Dear Allen L.
"To many people attempt to jump into a solution -- without
first understanding the problem".
1960's slogan
Since you doubt the existance of Fred Deakins, I
will post his statement about the amount of
intense effort it took for HIM to clear
his distant vision to pass the military
requirement for flight. The military
requirement is in fact more difficult than
the FAA requirement.
You keep on insisting these people are
"myths". Maybe you should wake up
and understand the reality of
true prevention.
No, it is not easy, and no, it is not
for eveyone -- but for the person who
does not wish to become a slave to
that minus lens -- the prevention
is possible.
Rejoyce in Fred's success!
It may be a better "world" for
all of us if we could follow
his lead.
Best,
Otis
Engineer
__________________
Note: This is a personal message -- not endorsed by the United
States Air Force. Captain Deakins understood the explicit
requirements -- and met and exceeded them.
AIR FORCE PILOT USES THE PLUS LENS TO CLEAR
HIS DISTANT VISION FROM 20/50 TO 20/20
From: Captain Fred Deakins
To: You who must achieve 20/20.
Hello everyone, I'm a new member of this group of pilots and
have found your conversations quite interesting. Like most of
you, I am a believer in alternatives to the western philosophy of
handing out visual crutches to everyone with eyesight / vision
problems. Graduating from college, I found that my vision had
regressed to a myopic 20/50 due to near-point stress. At the
time, I was in the running for a coveted air force pilot slot, but
absolutely had to pass the ophthalmology exam with 20/20
uncorrected (this was back in 1996).
Through good fortune, I found the concept of plus lens vision
restoration and began working feverishly to improve my eyesight.
I worked about 1 hour every day, 5 days a week and gave my eyes a
rest on Saturday and Sunday. I found that by Friday, my vision
was terrible, but come Sunday morning, I had eagle vision without
any squinting or straining. I kept to my schedule leading up to
my initial military flight physical (4 months later) and read the
20/15 over and over again without even knowing it. Needless to
say, my life dream was obtained and I now live in New Jersey
flying jets out of McGuire AFB.
It worked for me, and I know that it's worked for countless
others. Having reset my life goals, I now want to help others who
are striving for better vision. I have started a company called
America 20/20, and our purpose is to provide first rate
instruction and support to those willing to invest time, effort
and commitment with the goal of achieving sharp vision without
glasses or surgery. [Note: Fred Deakins subsequently disbanded
America 20/20 for reasons I am not allowed to talk about. Use your
imagination.]
I'll warn you, though...it definitely takes work and
persistence on your part. Think about it, our vision deteriorates
from prolonged stress and strain in the eye...for most of us
taking years to develop. Why should we expect to be able to
correct our vision naturally literally over night? Believe me, 4
months is a blink of the eye compared to the 6 or 7 years it took
me to ruin my vision (no pun intended). I stopped doing these
exercises after my flight physical (3 years ago) and still see
20/20 with very little effort (this was impossible for me before
doing this).
It's true that this method (and others) have failed some
people. Those with eye disease excluded, I would be willing to
bet that this is because it took too much effort on their part and
therefore they decided to give up -- and go with the easy
solution...corrective minus lenses or some form of eye surgery.
Anyway, I don't usually write long messages, but this is
important. I care about each and every one of you who are
suffering from any form of disease or accommodative errors of the
eye.
Best Regards,
Captain Fred Deakins, USAF
A Lieberman - 10 Dec 2004 03:55 GMT
> You keep on insisting these people are
> "myths".
Dear Prevention minded friends.
Ignore Otis. He makes up stories, and won't have his subjects come to the
newsgroups and share their experiences.
Prove your subjects existence and I will stop posting. I have already
proved you change names to protect the innocent. YOUR WORDS! See
http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/pt2020.txt
Allen
RM - 10 Dec 2004 07:59 GMT
<snip - supposed quote of message from Fred Deakins>
">I care about each and every one of you who are
> suffering from any form of disease or accommodative errors of the
> eye."
Well, If Fred Deakins does exist, then at least he understands the true
nature of his problem better than Otis.
