The Correct Answers

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Ms.Brainy, Jun 5, 2007.

  1. Ms.Brainy

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    Dear P.Clar,

    Since Otis apparently missed your repeated questions to him, I took
    the liberty to answer for him. I hope this will stop all your further

    1. What is your professional training, or professional experience,
    that allows you to give people advise on how to manage their vision
    and eyecare problems? What Optometry, Ophthalmology, or Optics
    training and/or experience do you have?

    Answer: I am an engineer and as such I understand the design and
    mechanism of the fundamental monkey's eye better than any optometrist
    or ophthalmologist.

    2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and
    are therefore walking around with net plus refractive power in their
    eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. This is optically the same as
    wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to
    emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic?
    Your "theory" predicts the opposite!

    Answer: You ask too many questions at once and I get confused. I
    never advocated prevention by not wearing any lenses, as you suggest.
    I am the "plus man". The fact that their myopia continues to increase
    proves my point: They need the plus and cannot expect improvement or
    even prevention by wearing nothing.

    3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do
    not become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over time? They are
    straining to see, in exactly the same way that others do who get very
    close to their reading material. And they do it 24/7. And it's
    optically the same as wearing glasses that are overminused. Your
    theory predicts their refraction should change, but it doesn't.
    Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40. How can
    that be Otis? Unless your theory is wrong!

    Answer: I do not treat hyperopia, which is not a scientific disorder
    of the fundamental state of the dynamic eye.

    4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
    Physiol Opt. Feb; 61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were intentionally
    overminused did not become myopic any more than children who wore
    their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the
    opposite! You claim that the "wretched minus" would cause them to
    plunge deeper into the despair of myopia. Yet it doesn't seem to
    that way. Why?

    Answer: The minus is bad bad bad for the natural eye of the monkey,
    always bad. These monkeys are doomed to life of misery. The minus
    lens should be banned by the FDA, except for passing the driving test
    or watching porno movies.

    5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave
    them slightly myopic even with their glasses on, they continued to
    develop myopia, and actually at an accelerated rate (Chung K, Mohidin
    N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than
    myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory"
    predicts the opposite! Since they would be walking around 24/7 with
    net plus refractive error, shouldn't they get better? Or at least
    worse-- if your theory were correct!

    Answer: Since they wear the minus their myopia increases -½ D every
    year. If you understood the STATE of the dynamic natural eye you
    wouldn't ask such silly questions. Or maybe it's the fundamental eye,
    I need to check it out.

    6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study
    (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858)
    concluded that using bifocal lenses on children has no effect on
    myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! Why is it
    that science just keeps proving you wrong time and time again?

    Answer: The rate of myopia among school monkeys and chicken in Honk
    Kong is approaching 90%, which proves my purely scientific point:
    They must start using the plus, the sooner the better.

    P.Clar, I hope you are satisfied and please stop bugging me with more
    questions. I have needy patients to take care of and have no time for
    you and the rest of your established crowd. Now I must go wash my
    hands because I discovered that germs can cause myopia in monkeys and
    the establishment doesn't believe me, but you'll see that eventually I
    shall prevail.


    Otis, Engineer
    Ms.Brainy, Jun 5, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ms.Brainy

    p.clarkii Guest

    i like you Ms. Brainy.
    p.clarkii, Jun 5, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. pretty clear.
    michael toulch, Jun 5, 2007
  4. Ms.Brainy

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Neil Brooks, Jun 5, 2007
  5. Ms.Brainy

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Brainy,

    You are wonderful.

    But please sign "Brainy", and not my name.

    Also, I will post the "Printer's Son", which I judge is your
    "attitude" and sets the true limit for scientific prevention of
    a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye.

    The publics "attitude" in fact defines the "limit" of
    majority-opinion optometry. It would be nice if you
    understood THAT issue.

    Further no one can do your "thinking" for you.

    If you LOVE that minus lens in five minutes -- than
    have at it. It is certainly no skin off my nose.


    Otis Brown
    otisbrown, Jun 5, 2007
  6. Ms.Brainy

    Jan Guest

    Ms.Brainy schreef:
    Useless and just "corn on the mill" (Dutch expression) to Otis.

