Reducing the Probability of ENTRY into Myopia

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
detail.

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
measurements.)

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.

Best,

Otis

 

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.

DrG

 

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
the
following:

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.

Best,

Otis

 

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.

Otis

 

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

DrG

 

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.

See:

www.chinamyopia.org

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.

Best,

Otis

 

Hey, Otis....

Answer my questions.

Come on. You're blathering again. Take a DEEP BREATH ... and answer
my questions.

 

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

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1420&page=33

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
should).

Come on, Otis. Answer the questions. Be a guy. Be a regular (not in
the fiber-rich way, either) guy.

 

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.

 

"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.

DrG

 

FYPubs.txt

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
1981

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

5. The Transmission of Refractive Errors Within Eskimo Families
1969

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
1973

9. The Pullman Study -- A Visual Survey of Pullman School Children
1954

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
1966

13. Comparative Oculometry of Caucasians, Eskimos and Chimpanzees
1969

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
1990?

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

 

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?

DrG

 

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
right.

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.

Otis

+++++++++


YOU MUST TAKE CONTROL

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.


FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WEARING A PLUS LENS
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
test.

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
nearsightedness.

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.

Keith


AN ENGINEER'S UNEXPECTED SUCCESS


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
result.

VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT
VISION


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.

 

Ahhhh, Otis.

The king of bandwidth wasting drivel, himself.

Care to answer my questions yet??

http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Some of them came up in your latest cut-and-paste "episode."

 

"Plus-prevention program." Do you know anybody who has prevented
myopia? I don't.

 

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

Yes I UNDERSTAND YOU and WHERE YOU ARE COMMING FROM.

No doubt about it.

Best,

Otis

 

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?

DrG

 

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.

Otis

 

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.
OSB]

 

Ruh-roh.

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......

http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Hint: when it comes to Oakley-Young ... you're lying.