Restoring vision from "School Myopia"

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Apr 14, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: Current status in the "fight" to clear from
    a -2.75 diopter "prescription".

    History: Mike had been given a -1.5 dipoter lens (about 20/70)
    at age 10. At age 15, he was wearing a -2.75 D contact -- all the
    time (about 20/200). At that point he read a number
    of sites on "Bates" and other methods and decided to
    quit "cold turkey". When he checked his eye sight
    he found he could read 20/70 or so.

    After some work -- he could just-pass the 20/40 line.

    This is his current report. Vision clearing
    if VERY HARD WORK. It takes consistency and
    determination. It is not a "medical" process at all --
    and can never be prescribed.

    The purpose of is to share this type of
    success so we can learn from it.

    Obviously opinion vary about the dynamic behavior
    of the natural eye.

    These results are consistent with studies of
    the dynamic nature of the adolescent primate eye.
    (Reference Dr. Francis Young)

    It is important to remember that the person making
    the measurement -- is the person who will believe
    the results of this "vision clearing" work.




    Dear otis

    I have passed the 20/20 line 3 times this week!

    I do not read 20/20 all of the time. I am happy to report that I have
    been passing the 20/30 almost every time that I have checked. At about
    9:30 to 10:00 at night is when I can read the 20/20.

    Because I am outside more I have noticed some changes in my vision.

    Going directly from a sunny bright day to reading my eyechart that is
    inside produces 20/50 20/60 vision.

    However going from a dark room to reading my eyechart produces 20/20.

    I am not sure whats going on. Could you explain why going from an
    excellent illuminated area (outdoors) to a moderately illuminated
    room (indoors) produces such bad vision. And why going from a dark
    room to a moderatly illuminated room produces 20/20


    otisbrown, Apr 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wow. Here I always thought that the person making the measurement is
    the person who should not be biased...

    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, Apr 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    The purpose of is to share this type of
    No, you have usurped this newgroup to try to fit your zealot needs.

    Please repost this in and discuss it there.
    RM, Apr 14, 2005
  4. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    You may already know that a patient is a subjectivity and all the
    efforts you put in making it an objectivity to fit it into your
    "scientific" method are wrong and futile.

    The patient's subjectivity will rebel untill you will kill it.

    Eyeglasses indeed kill the subjectivity of people.

    Now let's see this so-called o.d. Mr. Stacy.

    It is evident he is a great idiot.

    His subjectivity has been killed by the eyeglasses he is so happy to
    g.gatti, Apr 14, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    visionsenz Guest

    The Times newspaper reports that the London Moorfields Eye Hospital,
    acknowledged to know a thing or two about eyes is giving Lasek surgery
    to top fighter pilots to improve their night vision. This seems to
    contradict reports of adverse side effects of laser treatment which
    lowers night vision. Any comments anyone? Mr Stevens, the eye surgeon
    at Moorfields has done about 50 Lasek operations but claims that only 1
    in 800 gives worse vision. He seems to possess a measure of second
    sight in making this prediction.

    The many denigrators of Otis Brown may be surprised to learn of a
    recent report in the Times newspaper. Professor O'Leary, an
    optometrist at Anglia Polytechnic University plans to fit five year
    olds with high tech contact lenses, custom built to iron out
    imperfections on the cornea and prevent myopia. He claims to be very
    excited by the prospects of his idea. Significantly the president of
    the Royal College of Ophthalmologists urges caution about the scheme.
    O'Leary says the object of his work is to identify myopia-prone
    Robin Parsons
    visionsenz, Apr 14, 2005
  6. Can I ask what performing research with proper controls in place has
    anything to do with Otis?

    Scott Seidman, Apr 14, 2005
  7. I'd like to see the article. It may be they are doing wave front laser
    which does have the possibility of improving night vision in anyone who
    has irregular or higher order aberrations. Theoretically, at least, it
    could provide better than "natural" eyesight, which would be handy for a
    combat pilot.
    Wave front can be done even on eyes that have no appreciable "lower
    order" problems such as myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism, which
    presumably would include many military pilots.
    Ha! I'd like to know where those numbers did come from, and what was
    meant by "worse vision".
    Sounds good, but I'd hate to be the one training those kids to handle
    the contacts...

    (not sure what that has to do with otis brown and his detractors)
    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, Apr 14, 2005
  8. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    The Times newspaper? I would prefer to read it in The Lancet.

    Dr. Leukoma, Apr 14, 2005
  9. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear William,

    Thanks for your commentary.

    Are you saying you have no bias?

    In any event, this man has done more for prevention
    than you ever will.

    You treat people like dirt. If you respected this man
    you would praise him for his successful effort.

    I think you are profoundly bisaed -- and I would not
    trust your measurements.

