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

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


Dear Jon,


Subject: Official Standards of Measurement

Re: Jon: Comments on stair-case myopia


FOUNDATION OF EXCELLENCE

"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
year!

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
people,

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

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
"advocacy".

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 > ...it 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
benefit.

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 sci.med.vision 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
eye-measurement.

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.


Best,

Otis


Jon

 

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.

Allen

 

I am automatically posting this reply to any sci.med.vision 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.


RM
Ph.D. O.D.

 

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
destroyed.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

 

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.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

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
advice.

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.

Best,

Otis

 

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".
Read:

www.chinamyopia.org

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?

Best,

Otis

 

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?

Allen

 

Otis,

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.

Allen

 

(Otis Brown) wrote in

But that is not what he said.

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

DrG

 

(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.

DrG

 

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
EFFORTS?

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.

Best,

Otis


Otis
Engineer

____________

 

Otis,

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>

Allen

 

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
destroyed.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

 

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
YOU AND YOUR OPINION by
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?


Best,

Otis

 

"Otis Brown" <> schreef in bericht

Again you avoid to give straight answers Otis and you again are changing the
subject.
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
destroyed.

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
continued.


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

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

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

 

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.

Best,

Otis

cc Shawn

______

 

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
solution.

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
correctly.

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
20/20.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

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 sci.med.vision" 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.

 

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
destroyed.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)