Reducing the Probability of ENTRY into Myopia

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Feb 19, 2007.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: Reducing the probability of ENTRY into
    myopia from 30 percent to 1 percent.

    Otis> You are correct about I. Semmelwies. AFTER he reduced
    the death rate from 30 percent to 1 percent, he was declared
    a fraud.

    Tyner> When you reduce the incidence of myopia from 30% to 1%, we'll
    listen. I promise.


    I would be pleased to work on true-prevention
    of ENTRY into myopia (a negative refractive
    STATE of the fundamental eye)
    provided some basic conditions are met.

    1. The study be classed as engineering-scientific,
    and is clearly NOT another MEDICAL study.

    2. The person's involved have a college-engineering
    education. (Or are in a college with that type
    of background, and are cognizant of
    scientific issues.

    3. The majority-opinion stated by Catman Grant
    be read before the group -- and analyized in

    4. The study be open, and respect the
    scientific competence of EACH person
    in the study.

    5. The study be conducted at an ENGINEERING
    college, where the participatents fully understand
    the dynamic-eye concept, and can follow
    instructions in the CORRECT wearing
    of a plus lens.

    6. No individual will have a Snellen of less
    than 20/60. (Cycloplegic will be taken and
    recorded at the start. Individuals will be
    taught the technique and will make the

    7. Results to be judged by competent
    engineers and scientists.

    8. RETIRED optometrists will be asked
    to support (but not direct) the study.

    That works for me.


    otisbrown, Feb 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I believe this is the same post you made about 4 years ago when I
    first joined this group. Meanwhile, the world has been passing you
    by, and so have the scientific studies.

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 19, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: The refractive STATE-CHANGE of the normal eye at
    a four year college

    Dear Prevention-minded friends,

    Subject: What EXACTLY what did Gmelin and McKenny mean when they said
    of 828 graduated wearing spectacles or contact lenses.

    By comparing the refractive error (spherical equivalent) of each cadet
    as it was recorded in his 201 File, both for his entrance physical
    examination (1970) and his commissioning examination (1974),
    visual acuity degradation can be demonstrated empirically.
    At the completion of four years in a academic environment, there
    were fewer hyperopic and many more myopic cadets in the class
    of 1974

    These were stated in McKinney, "A Study of Refractive Trends at West
    Point", (tragically un-published).

    McKinney> 2. The AVERAGE increase in myopia was -1.37 diopters (the
    range being -1.12 diopters through -1.62 diopters).

    It is my thesis is that he means exactly that.

    For example, a Cadet with -1.0 diopters (20/70) would, after
    four years, wind up with an increase of minus refraction of between
    -1.12 to -1.62 diopters.

    Or, equally, if the person had -1.5 diopters, at the end for
    four years, his refraction would have increased
    by between -1.12 to -1.62 diopters.

    I truly doubt that there was an intention to say anything else
    other than that.

    If you think the meaning of this statement is anything else,
    other than that please let me know.

    If he intended to say anything else other than that -- I would
    be very interested in the original data to resolve
    this issue.

    Since these records are maintained year after year, I
    would see no problem verifying this fact.

    Perhaps other interested parties would like to make
    a statement about this "down" rate in for years for
    all cadets with an initial negative refractive STATE.


    otisbrown, Feb 19, 2007
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear "L",

    Yes indeed, DrL, the percentage of myopes has
    grown to 88 percent in Hong Kong and 95
    percent for Taiwan Medical students.

    And you just dig the whole deeper and think
    it is all a "hoot".

    For any review with intelligent people who would
    like to RETAIN their distant vision, I think
    you attitude should be presented to THEM,
    and an example of the "...I don't give a damm"
    about your long-term visual welfair."

    Maybe THAT will wake them up -- to
    take the responsibility you REFUSE.

    I know I gave up on you a long time ago.

    otisbrown, Feb 19, 2007
  5. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    You have proven the point. What has happened between 1975 and now?
    Nothing? Wake up, Rip Van Winkle.

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 19, 2007
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    What happened is the recognition of how totally you
    IGNORE all scientific facts about the fundamental eye's
    proven behavior -- when you dislike the implication
    of scientific facts.

    But, finally, some open-minded optometrists have been
    willing to work in the context of scientific facts,
    and will help those who will ACCEPT the necessity
    of using the plus -- before the minus.