    At the very minimuim, I would want this man to have a
    trial-lens kit to verify his refractive status also.

    You bias is that if the truth ever comes out about
    this subject, you entire "professional position",
    that the natural eye is not dynamic, goes "poof".

    Yes, you will not allow others (with training) to
    make their own measurements -- because
    you fear a public that will "wake up" to
    some of these issues.

    This man's visual future is now in his hands -- and under HIS (not


    otisbrown, Apr 14, 2005
  10. I certainly have bias, like everyone. As a scientist/eyecare
    professional I have to fight every day against my own biases to remain
    as objective as possible. I think the worst observer of all is one who
    does not admit to being biased at all, or one who believes that they are
    completely unbiased, or one who simply does not know what bias is.
    This man? Who is that, the "Mike" of your first post to this thread or who?
    Actually, I'm fastidious in the objectivity of any measurements I make.
    Your distrust of me, whom you do not know, have never met, and certainly
    have never seen making any measurments, only reflects your own gigantic
    This man? Again, to whom do you refer?
    I never said the eye is not dynamic. Perhaps your definition of dynamic
    is different than that of mainstream science???
    Wrong again, you strike out. I often allow a patient to "make their own
    measurments". Very often. And I certainly do not fear the public
    waking up to anything that is truthful.
    Not only did you strike out, if you keep referring to this unnamed man
    in your writing, you're in danger of getting thrown out of the game.
    Please review this entire thread and tell me if you're not asking me to
    be a mind-reader, a clairvoyant, or what.

    w.stacy, o.d.
    William Stacy, Apr 14, 2005
  11. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    Why you go on signing "-MT" in the end of any message?

    It is not enough what appears in the line above the subject?
    g.gatti, Apr 14, 2005
  12. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    .. . . and now you see the best and only tactic of a truly desperate

    Whatever you say to Otis, he responds with some gibberish about "you
    not believing in the dynamic nature of the natural eye...."

    If you were to describe the mechanism of pseudomyopia and the various
    triggers of accommodation. Otis would respond with, "that's a
    medical, not scientific position, and you are denying the dynamic
    nature of the natural eye." Somewhere in his response would also be
    the term "box camera."

    Pure red herring crap.

    I've found some solace in the comments of the "lurkers" on this
    newsgroup who consistently say, in effect, "Don't worry. We know this
    guy's a raving kook."

    I've tried not to engage him of late. I think he's pret-ty far past
    his sell-by date anyway....

    But . . . boy, it'd be nice if he and a couple of others would just
    form a little commune somewhere and leave s.m.v. alone.

    I can see it now . . . their little commune. I think I shall call it
    .. . . emmetropia ;-)
    Neil Brooks, Apr 14, 2005
  13. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    It's all wrong, the same old story.
    g.gatti, Apr 14, 2005
  14. otisbrown

    visionsenz Guest

    Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what
    treatment was available for myopia?
    Robin Parsons
    visionsenz, Apr 15, 2005
  15. otisbrown

    visionsenz Guest

    Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what
    treatment was available for myopia?
    Robin Parsons
    visionsenz, Apr 15, 2005
  16. otisbrown

    visionsenz Guest

    Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what
    treatment was available for myopia?
    Robin Parsons
    visionsenz, Apr 15, 2005
  17. otisbrown

    visionsenz Guest

    Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what
    treatment was available for myopia?
    Robin Parsons
    visionsenz, Apr 15, 2005
  18. otisbrown

    visionsenz Guest

    Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what
    treatment was available for myopia?
    Robin Parsons
    visionsenz, Apr 15, 2005
  19. otisbrown

    wstacy Guest

    No treatment was available and none was necessary. None is really all
    that "necessary" today, unless of course the person wants to drive a
    car, fly a plane, etc.

    w.stacy, o.d.
    wstacy, Apr 15, 2005
  20. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Rishi,
    The ODs on, say, show
    us just ONE case were:
    1. The person was nearsighed -- as CONFIRMED by OD measurement.
    This "Mike" was MEASURED at -2.75 diopters.

    2. Mike quit wearing the minus -- as STRONGLY advocated by our friend
    Dr. W. H. Bates.

    3. After a great deal of PERSONAL work he gradually cleared his
    vision, first to 20/40, passing all legal requirments, and then to

    The response of the OD's?

    So what -- who cares?

    This is pure "attitude". If you want to
    "protect" your vision, obviously you will have to figure out how to do
    it yourself --sad to day.

    Please remember that "Mike" had an thorough medical eye exam -- and had
    no problem. His natural an normal eyes had an "undesired" refractive

    To use the "antequated" term of these
    ODs, his eyes "emmetropized" in a positive direction, thus clearing his
    distant vision to 20/20.


    otisbrown, Apr 15, 2005
    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.