Vision clearing to 20/40 (DMV standard) from -2.75 diopters

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Dec 8, 2004.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends.

    Subject: The struggle for scientific ascendancy concerning the
    dynamic behavior of the natural eye continues.

    Re: I declare that Otis' idea about preventing myopia in humans
    must be destroyed. Jan OD (normally Dutch spoken)

    Re: The concept that the natural eye is dynamic -- controls its
    refractive status to its average visual environment -- is
    logical. The "dynamic eye" concept and
    prevention go together -- naturally!
    To suggest that the concept of prevention must be "destroyed"
    is to insist that the natural eye is not dynamic. OSB


    A person has the right to understand the second-opinion and
    work on vision clearing.

    Dr. Stirling Colgate did this work successfully when he was
    14 years old. There is no reason to stop of attempt to prevent
    other young men from following his scientific lead. (See for Dr. Colgate's scientific report.)

    There is a tendency to "over-prescribe" a minus lens.

    Here is a statement of a young man (15 years old) who is very
    interested in clearing his distant vision to normal.

    At this point he his reading 1.8 cm letters at 6 meters.
    This is the required standard requirement to pass the DMV test.

    Getting the eye to "clear" from 20/40 to 20/20 is a matter of
    very hard work. (He retina has this capability as tested by an
    optometrist.) It is "Mike's" decision and choice to continue his
    work on this project.

    I have changed Mike's name to protect his privacy.

    I am certain we all wish him great success with his effort.




    Dear Mike,

    Subject: The eye "plateaus" at 20/40 from previous -2.75 diopters
    (approximately 20/200)

    Re: Vision clearing is very frustrating.

    Anyone who works on vision-clearing expects reasonable and
    rapid results.

    The sad truth is that it is a very slow process.

    It takes two or three years to get into the level of
    nearsightedness that you report. You can figure that it will take
    a considerable amount of time to "undo" the effect of both the
    confined environment AND that minus lens.
    clear that the eye "plateaus" at a certain level -- and just stays
    there for weeks, and perhaps a month or two. I can not "explain"
    this truth -- only report it so you understand that you are not
    alone in this frustration.

    It is of value to review the success you have achieved to

    1. Your original prescription was for a -2.75 diopter lens.
    Multiply the diopters by 70 to get the eye-chart
    (approximate) reading. That comes to 20/200. In many
    states, 20/200 naked eye vision is considered LEGAL

    2. You said that you had a -2.75 diopter contact, and wore it.


    You read the 20/40 line on the eye chart. I believe that you
    would pass the legal requirement for driving a car -- with no
    requirement for glasses. Thus you recovered from
    legal-blindness to normal vision!

    With 20/40 your vision is good enough for school and almost
    all other requirements.

    That is a major success!


    Jon began "working" on vision-clearing from -1.5
    diopters and 20/60. He was in much better shape than you were

    His vision "cleared" to 20/30, 20/25. Then it "hung" there
    for a number of months. He was VERY frustrated with this
    situation. But he also was passing all legal requirements for

    Since you started from a much "deeper" level, you can expect
    that it will take a longer time. Jon took nine months to
    finally get to 20/20.

    Now to respond to your questions:


    To: "Otis Brown" <>

    Date: Sunday, December 05, 2004

    Dear Mike,

    Mike> I am still at 20/40 and wearing a +2.75 all day

    Otis> That is a very strong approach. I appreciate the dedication
    it takes to do this work.

    Mike> I have noticed some depth perception changes.

    Mike> I can read for a while and I do not have the muscle spasm
    which leads to myopia.

    Otis> Your accommodation system should be at "infinity" or set for
    maximum distance. The +2.75 diopter lens will make certain
    of that.

    Mike> You mentioned that it can give you a head-ache when you
    first start the plus because you depth perception tells the
    eye one thing and light rays tell another thing.

    Otis> The accommodation and "convergence" are linked, i.e., when
    you look from infinity to 20 inches (-2 diopters) the
    "convergence" system (eye rotation) and accommodation system
    "agree". ANY lens will change that relationship. When you
    use a +2 diopter lens to read at 20 inches, your
    accommodation system is set at "infinity" where "eye
    rotation" tell you that the object is at 20 inches. In some
    people this causes a "headache". In others, it does not.

    Mike> This is what happened to me except opposite. Let me explain

    Mike> My lens looks at infinity when looking at near object. My
    lens wants to look at infinity even when light rays tell it

    Mike> I have read that +1.5 diopter is considered normal. That is
    my long long long term goal.

    Otis> When a person reads 20/20 his refractive status is defined
    as zero to some positive value. People who live "outdoors"
    typically have 20/20, and a refractive status of values
    between zero to +2.0 diopters.

    Otis> To determine the value, a plus lens is used to "just blur"
    the 20/20 line. Thus if you read 20/20, and find that a
    +1/2 diopter lens "just blurs" the 20/20 line, then your
    refractive status is +1/2 diopters. (Typically an eye with
    this "buffer" will read the chart at slightly better than

    Mike> I am starting to wonder why I am hanging around at 20/40. I
    think I should have changed to at least some 20/30 by now.

    Otis> I certainly agree that this is frustrating. But this has
    been the experience of Jon and other people who have
    SLOWLY cleared their distant vision.