    "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" (Marcus Porcius Cato)

    Instead of "Carthaginem" feel free to read "the wrong assumption by Otis
    how to prevent myopia "

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken,
    Jan, Jun 5, 2007
  7. Ms.Brainy

    p.clarkii Guest

    since you are nearby and watching why not try to address the open
    questions? don't you see that by ignoring them you appear to be an
    idiot and it does your point of view a disservice. it makes you look
    like you don't have a clue what's going on.
    p.clarkii, Jun 5, 2007
  8. Ms.Brainy

    Jan Guest

    Not that old crab again Otis, in earlier days men are walking in front
    of an automobile with a red flag, your lecture is as old.

    Your second opinion crab is only based on your silly idea it should work.
    Not proven scientifically and certainly not based on how myopia is build up.
    Let's face it Otis, you, not having the knowledge and not working or
    prescribing in this beautiful field called eyecare should keep your
    mouth shut until you proof scientifically the majority of real eyecare
    specialist are wrong.

    Till then, oracle of Iblind.

    "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" (Marcus Porcius Cato)

    Instead of "Carthaginem" feel free to read "the wrong assumption by Otis
    how to prevent myopia "

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken,
    Jan, Jun 5, 2007
  9. Ms.Brainy

    otisbrown Guest

    Re: Questions in 10 minutes.

    Dear "Motivated" reader,

    Subject: What I "wondered" about when I was young.

    Re: Brainy's endless "questions".

    I wondered why no OD would even DISCUSS plus prevention,
    or Bates-prevention. Why was that?

    Sorry to say, most people are either "dense", or
    truly have no interest in clearing their vision

    1. Reading their own Snellen.

    2. Having some faith in themselves to try prevention.

    3. Are impressed by Brainy's "arguments".

    I think you should take due caution about your eyes.
    I know I would. I have suggested a "medical" exam
    to look for MEDICAL issues. But if a -1 diopter
    lens will clear your Snellen from 20/70 to 20/20, then
    you do not have a medical problem.

    I never had a "chance". I do not know what
    my father would have done, but this is an
    example of how "public ignorance" shuts down
    "attitude" that prevents prevention.

    This convinced me that NO OD CAN HELP US,
    and my conclusion that if you truly want to
    keep your distant vision clear -- you must
    have the fortitude to do it yourself.

    I do not think it as easy as Dr. Colgate said, but
    I do think it is both wise and possible -- provided
    you wise-up and have the motivation for it.

    How any OD could help anyone (like "Brainy") with plus-prevention
    is beyond me.

    Here is Raphaelson's comment on the public's



    With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you
    would think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or
    ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and effective method of
    solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly that in the following
    example -- with the following result:


    "It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting.
    She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave
    her my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit
    him with a pair of spectacles.

    "She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was
    a printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for
    the next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she
    should bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of
    spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them when her husband
    returned home.

    "She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his
    vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a
    pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her
    husband came back home.

    "In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She
    stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the
    glasses. He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and
    near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes.
    In fact, she said, the boy could see even better without the glasses
    than with them.

    "I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that
    quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to
    bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well
    with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his
    vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good
    eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

    "I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the
    mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor
    vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that
    vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses
    for a few weeks?

    "My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for
    exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on
    children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to
    investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself

    "On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in
    doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly,
    did not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses
    without the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or
    diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be
    under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the
    medical profession.

    "To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the
    following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any
    form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter
    and nothing more. Second, I charged a reasonable price for the
    spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I
    gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I just did it as a
    matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity.

    "Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship
    of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept
    it up, and will continue to do this work as long as I continue to
    have the incentive and capability.

    "Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair
    of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to
    the naked eye could be restored to children whose eyes have a
    negative focal state? This was true in 1904, and it is also true now,
    in this decade of 1950." (It continues to be true in this decade of
    1990 -- Otis Brown)

    It is of course true that most people want to sit on their
    keister and have someone do EVERYTHING for them,
    including their THINKING.