    For an optometrist who will help your child AVOID entry
    into a negative refractive STATE, based on science,
    and not on the traditional blindness of the last 200 years.


    otisbrown, Feb 19, 2007
  7. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Hey, Otis....

    Answer my questions.

    Come on. You're blathering again. Take a DEEP BREATH ... and answer
    my questions.
    Neil Brooks, Feb 19, 2007
  8. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    But ... but ... but ... golly gee willickers, Uncle Otie. What about
    this study:

    What about the notion that 26% of myopes shifted HYPEROPIC or DID NOT
    SHIFT during the USAF Academy study.

    What about that? Huh? HUH??

    What about the data itself. Got ANY EVIDENCE (notice I'm not even
    looking for conclusive proof) that plus lenses affect this
    distribution IN ANY WAY??

    Huh? HUH??
    I believe I just did.

    Seems there's just something else at work here, and--since we don't
    have NON-college students (or other controls NOT engaged in intensive
    near work) to compare to, we have no idea what's at work here. Could
    well be NOTHING OTHER THAN genetics from this kind of study.

    Either way, your theory doesn't seem to alter the outcomes in any way
    (unless you count inducing double vision ... which ... I guess we

    Come on, Otis. Answer the questions. Be a guy. Be a regular (not in
    the fiber-rich way, either) guy.
    Neil Brooks, Feb 19, 2007
  9. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    what has been "proven" over this length of time is that plus lenses,
    undercorrection, bifocals, having myopes read without their glasses,
    etc. IS ALL INEFFECTIVE. read the literature you old fool!

    why do you harass all the doctors here as if their is some myopia
    prevention treatment that should be applied that they are refusing to
    apply? all the treatments that you suggest have been tested multiple
    times and proven to be as effective as fairy dust.

    as you point out, noone has more interest in this issue than the
    Asian's and thats why researchers in Singapore and Hong Kong have
    taken the lead on this issue. their conclusions are the same--
    nothing that has been tried so far works except the anti-cholineric
    drugs therapies and those are still being worked out. and don't start
    farting out the name of Steve Leung-- he's and idiot and noone over
    there accepts him at all. he hasn't proven a thing.

    YOU are the one who has sat on your butt over the last 25 years and
    done nothing. if you think you have a clue about how to prevent
    myopia then go out and PROVE it. i don't care if you use engineering
    students, retired optometrists or whatever, if the study design is
    valid then everyone will take notice.

    quit posting unsubstantiated drivel on the internet and instead take
    the time to prove what you claim and we will all be happier.
    p.clarkii, Feb 19, 2007
  10. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    "Some"? You only come up with one. When was that last time you
    referenced a scientific study that wasn't at least 20 years/old,
    unless it was to criticize the findings? And you have the gall to
    tell somebody else that they ignore the science? I would call that
    total hypocrisy.

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 19, 2007
  11. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest


    Subject: A listing of Dr. Francis Young's published papers.

    The preliminary to any PREVENTIVE study must include
    a scientific evaluation of the NATURAL eye's refractive
    behavior when OBJECTIVELY tested.

    These are the listing of the papers I received from Francis Young
    in 1995.

    Some of the topics you are discussing have been
    evaluated by Dr. Young's research.