    Otis> Since you "cleared" from legal blindness, I would be patient
    with this slow process.

    Otis> The positive part of this is that you know EXACTLY where you
    stand -- therefore you are in control. Very few people gain
    that type of "control".

    Otis> It is easy for me to type this up, and make the
    recommendation. But you are the man doing the work -- and

    Otis> I can support you and encourage you -- but the control
    and the work is in you! You have come a long way -- count
    your "blessings".
    Otis> Keep up the excellent work!


    otisbrown, Dec 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,
    I am glad you agree that anyone who "wakes up" to the need to wear a
    plus lens, and clears their distant vision has eyes that "adjust" to
    the "delta" in the visual environment produced by the positive lens.
    The work (for this man) is indeed difficult and requires intense
    motivation. The only way a person determines if he has "preventable"
    nearisghtedness -- is when he does this work himself, under his own
    control. But thanks for your acknowledgement that nearsighedness -- in
    its early stage -- can be prevented. I think each individual should be
    given this opportunity, since I doubt that any measurement made can
    sort out whether any individual has "preventable myopia" versus
    "non-preventable myopia". You keep on making this judgment
    after-the-fact. So the individual has to do the work of using the plus
    himself to make that determination. And as RM said, that is HIS
    PROBLEM. Equally, for Mike, I know that he is not yet "out of the
    woods", and the true-clearing rate is about +3/4 diopter per year. It
    all depend now on whether Mike wants to "stick" with his prevetive
    work. Best, Otis
    otisbrown, Dec 8, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    This posting is an automatic reply to any 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 (i.e. nearsightedness)
    prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects even
    been disproven by controlled scientific studies. He has posted and reposted
    his ideas approximately 1000 times over the last two years despite being
    repeatedly debunked by numerous doctor practitioners and vision scientists.

    No one means to suppress the opinions of others. This message is only meant
    to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert.

    DO NOT REPLY TO HIS POSTINGS. Do not feed the troll!

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to" which usually
    appears on Mondays for information on how to filter out his posts so that
    you may be able to participate in
    worthwhile discussions in this forum. Thank you for your cooperation and

    RM, Dec 9, 2004
  4. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    No one agreed to this. You keep trying to state that plus lenses work for
    "anyone". They can work for accommodative myopes who tend to be young.
    RM, Dec 9, 2004
  5. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends.

    Ignore Otis. He makes up stories, and won't have his subjects come to the
    newsgroups and share their experiences.

    A Lieberman, Dec 9, 2004
  6. otisbrown

    LarryDoc Guest

    You forget that Otis's "subjects" don't really exist. They are only
    present is his imagination.

    As will all things Otis, there's no proof there, either. Smoke and
    mirrors. And

    Blah, blah, blah.

    LarryDoc, Dec 9, 2004
  7. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friend,
    First, I stated that a decision MUST be made about using the plus --
    BEFORE a minus lens is used. In that sense, the person must be
    informed of this alternative in clear simple language. It is an
    "either-or" decision. The person should be informed by reading the
    various "sites" that advocate prevention with a plus. Now, assuming a
    pilot, entering a four year college, is "correctly" informed when his
    refractive status is -3/4 diopters (va 20/50), then I think THAT type
    of educated person could make an intelligent choice, given that the eye
    (in that environment) goes "down" by 1.3 diopters in four years. I
    believe that a high percentage of pilots could clear their vision back
    to standard if they would "work" very hard with the plus. That is the
    issue. Best,
    otisbrown, Dec 9, 2004
  8. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Larry,
    When the person is younger that 17, I will not post his name.
    Where the person is older, and working to clear from say
    -1.25 diopters to normal -- I will post his name, with his
    I have already posted Fred Deakins name (USAF) who cleared
    his vision in college -- by use of the plus.
    The issue is "control". If the person himself has the resolve to
    do it -- and starts at 20/50 to 20/60, then I believe he can clear
    to pass the legal requirements for vision that apply to him.
    otisbrown, Dec 9, 2004
  9. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends.

    Ignore Otis. He makes up stories, and won't have his subjects come to the
    newsgroups and share their experiences.

    A Lieberman, Dec 10, 2004
  10. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    So the segment of people that your plus lens therapy works on is pilots
    entering a four-year college, right? Intelligence is important also, right?

    What if they enter a four year college and they are 50 years old (and
    intelligent)? What if they are 20 years old and they aren't pilots, will it
    work on them? What does being a pilot, and being in a four year college,
    and being "intelligent", have to do with the dynamic nature of the eye

    Keep digging Otis!
    RM, Dec 10, 2004
  11. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends.

    Ignore Otis. He makes up stories, and won't have his subjects come to the
    newsgroups and share their experiences. The above name does not show any
    pilot certificates maintained by the FAA.

    A Lieberman, Dec 10, 2004
  12. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Allen,
    He is a military pilot flying for the USAF.
    He may not be listed with the FAA.
    Could you check that also.
    otisbrown, Dec 10, 2004
  13. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends.

    Ignore Otis. He makes up stories, and won't have his subjects come to the
    newsgroups and share their experiences.

    You changed names to protect the innocent. THESE ARE YOUR WORDS.

    Go to if you don't
    believe me.

    A Lieberman, Dec 10, 2004
    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.