    But, Brainy, since you love the minus lens and the
    impressive sharpness is produces -- then have at it.

    But then never turn back, and never rue the consequences.

    You can never help a person -- until the person first
    wakes up to the need to help himself.

    And that is truly the point of supporting Steve Leung at:

    as the preventive second-opinion.


    otisbrown, Jun 6, 2007
  10. Ms.Brainy

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Brainy,

    Subject: Graphics of Dr. Raphaelson's thesis

    Since you do not understand the "words" describing
    the natural eye's behavior, when you place
    a strong minus lens on it -- perhaps Soon's
    "graphics" of stair-case myopia will improve
    your comprehension of this issue. See:

    But there is no help for your intellectual blindness,
    even with your title of "Brainy".

    Please enjoy this pleasant discussion of science,
    scientific proof, and alternatives (before the minus)
    like Bates, Plus, Raphaelson, and public ignorance.


    otisbrown, Jun 6, 2007
  11. Ms.Brainy

    p.clarkii Guest

    you are really mentally defective aren't you Otis.

    who asked you, or who even cares, what you wondered about when you
    were young. pornography and self-gratification i'm sure!

    and your slow-moving brain believes it was Ms. Brainy who asked you
    the "endless questions." no matter, you are too much of a wus to

    for some reason you instead cut and paste some stupid Raphaelson/
    Printer's Son story that seems to give you wet dreams at night. how
    boring and irrelevant. why not read some currrent research articles
    relating to myopia development instead?

    So once again, I ask you these questions in a more simplified (=easier
    for you to comprehend) form:
    1. what training or experience do you have that allows you to
    recommend treatments to people?
    2. how come uncorrected myopes who never wear the wretched minus stay
    myopic or get more myopic?
    3. how come uncorrected hyperopes, who have to strain as if they are
    wearing strong minus lenses all the time, do not develop myopia (or at
    least lessen their farsightedness) over time?
    4. how come studies where humans (not monkeys or chickens) are
    intentionally overminused prove that their prescriptions do not
    develop accelerated myopia as you claim? why do you come up with a
    concept of staircase myopia when real statistical data in humans shows
    it doesn't happen (as if you care about facts).
    5. how come undercorrecting myopes so that they don't need to
    accommodate as much when they read actually INCREASES their myopia
    6. how come the Hong Kong study group concludes that bifocals do not
    reduce myopia progression?

    Was that shorter version of the questions easier for you to
    comprehend? Why do you avoid direct questions and instead post old
    prose about Raphaelson or Sterling Colgate? Why can't you talk
    directly about a topic?

    The above questions really cut to the core of your theory of myopia
    prevention. If you cannot answer them, or will not answer them, then
    your credibility is reduced (even further). as you know, people are
    watching and can clearly recognize your weakness. See how they laugh
    and make fun of you. Either stand up and address the critical
    foundations of your theory or go away to your little far-flung
    alternative forum where people burn incense and sit in the lotus
    position while trying to relax-away their refractive errors.

    I didn't know this is what engineers did.
    p.clarkii, Jun 6, 2007
  12. Ms.Brainy

    p.clarkii Guest

    how does this prevent myopia? seems more likely that if facilitates
    memorization of the acuity chart and taint objective measurements/
    apparently "faith" is all you can offer them since the data clearly
    demonstrates that prevention doesn't work.
    p.clarkii, Jun 6, 2007
  13. Ms.Brainy

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    Otis My Dear,

    I have never been rude to you like others. I never called you names.
    I was always respectful and sweet like honey, but now you are leaving
    me no choice. I must say it : YOU ARE DENSE, VERY DENSE!

    I did NOT ask you those endless questions -- I ANSWERED them on your
    behalf, because you would not do it yourself!

    Actually I always made sure that my sarcasm remained so subtle that
    despite the fact that everybody else could see it as sarcasm -- you
    wouldn't. This is because I am kind and sweet by nature. Is this how
    you thank me? Is this your second opinion?

