But I understand you have no interest
    in learning anything new.


    Otis Brown, Nov 28, 2004
  7. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    RM does not have the good grace to even post his
    own name.

    I have always represented myself as an ENGINEER,
    and not as a medical person.

    I expect the person to understand that difference.

    It is clear that I believe that a negative
    refractive state of the eye can be prevented -- under
    certain specific circumstances.

    I certainly agree that prevention with the plus
    must be started BEFORE the minus is used. This
    does require that a person "face facts" and
    make an either-or decision. I think that
    all ODs should be required to introduce
    us to that type of choice. Obviously
    RM does not share this opinion.

    Some optometrists have in fact recommended
    the use of the plus -- for prevention.
    Among them are Dr. Steve Leung, who
    identifes the minus lens as a "problem".

    You have a right to understand this
    "second opinion", and the right
    to reject it -- for that matter.

    But if rejected, and you begin wearing
    the minus, you should understand that
    the natural eye "adapts" its refractive
    state to the minus lens, and you can
    expect your refractive state to
    move "down" at a rate of about -1/2 diopter
    per year.

    I always look a person in the eye when
    talking to him. I expect straight answers
    to sharply-defined questions. If I ask
    a man about his "dissertation" I expect
    a response. If that man can not
    even publish his name, and will not
    publish his dissertation title, the
    I simply do not trust him.

    A man is generally proud of his work,
    leading to a published dissertation.

    Could RM explain why he is not
    proud of his dissertation. I know
    I would have no problem posting
    work I am pround of.

    How about it RM?

    Would you?


    Otis Brown, Nov 28, 2004
  8. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest

    On 28 Nov 2004 07:31:41 -0800, Otis Brown wrote:

    My vision corrected is 20/20. What difference does it make? NONE. I see
    just as well as Shawn.

    Answer the original question Otis. I am reposting it below this paragraph
    for your convienance.

    Why not invite your so called subjects to the newsgroup?

    A Lieberman, Nov 28, 2004
  9. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest


    I have asked you time and time again for websites NOT ASSOCIATED WITH YOURS
    proving your position. You have yet to do this.

    I will ask a direct question again.

    Please provide CURRENT websites supporting your position about plus lense
    therapy preventing Myopia.

    Not some mumbo jumbo off the wall websites, but credible websites that the
    medical professionals can read for themselves. As stated before, I am not
    in the medical profession.

    Maybe you need to open your intellectual vision and answer questions.

    A Lieberman, Nov 28, 2004
  10. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    But that is not what he said.

    You are being intellectully dishonest, again, and again, and again.

    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 28, 2004
  11. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    But Otis, Allen is not telling people what they should and should not do.
    It is you who are doing that. Allen is simply disagreeing with your
    premises. You are accusing him of the very thing you do.

    Shame on you.

    Dr. Leukoma, Nov 28, 2004
  12. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Allen,

    Since you insulted this young man previously, I doubt
    that he is interested in talking to you.

    However, why now write an "essay" explaining

    1. Why he should not have cleared his vison
    from -1.5 diopters (20/60) to 20/20. What
    do you suggest -- that he should NOT HAVE DONE IT.
    What kind of fool do you take him for?

    2. If you are "happy" with your minus lens (it
    works and is very easy) the why worry about the
    fact that highly motivated engineers (who
    actually examine objective factual data),
    can clear this distant vision BY THEIR OWN

    If you wish to persuade him to "revert"
    to the primitive method of the minus lens,
    then do so. I will forward your
    statment to him and well will
    have a good chuckle together about
    your "opinion".

    He has "won" a very difficult battle
    to protect his long-term vision.

    While "Shawn" is not a pilot -- he shows
    all the elements of a good scientst -- like
    Dr. Colgate had. I would bet that he will
    further develop those talents in the coming
    years, an eventually obtain a science degree
    of some sort -- if not a Ph.D.

    Maybe that it the "quality" person it
    takes to resolve this difficult issue
    of true prevention.




    Otis Brown, Nov 28, 2004
  13. Otis Brown

    A Lieberman Guest


    Answser this question Otis, don't add more drivel. Why don't you let Shawn
    make that decision?

    After all, you said he was an adult as a young teenager. It appears that
    you are making decisions for him by saying "I doublt that he is interested
    in talking to me. After all, you said he was an intelligent adult

    And even if he doesn't talk to me, maybe he will talk to the medical
    professionals in this newsgroup. I don't think they have insulted him!

    Again I ask directly, why doesn't Shawn talk to the newsgroup? Maybe your
    Shawn doesn't exist???
    <snipped more worthless drivel as it was an essay of drivel>

    A Lieberman, Nov 28, 2004
  14. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    More exact, the following is what I stated Otis.

    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, Nov 29, 2004
  15. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Jan,

    Your comment is duly noted,
    and has been sent to "Shawn"
    for his thoughtful evaluation.

    Since he has cleared his vision
    from 20/60 to 20/20 (an now
    working on better-than 20/20
    I am certain he will AVOID
    keeping his distant vision
    at 20/20 for the next
    sever years -- when, otherwise
    his vision would continue
    down at a rate of -1/2 to
    -1/3 diopter per year.

