Dear Friends,

As you know, a poster with the initials RM does not
give use his name, but claims certain qualifications
which we can not check.

Equally, I have not identified my 14 year-old friends
Shawn-Jon for exactly the same reson.  You can believe
RM, or Shawn as you chooes.

It is true that the plus-for-prevention is difficult
to use, and depends more on the person's fortitude,
than anything that can be "prescribed".  In that
sense the issue truly is the motivation concerned
with protecting his distant vision by use of the plus.

Subject:  Commentary by Jon on Mike's theory of nearsightedness.

Jon > Please forward this to Mike Tyner as well.

Otis> I will -- but he might choke.

    _______________

    Dear Jon,

    Mike Tyner is "making up" statements to avert the fact that
nearsighedness (in the first stage) is preventable -- and you have
done it with outstanding success.

    He must do this (for sci.med.vision consumption) so that
others -- less gifted -- will avoid the idea that nearsighedness
(on the threshold) can be defeated the way that Stirling did it.

    No optometrist I know of EVER does ANY identification of that
nature.  All they do is put a minus lens on you to a strength that
just-clears the 20/20 line.  They then "pat you on the head" and
send you on your way.

    Equally, a percentage of optometrists have advocated
prevention over the last 100 years, by "correct use" of a plus
lens.  But correct implementation has eluded them -- because
the "patient" involved has not understood the need to use
the plus "correctly".  Only when you actually used the plus with
great force and persistance -- could you be successful, and
obviously under your full control

    I am willing to discuss some of these details with you -- of
course.

    But the basic concept of prevention (from direct-experimental
data) is correct.

    As I stated when we began this -- everything depended on the
fact that you would gain "measurement control".  Once you do this
-- you become the "responsible engineer".  You are still young for
this analysis -- but I am certain you have that capability also.
It just takes analytic skills.

    You might read the book by Thomas Kuhn, called "The Structure
of Scientific Revolutions" for background -- and a book report.

    Mike Tyner is using the method put in place 400 years ago.
Whatever "science" it was based on -- was available then.
It is very easy to "quick-fix" the public that walks in off the
street.  For "optometry" it is probably impossible to get beyond
that point in "their" science.

    If he argued that the "public" was ignorant, and
non-motivated, I would agree with him completely.  But you are not
"the public", and you have the right to use your own judgment
about science, facts, and protect your own visual future under
your own control.

    To further respond:

    ______________________

Jon > Dear Otis

Jon > I read where Mike Tyner states that it is only possible for
     accomodation myopes to improve their vision with the plus.

Otis> Mike has no clue about who can work their way out of
     nearsighedness.  I would suspect a large number of pilots
     could do so -- if they had the motivation for it -- and
     engineering support.  This is a conveient ploy -- just
     describe everyone who works himself clear -- as having
     "preventable myopia".  Always easy to do -- after the fact!

Jon > He says it isnt possible for other types of myopia to be
     reversed with the plus.

Otis> I would agree that once YOU BEGIN WEARING THE MINUS you will
     develop NOT-PREVENABLE myopia -- caused by that minus lens.

Otis> You were both lucky and smart not to be caught in that trap!

Jon > I think he may be wrong,

Otis> You are correct.    Remember what I said about money, power
     and position.  He must twist everything to maitain all of
     these things for himself.  Truth, accurate scientific fact,
     and your long-term visual is not important to him -- they
     are only to you, and other scientists like Stirling Colgate,
     Francis Young and Howard Howland.

Jon > ...Because when I went to my OD in april he told my my
     problem was that my cornea was too steep.

Otis> This is an extrapolation from a bad theory.  There is no way
     anyone could make that determination from an eye were only
     the reafractive status is measured.

Jon > He never mentioned psuedo-myopia as being my problem.

Otis> There is a profound misconception at work here.  It is the
     "bad theory" belief that the eye is a "frozen" box camera,
     and that you can analyize the eye that way.  This is called
     a "paradigm".  The scientific concept is that the eye is
     "dynamic".  This is a much more accurate concept -- and in
     the event you have proven this fact to youself by getting
     your refractive status to change by +1.5 dipoters and
     clearing to 20/20.  For you that is the real proof -- that
     you can do this work successfully under your own control.

Otis> Don't let these closed-minded ODs get you down.  Remember
     the "quality" of Dr.  Stirling Colgate and Dr.  Steve Leung.
     Successful prevention is indeed the "medical"
     second-opinion, even though very difficult.

Otis> Steve Leung OD is working FOR YOU, and using the plus on his
     own young children.  This is the true nature of an honest
     "second opinion"

Best,

Otis