    I was thinking of answering for you Neil Brooks' questions as well,
    but now, realizing that you do not appreciate my effort to do the hard
    work that you would not do yourself, I am not so sure you deserve my

    BTW Otis, Do you think that the plus can help my bad eye (currently
    20/400, after a macular hole, retinal detachment and presently very
    thick pre-surgery cataract)? Should I seek a second opinion? Would
    you say that my eye is still a dynamic fundamental eye?


    Ms.Brainy, Jun 6, 2007
  14. Ms.Brainy

    Ms.Brainy Guest

    You know what Otis? I think your brain has a refractive error.
    Ms.Brainy, Jun 6, 2007
  15. More like a fracture error


    2007 Pricelessware CD now available. 600Mb of the best of the best in
    Freeware. E-Mail me for details.

    .... Never trust a computer you can't throw out a window.
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Jun 6, 2007
  16. "can help my bad eye (currently 20/400, after a macular hole, retinal
    detachment and presently very thick pre-surgery cataract)? Should I
    seek a second opinion?"

    I have cured many relatives and friends under such conditions.

    Nature is always willing to forgive the harm you have self inflicted
    on your eyes. The mercy of Allah is without limits.
    William Horatio Bates, Jun 6, 2007
  17. Ms.Brainy

    Itachi Guest

    "can help my bad eye (currently 20/400, after a macular hole, retinal
    detachment and presently very thick pre-surgery cataract)? Should I
    seek a second opinion?"

    Indeed, it is possible to cure a person in your current state.

    Laugh at me, ridicule me, but at the end of the day, who is blind?
    Itachi, Jun 6, 2007
  18. Ms.Brainy

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Brainy,

    Subject: Insulting me -- by "signing" my name to a statement
    that I did not make -- and do not support.

    If you wish to post YOUR hypothetical remarks to P.Clar, then
    sign YOUR NAME! If you had done THAT I would have
    not responded:

    Brainy> P.Clar, I hope you are satisfied and please stop bugging me
    with more
    questions. I have needy patients to take care of and have no time
    you and the rest of your established crowd. Now I must go wash my
    hands because I discovered that germs can cause myopia in monkeys and
    the establishment doesn't believe me, but you'll see that eventually
    shall prevail.

    Brainy> Best,

    Brainy> Otis, Engineer

    Had you signed it this way,

    Brainy (as I THINK Otis would have signed it),

    then that would have been honest.

    But while we are at it -- I think you do not understand
    Raphaelson's remarks about the "Printer's Son".

    The minus lens works like gang-busters. It is effective,
    produces very clear vision in 5 minutes, and perhaps
    you, and everyone else LOVE that minus lens -- and
    would only want to be treated in the superfical way
    that Raphaelson HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO DO.

    I only SUGGEST that a wise parent might want
    something more intelligent.

    But the response so far has indeed been
    of the superfical mind.

    If you wish to shoot your self in the
    foot with an over-prescribed minus
    for your self and your children -- the
    do so. It is no skin off my nose.

    otisbrown, Jun 6, 2007
  19. Ms.Brainy

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Since you seem to be in the responding mood, how about taking a turn
    at these relevant questions:
    What would you know about honesty?? You can't get through a single
    POST without a bald-faced lie.
    Nobody does.
    Neil Brooks, Jun 6, 2007
  20. Ms.Brainy

    Ms.Brainy Guest


    You continue to provide support to the claim of severe refractive
    error in your brain.

    I DID send the message under my name. I made it clear that I was the
    writer, not you. Everybody but you understood it. Everybody knew it
    was a joke, but not you.

    Did I not provide the CORRECT answers (on your behalf) to P.Clar's
    questions? Did you not have the chance to answer his questions, which
    you chose to ignore?

    As Neil said, actions (or non-actions) have consequences. Don't be
    surprised if people ridicule you when you choose to evade any sincere
    inquiry and paste again and again the same old crap that is hardly
    ever a true response to the questions asked.

    I did not invent the answers. I only re-used your own stuff.

    My advice, Otis, is that you apply this plus remedy to your brain
    refractive error. This is my second or third opinion. When you do
    that, perhaps you can also get some sense of humor as a bonus.
    Ms.Brainy, Jun 6, 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.