    Otis Brown 2/18/2007


    1. Visual Refractive Errors of Wild and Laboratory Monkeys 1965

    2. Ocular Biometry of Eskimo Families 1973

    3. Interocular Pressure Dynamics Associated with Accommodation

    4. Accommodation and Vitreous Chamber Pressure: A Proposed
    Mechanism for Myopia 1991

    5. The Transmission of Refractive Errors Within Eskimo Families

    6. Bifocal Control of Myopia 1975

    7. Comparison of Cycloplegic and Non-Cycloplegic Refraction of
    Eskimos 1968

    8. Visual Refractive Characteristics and the Subhuman Primate

    9. The Pullman Study -- A Visual Survey of Pullman School Children

    10. Transmission of Refractive Errors Within Eskimo Families
    (Arnold Sorsby Commentary) 1970

    11. Heredity and Myopia in Monkeys 1964

    12. Ultrasound and Phakometry Measurements of the Primate Eye

    13. Comparative Oculometry of Caucasians, Eskimos and Chimpanzees

    14. A Set of Equations for Computing the Components of Ocular
    Refraction 1968

    15. The Effect of Restricted Visual Space on the Primate Eye 1961

    16. Reading, Measures of Intelligence and Refractive Errors 1963

    17. Refractive Error in Relation to the Development of the Eye

    18. Visual-Optical Characteristics of Caged and Semi-free-Ranging
    Monkeys 1973

    19. The Pullman Study -- A Visual Survey of Pullman School
    Children, Part II 1953

    20. The Distribution of Refractive Errors in Monkeys 1964

    21. Refraction of the Monkey Eye Under General Anesthesia 1963

    22. The Effects of Pilocarpine and Neostigmine on the Blood Flow
    Through the Anterior Uvea in Monkeys. A Study with
    Radioactively Labeled Microspheres 1973

    23. The Effect of Restricted Visual Space on the Refractive Error
    of the Young Monkey Eye 1963

    24. Primate Myopia 1979

    25. The Etiology of Myopia 1965

    26. Chimpanzee Col1r Vision, Acuity and Ocular Components 1970

    27. Myopia and Personality 1966

    28. Visual Characteristics of Apes and Persons 1977

    29. The Development and Control of Myopia in Human and Subhuman
    Primates 1975

    30. Visual Similarities of Non-human and Human Primates 1970

    31. The Development and Control of Myopia in Human and Subhuman
    Primates 1975 (Duplicated)

    32. The Inheritance of Ocular Components 1971

    33. The Development of Myopia 1971

    34. Reliability and Validity of Ultrasonographic Measurement in
    Primates 1969

    35. An Evaluation of the Biological and Near-work Concepts of
    Myopia Development 1954

    36. Diet and Refractive Characteristics 1973

    37. Values, Personality, Physical Characteristics, and Refractive
    Error 1976

    38. The Nature and Control of Myopia 1977

    39. Animal Experimentation and Research on Refractive State 1967

    40. Present State of Knowledge Regarding the Mechanisms Giving
    Rise to Refractive Anomalies 1966

    41. Visual Acuity and Refractive Errors in Primates 1969

    42. Comparison of the Optical Characteristics of the Human, Ape,
    and Monkey Eye 1967

    43. Personality and Refractive Characteristics 1978

    44. The Development of Simple Myopia 1968

    45. Can Early Detection Aid in Treatment? 1976

    46. Accommodation and the Control of Myopia 1978
    otisbrown, Feb 19, 2007
  12. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    That's pretty impressive listing of 30, 40, and 50 year/old
    literature. Given that your "science" has been around for so long,
    what is your excuse for being unable to prevent myopia?

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 19, 2007
  13. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear "L",

    As long as you put your own 5 year-old into a strong minus -- then
    one thing is dead certain. You will NEVER be part
    of any plus-prevention program. As a father you have that

    But not everyone agrees with you. Further, if the
    person "wakes up", and understands both the difficulties
    of plus-prevention AND the opportunity -- the a degree
    of success can be achieved, not in getting OUT of it,
    but rather by avoiding getting IN TO IT.

    But you obviously can not even understand the concept.

    Of course everyone who does this successfully simply
    avoids you -- by avoiding entry into myopia in the first place.



    become clear that you must understand the bad results that occur when
    you use the negative lens. More than this, Jacob's analysis
    demonstrated that even a completely dedicated eye doctor can not
    overcome the popular misconceptions that exists in the public's mind
    about eye doctors and the use of the preventive lens.

    I made a major effort to help my niece and nephew. They developed a
    clear understanding of the problem of nearsightedness and the type or
    solution that could be expected. I believe that providing them with a
    "fighting chance" to defeat the problem is better than providing no
    chance at all. Both used the plus lens and retained clear distant
    vision without prescription lenses. They understood that it would take
    long-term commitment to achieve the desired result. I asked my nephew
    to write a short note to describe his own effort and outcome as he
    worked to maintain clear distant vision through college.

    Dear Uncle,

    Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid
    Nearsightedness". I got it yesterday after I came back from the
    weekend. I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I
    have a great deal of school work to read.

    I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that
    one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check
    my eyes with the eye chart. I am able to read the 20/20 line on
    the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most
    of the time now. I have always passed the driver's license eye

    I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I
    read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total
    reading I do. I started using them as much as possible again
    because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I
    didn't check them on a chart). I am lucky to have an uncle who
    showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my

    One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and
    then use or adapt methods to work for me. In the last few years I
    have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the
    magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to
    deteriorate. Then I realize it's time to do something to stop
    that process.

