Vision clearing from -1.5 diopters (20/70)

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Feb 13, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends

    Subject: Correct use of the "second opinion"

    As you know the "traditional method" of the
    minus lens works instantly. Most, perhaps,
    prefer nothing else -- as will become
    "hostile" if offered the "correct use"
    of a plus lens.

    This person contacted me, and stated she
    was -10 diopters, and was deeply concerned
    about her child. The recent OD exam
    showed a refractive state of -1.5 diopters
    and about 20/70 vision.

    I explained that I was an engineer -- but
    I had done extensive research to establish
    that the natural eye was "dynamic" and she
    should understand that a percentage
    of ODs and MDs supported the concept
    of prevention -- at the threshold -- only.

    She decided to proceed, and obtained a
    +3 diopter lens for her daughter about
    3 months ago.

    This is her statement of current progress.


    As always, enjoy our pleasant conversations
    about "alternative methods".

    As always -- I changed the names.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer

    _______________

    Current vision clearing progress:

    Subject: can see a little bit of 20/20

    Date: Thursday, February 10, 2005 4:51 PM

    Dear Otis,

    With the persistent wearing of +3 lenses, my daughter can now
    see a few letters along the 20/20 line (must be with both eyes
    open though). She can read her blackboard with the plus 3 lenses
    on now so she doesn't even take them off for looking at teacher's
    writings.

    It is interesting to see that most of the kids in her class
    (7-8 yr olds) are already in need of glasses. (Some already have
    glasses while others need eye exams). The teacher just moved the
    entire class' seats closer to the front so they can see better.

    Even with this change, some children are still squinting to read
    while sitting in first row.

    I will let you know of my daughter's progress.

    best wishes,

    Y. Wright
     
    otisbrown, Feb 13, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    wrote:

    [usual bulls*it snipped]
    That's pronounced "Yeah, right...."

    BTW: I literally added him to my killfile, but for some reason, he cannot be
    killed. I'll keep working on it.
     
    Neil Brooks, Feb 13, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Neil,
    As usual your "closed mind" wins the day.
    Because OTHER ODs are more "wise" than
    you are -- they SUPPORT this woman's use
    of a plus on her daughter.
    In the final analysis, it will be mother-and-daughter
    (with the support of prevention-minded ODs) who
    finally win this difficult struggle.

    And yes, effective prevention, that will be achieved
    by this woman's child is the "Holy Grail" of
    science (and not optometry).

    Soving problems by accuratly reproting fact as
    they concern the dynamic behavior of the natural
    eye as sophisticated control-system.

    The alternative is to continue the minus-lens method
    put is place 400 years ago because it worked
    instantly if 15 minutes. Superficial, of course,
    but it is impressive. But is it science?

    Think about it.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Feb 13, 2005
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    you are so stupid.
     
    g.gatti, Feb 13, 2005
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    ***** OTIS WARNING *****


    This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
    that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
    "" or "Otis, Engineer".

    Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
    training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is
    unproven.

    Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of
    doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in
    out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his
    behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to
    argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument.

    Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not
    reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that
    should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick
    psychological needs.

    No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is
    only meant to forewarn newcomers who might misconstrue Otis as a trained
    eyecare expert. Those of us who have been here for awhile know Otis oh too
    well!

    For anyone who is interested in understanding the true state of
    scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following
    link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf. If you are truly
    interested in Otis' theories of myopia prevention then visit his favorite
    websites www.i-see.org and www.chinamyopia.com. If you have other topics you
    wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you. Don't
    waste your time with Otis.

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision", which usually
    appears on Mondays, for a guide regarding this newsgroup and for information
    on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in
    worthwhile discussions in this forum.
     
    RM, Feb 13, 2005
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    The work is published in various forums, and is available
    to an educated person who wishes to make a
    choice ON HER JUDGEMENT -- NOT YOURS.

    She KNOWs what your opinion is -- that perevention
    with the plus -- must be destoryed.

    She read the scientific reports by Dr. Francis Young
    that demonstrated that a properly fitted plus lens
    will STOP the eye's movement into nearsighedness.

    She is also aware that other ODs, specifically

    www.chinamyopia.org

    express the second-opinion, and that
    none of these issues are resolved.

    In the face of advice by experts that is profoundly
    contradictory -- you might well decide that
    there are no real "experts".

    She has a right to judge YOUR opinion, that
    the eye is "frozen", and can not change at all,
    versus the second-opinion that the natural eye
    controls its refractive status to its average
    visual enviroment.

    Clearly HER CHOICE will have life-time
    consequences for her child. She
    was not willing to let your opinion dictate
    HER course of action.

    Indeed, I SUPPORT ODs, who support this
    second opinion -- with the person involved making
    the final choise. That is both right and ethical.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Feb 14, 2005
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    RM is "full of himself".

    I would look for ODs and MDs who are more open minded -- and
    will offer you and honest choice for prevention.

    They do exist -- and they will support you if you ask.

    Be careful -- and be wise.

    The mother cited above read RM's crap and relized what
    the long-term effect of that minus lens would be
    on he daughter's eyes.

    She chose to become part of the solution -- rather
    than part of the problem.

    But YOU decide -- and enjoy!

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Feb 14, 2005
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    retinula Guest

    SNIP more Otis lies and misrepresentation
    Sir-- There is no evidence for an effective prevention method for
    myopia. Please show us the reference for human studies which
    demonstrate it.

    You, sir, are a smooth talking bullshitter with some kind of axe to
    grind. You can't prove anything you say.

    Attention prevention-minded friends. Do a newgroup search on all
    threads Otis has participated in. He cannot prove anything he says.
    He avoids questions that eye doctors ask him because he knows they
    prove his claims are invalid. He gives incorrect medical advise. He
    is probably in violation of laws regarding the practice of medicine
    without a license. Avoid Otis Engineer like the plaque!
     
    retinula, Feb 18, 2005
    #8
    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.