His problem was an ACCOMMODATIVE problem, not true anatomical myopia. Such
people CAN actually be helped with a plus lens. Unfortunately, they are in
the minority. Most myopes are not accommodative myopes and have no chance
of being helped with plus lenses.
Don't you get it Otis? If we explain it to you five thousand times will you
ever get it? Will you ever admit it even if you do start to understand?
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Dec 2004 14:56 GMT
Dear "RM",
You keep on insisting that is a person wishes to clear their vision
from 20/50 to 20/20 then that is THEIR PROBLEM.
Oh, I understand YOU PERFECTLY.
I pay attention to direct, objective factual, repeatable scientific
experiments -- as a lead-in to having the person learn to use he plus
correctly. Since you state that true-prevention IS HIS PROBLEM, I
don't think you are qualified to make statements about the true nature
of the natural eye's behavior, or to correctly apply the concept to
achieve effective prevention as Captain Fred Deakins did.
Incidentally, Fred has two small chileren, and as a result he has them
wearing a plus lens WHEN THEY DO ANY READING. He has learned a lot
more about this issue than you ever will my friend.
Best,
Otis
RM - 11 Dec 2004 00:48 GMT
> You keep on insisting that is a person wishes to clear their vision
> from 20/50 to 20/20 then that is THEIR PROBLEM.
I do not keep on insisting anything is THEIR PROBLEM. That phrase is YOUR
phrase. I simply restated it ONCE to you in a sarcastic reply so that you
would perhaps see how foolish and narrow minded you were acting. Apparently
that went over your head like many of the medical/scientific/logical points
that others make to you in this newsgroup. Do a newgroup search on the
phrase "THEIR PROBLEM" and see who is the one who keeps stating it.
> I don't think you are qualified to make statements about the true nature
> of the natural eye's behavior,
What training or clinical experience do you have, Otis the Engineer, that
qualifies you to give anyone advise about vision problems? You have never
responded. Just like you never respond to any pointed questions that
illustrate your ideas are without merit (except for a few accommodative
myopes like Capt. Deakins).
Go design a better vacuum cleaner and leave the vision problems to people
who know better.
retinula@hotmail.com - 11 Dec 2004 01:51 GMT
He obviously does not get it. Accommodative dysfunction is not the
same as myopia.
This Otis person is amazing.
A Lieberman - 11 Dec 2004 02:47 GMT
> don't think you are qualified to make statements about the true nature
> of the natural eye's behavior, or to correctly apply the concept to
> achieve effective prevention as Captain Fred Deakins did.
> Incidentally, Fred has two small chileren, and as a result he has them
> wearing a plus lens WHEN THEY DO ANY READING. He has learned a lot
> more about this issue than you ever will my friend.
Dear Prevention minded friends.
Ignore Otis. He makes up stories, and won't have his subjects come to the
newsgroups and share their experiences.
Prove your subjects existence and I will stop posting. I have already
proved you change names to protect the innocent. YOUR WORDS! See
http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/pt2020.txt
Allen
> Dear Allen L.
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Otis
> Engineer
The pilot does not exist Otis, admit it or proof it by letting the man speak
for himself here.

Signature
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
destroyed.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Dan Abel - 10 Dec 2004 23:57 GMT
> > Dear Allen L.
> >
> > "To many people attempt to jump into a solution -- without
> > first understanding the problem".
> >
> > 1960's slogan
> The pilot does not exist Otis, admit it or proof it by letting the man speak
> for himself here.
I don't think that would prove a thing. Anybody can open up a hotmail
account under the name "Fred Deakins" and then post here using Google (at
least I think so).
I think that you would be better off analyzing the quote above. Isn't
that exactly what is happening here? We have a problem, namely myopia,
and a solution, plus lenses, but there is no understanding of how they
could possibly be related, and a proof which consists of situations that
Mike Tyner claims are not similar.

Signature
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
dabel@sonic.net
>> > Dear Allen L.
>> >
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> account under the name "Fred Deakins" and then post here using Google (at
> least I think so).
If he showed up in person at least we could asked him some specific
questions.
Those questions and the answers on these shall clearify the vision or the
mind of Otis.
> I think that you would be better off analyzing the quote above. Isn't
> that exactly what is happening here?
If you exhange "To many people" for "Only Otis", I fully agree...