    At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I
    know what it does for my vision. Thanks for taking the time to
    tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for
    the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending
    me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the
    methods I am using.



    Perhaps the most surprising and encouraging result to be achieved was
    accomplished by accident. Because of my long-term experience with the
    experimental data, I knew that recovery -- on the average -- would be
    slow. Anyone who attempts to use the plus lens wants to succeed. It
    makes sense to help people who have gotten into about 20/80. Any
    improvement will get you to 20/50, which passes the FAA 3rd class
    flying license. Recovery, if you are worse than 20/100, is difficult
    but possible. To present all the facts including surprising results, I
    asked Dennis to write a letter describing his efforts and ultimate


    Dennis Romich, July 21, 1992

    My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis
    Brown discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for
    restoring the myopic eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to
    attempt to use the plus lens, and see what would happen, since the
    approach seemed reasonable and much safer than any other method.

    I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The
    lens was a +1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass
    for people who have lost their near vision.

    I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus
    lenses which I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my
    vision worsened, and the Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens.
    My distance vision without prescription lenses was very bad through
    high school, college, and graduate school. The last professional check
    (Ophthalmologist) showed that my prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right
    eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This is approximately 20/320
    vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I would be classed
    as legally blind without my glasses.

    As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed
    that my distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I
    purchased Otis' book, and checked my eyes against the eye chart. They
    were 20/30, which means I will pass the standard driver's license
    criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription lenses.

    Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that
    most individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but he
    felt that returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe.
    Since I have done it successfully, I have no doubt that other
    individuals who have a similar problem could obtain similar results
    using Otis' recommended method of vision restoration.

    I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in
    both Engineering and Business Administration.
    otisbrown, Feb 19, 2007
  14. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Ahhhh, Otis.

    The king of bandwidth wasting drivel, himself.

    Care to answer my questions yet??

    Some of them came up in your latest cut-and-paste "episode."
    Neil Brooks, Feb 19, 2007
  15. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    "Plus-prevention program." Do you know anybody who has prevented
    myopia? I don't.
    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 19, 2007
  16. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear DrL,

    The quick-fix works great -- in five minutes. If I were in an office
    and had only five minutes I would do what you do -- no
    question about it. I would also deny all secondary effects -- like
    you do. But then:

    Insanity is doing the same thing over-and-over again -- but
    expecting different results.

    Rita Mae Brown

    "People believe and do whatever they want to do, regardless
    of the facts presented to them."

    Thomas Quackenbush

    "You cannot by reasoning correct a man of an ill opinion
    which by reasoning he never acquired. We can also say that
    neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts,
    can you convince some people that an opinion which they have
    accepted on authority is wrong."

    William Bates

    "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

    Men live by their routines; and when these are called into
    question, they lose all power of normal judgment. They will
    listen to nothing save the echo of their own voices; all else
    becomes dangerous thoughts.

    Harold Laski


    No doubt about it.


    otisbrown, Feb 19, 2007
  17. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Have you ever looked into a mirror? Somehow, I don't think
    introspection in within your grasp.

    Insanity is indeed doing the same thing over and over while expecting
    different results. Just what results do you expect by posting your
    junk science ad nauseam?

    Dr. Leukoma, Feb 19, 2007
  18. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear DrG,

    Given that you put your own 5 year-old into a strong
    minus -- I truly can not argue with you about it.

    In my judgment, you can either become part
    of the solution -- or remain part of the problem -- and
    you insist on doing.

    otisbrown, Feb 19, 2007
  19. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    And Yes, we must accept the second-opinion recommendation
    of Dr. Young and Dr. Grosvenor, to the effect that, to be effective,
    plus-prevention must be STARTED before that first minus lens
    is applied, and the person develops stair-case myopia from:

    1. The prolonged "near" environment, and

    2. The exacerbating factor of the minus lens -- that
    solves no problem at all.

    Here is the review of the preventive plus:


    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, Feb 19, 2007
  20. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest


    Here comes Mister Otis and his lie about Oakley-Young.

    Run and hide!

    Mister Otis? Aren't you going to answer my questions? Oakley-Young
    is covered within......

    Hint: when it comes to Oakley-Young ... you're lying.
    Neil Brooks, Feb 19, 2007
    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.