Once again, you are conveniently misrepresenting what you were told!  You do
indeed have trouble with objective thinking now don't you!

MT told you that he would not object to someone who was already using plus
as a prevention method continuing to do so.  After all, it hasn't proven to
do anyone any harm.  However, it has not been proven to help anyone either.
If they choose of their own accord to do it, then so be it.  It might in
fact prevent them from becoming an accommodative myope (whom in fact is the
ONLY type of myope your method can help).  Too bad most myopes aren't
accommodative myopes.

Since you have trouble keeping the facts straight, as well as the actual
statements that people make to you, let me spell out to you why I don't
recommend plus as a treatment.

1.    It has not been proven to work.
2.    It adds financial burden to patients to buy plus lenses.
3.    It visually disrupts that patient's vision, and/or is impractical to
the patients lifestyle.  By this I mean that looking through plus lenses in
the distance blurs their vision.  And wearing them only at near necessitates
that they carry them with them all the time and constantly take them on and
off.  I would not hesitate to suggest that the patient endure these
annoyances IF IT WAS PROVEN TO ACTUALLY HELP ANYONE.  However, since it
hasn't been, it would be wrong for me to suggest it.
4.    Patient's who are already slightly myopic are seeing an eye doctor
because they are having problems with distance blur.  Why would anyone
accept a prescription that makes their vision worse instead of better?
People who drive or perform critical distance tasks are seeing an eye doctor
for help, not to make their symptoms worse.  As I said above, I would not
hesitate to suggest that the patient endure even more distance blur, or deal
with the annoyance of using a reading-only prescription, IF IT WAS PROVEN TO
ACTUALLY HELP ANYONE, BUT IT HASN'T BEEN!
5.    And finally, since there is no proven medical/scientific merit to
using plus lenses to prevent or reduce myopia, suggesting that patients
actually use it does in fact constitute a potential legal/licensing issue
for an eye doctor (as it should).

If you want to change the way eye doctors prescribe lenses for myopia, GO
PROVE YOUR POINT IN SCIENTIFIC STUDIES.    Quit misquoting people, and quit
practicing medicine without a license.   It is clear to everyone here what a
fool you are-- you aren't convincing anyone.

Perhaps, as others have suggested, your continued posts and newgroup ranting
is simply fulfilling some sick psychological need that you have.  Perhaps
you don't care if you are right or wrong, you just like to read your own
prose and see how others react to your incredible statements.  If so, then I
pity you.  You need professional help.  Get a real life and get off this
myopia-prevention crusade.

snip

Don't forget to remind us that Steve Leung is currently facing legal action
from his licensing body regarding the claims he makes on his site.

Dr Judy

Your a liar Otis. I've never said that and would never say that.
Clearly, you are a very sick man who has been boxed into a corner with
your lies. Saying your lies over and over again, daily for two years
does not make then true. Except, perhaps, in your own mind.

It really is time for you to go away. No one here gives a damn about
what you have to say. We post this thread only to warn off others. There
is no need for you to reply.

Dear Friend,

The let please let Jan post,

Otis Browns concept that the eye is dynamic
"...must be destroyed".

Perhaps you would like to separate pure-scientific
issues -- from "medical" issues.  I would
like to do that.

I believe that -- in the bottom of your heart -- you
also believe that the fundamental and natural
eye is dynamic -- in the sense that I stated it.

Tell me you do not believe that the natural
eye is a sophisticated system -- and
we can "move forward" from that point.

But if you insist that natural eye DOES NOT
CHANGE its REFRACTIVE STATE
on and "input" versus "output" type of
SCIENTIFIC test -- the we can
do pure scientifc experiments
to determing the true behavior of
the exclusively natural eye.

But you will figure out some
way to state that the concept
of the natural eye being dynamic -- must
be destroyed.

Best,

Otis