    I think Shawn has won this
    battle -- and perhaps the war.

    What do you think?


    Otis Brown, Nov 29, 2004
  16. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    "Otis Brown" <> schreef in bericht

    Again you avoid to give straight answers Otis and you again are changing the
    Feel free to put your reading glasses on and keep your eyes open please and

    More exact, the following is what I stated Otis.

    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)

    And this is your answer:

    Don't believe a word of this nonsens.
    If this guy is that intelligent he already recognized the nonsense you are
    vomiting Otis.
    There is no ''Shawn'', admit it and stop with this nonsens.
    Since there excists no "Shawn'' there is no battle to win
    You, on the other hand, have lost this "battle'' a long time ago and
    shouldt beat the retreat Otis.
    However, I'll think you start a new thread and continue with your never
    ending useless crap stories.
    I stopped explaining what is wrong in your ideas (every thing is already
    explained) but warning layman against your ideas Otis, has to be be

    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, Nov 29, 2004
  17. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    "Shawn" was nearsighted by -1.5 dioters -- as measured
    by a highly qualified OD. His eyes were not extracted
    and no "length" was measured. A refractive status
    (using the standard method) of -1.5 diopters for
    his natural eyes was established, as well
    as an eye-chart reading of 20/60.

    What we do know is that "Shawn" worked VERY HARD
    with the plus and checked his own eye chart
    very carefully. It was indeed very frustrating,
    since the natural eye can not clear at
    a rate better-than about +3/4 diopter per
    year. (Your estimate is that his eyes
    will go down at -1/2 diopter per year -- test
    group AND control group.) So your "theory"
    says that any "positive change" of refractive
    status IS IMPOSSIBLE.

    I would have been of considerable value for
    "Shawn" to have a "trial-lens" kit to
    confirm his refractive status. In fact
    we discussed the necessity of it.
    But he was able to make an estimate
    of his refractive status by using a
    minus lens he had been given.

    As for the results, Shawn proved to
    himself he could do the work as
    a persistant engineer.

    He is pleased that his judgments
    of science and objective factual
    data are consistent with the results
    he achieved. Since he
    is now at 20/20, he has no
    need for your -- or the minus lens
    at this point.

    Thanks for thinking about him
    and he work to clear his vision
    to 20/20.



    cc Shawn

    Otis Brown, Nov 30, 2004
  18. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Shawn,

    Here is Mikes commentary for your thoughtful
    review. He keeps on attempting to reduce an
    appreciation of objective scientific facts
    (engineering-science) in to a "magic" quick
    fix which will work "instantly" in his office.

    Obviously that is never going to happen.


    Dear Mike,

    Thanks for your concern about Shawn's ability to
    clear his distant vision back to 20/20.

    This is consistent with a great mass of
    SCIENTIFIC (not medical) data that demonstrates
    that the natural eye CONTROLS its refractive
    status (the output) to its average visual
    enviroment (the input).

    Since this work requires a major change it
    a person's average-visual environment.

    Given the rather intensive effort required,
    and the need for the person himself to
    monitor the results (using eye chart and
    trial-lens kit) it follows that
    you CAN NEVER "PRESCRIBE" this type of

    Only Shawn's understanding of these
    issues made it possible for him
    to follow the method advocated
    by Dr. Stirling Colgate, and
    others who have been obviously
    successful with prevention -- difficult
    though it may be for them to implement

    In any event, I apprecitate your
    interest in this work,
    and will send you commentary
    to Shawn for his revies -- as
    he now works to clear his
    distant vision for better-than


    Otis Brown, Nov 30, 2004
  19. Otis Brown

    LarryDoc Guest

    Readers please note:

    Otis Brown posts his ridiculous, unsupported theory to this newsgroup
    over and over again, day after day. Over a thousand times thus far.
    Numerous doctor practitioners and vision scientists have clearly and
    precisely debunked his argument, yet he persists in trying to attract
    the gullible.

    That which those of us with vision science background post here is based
    on proven, tested repeatable, clinically observed (thousands if not
    hundreds of thousands of times) real data.

    This is very much unlike "Otis", who invents theories, creates
    terminology to fit it, and "reports" "findings" based on two individuals
    who may or may not exist.

    Please do not reply to "Otis" posts.

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to" which appears
    on Mondays for information on how to filter out his posts so that you
    may be able to participate in worthwhile discussion in this forum.

    Thank you for your cooperation and understanding.
    LarryDoc, Nov 30, 2004
  20. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    Forgotten the personal email adress of your imaginary ''Shawn'' Otis?
    Or are we supposed to believe he is reading here without responding?
    Come on Otis beat the retreat along with your crap cases.
    How true......

    Otis the man who NEVER EVER showed PROOF and NEVER EVER came up with a
    follower of his
    ideas to whom we may address some questions.
    Otis you are without any doubt a nice old grandpa and a nice storyteller,
    keep it that way and beat the retreat.

    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, Nov 30, 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.