Signature
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
destroyed.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
> Dan Abel
> Sonoma State University
> AIS
> dabel@sonic.net
Dr Judy - 11 Dec 2004 19:07 GMT
> Dear Allen L.
>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> requirement is in fact more difficult than
> the FAA requirement.
We don't need his statement. All we need to believe is documentation of his
cycloplegic refraction before and after treatment. You could get it easily
published as a case study if you had documentation and after publishing
several studies, you would have researchers and funding agencies interested
in funding larger controlled studies. Five years or so and voila, your
ideas about plus therapy would be proven.
Please consider redirecting the time and effort you spend on this newsgroup
to getting one or two case studies published.
Dr Judy
otisbrown@pa.net - 11 Dec 2004 19:27 GMT
Dear Judy,
I am well aware of the "review boards"
who will not publish ANYTHING
they do not like.
They are staffed by black-ball
experts like RM, and you
who declared that nothing
can or should be learned
from animal experiments.
In engineering we pay
attention to objective
scientific facts to devise
a method to successfully
PREVENT a negative
refractive state of the eye.
You figure out endless reasons
to pervert this quality information
so you can go back in your
office and prescribe another
batch of minus lenses.
It is no surprise why
Wilber and Orvile invented
the airplane. All the
"experts" had their
heads stuffed with nonsense
about wings, and the
details of building
and flying an airplane.
Best,
Otis
Mike Tyner - 11 Dec 2004 19:56 GMT
> I am well aware of the "review boards"
> who will not publish ANYTHING
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> can or should be learned
> from animal experiments.
When all else fails, fall back to the conspiracy theory. That always
improves your credibility.
> In engineering we pay
> attention to objective
> scientific facts to devise
> a method to successfully
> PREVENT a negative
> refractive state of the eye.
So go ahead and do it. But don't expect to be believed if you fail to
control for accommodation.
> You figure out endless reasons
> to pervert this quality information
> so you can go back in your
> office and prescribe another
> batch of minus lenses.
Ah.. the conspiracy again.
> It is no surprise why
> Wilber and Orvile invented
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> details of building
> and flying an airplane.
First I've heard of that particular conspiracy. Thanks for filling us in..
-MT
Dr Judy - 11 Dec 2004 20:18 GMT
> Dear Judy,
> I am well aware of the "review boards"
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> can or should be learned
> from animal experiments.
I never said nothing could be learned from animal experiments. I said that
when the results of animal experiments contradict the results from human
experiments, then one should believe the human experiments. And I said that
animal experiments about emmetropization of congenital refractive error in
neonatal animals are not relevant to correction of acquired refractive error
in non neo nates. But you don't understand the difference and don't believe
in emmetropization.
Case reports are simple to publish, can even be done as letters to the
editor. Stop with the excuses.
I believe Scott, who is in a position to review and approve funding for
studies has repeatedly told you that your study, if well designed, would
qualify for funding.
So quit yapping on about what MIGHT happen if a study was done and find out
what DOES happen.
Dr Judy
RM - 12 Dec 2004 00:08 GMT
> I am well aware of the "review boards"
> who will not publish ANYTHING
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> can or should be learned
> from animal experiments.
I never said anything like that Otis.
> In engineering we pay
> attention to objective
> scientific facts to devise
> a method to successfully
> PREVENT a negative
> refractive state of the eye.
I guess in engineering you must not rely on proof or data, because you have
never shown us any.
I do not want to denigrate the engineering profession-- I know quite a few
engineers and everyone of them is quite logical and rational except for
Otis.
> You figure out endless reasons
> to pervert this quality information
> so you can go back in your
> office and prescribe another
> batch of minus lenses.
And you keep ducking all the questions that we ask you that would explain
your theory. You have no explanations. Only that is seems to work for
young pilot-engineers who are in a 4 year college and who are intelligent.
> It is no surprise why
> Wilber and Orvile invented
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> details of building
> and flying an airplane.
Dramatic Otis sees himself as some kind of romantic figure who is going to
shift the paradigms of today and prove some new theories. Well get on with
it and prove it. Do the experiments. Publish the results. Prove it and
quit pontificating about it!