Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Applyiing scientific facts from Young's Pullman Study

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
otisbrown@pa.net - 28 Jul 2005 17:51 GMT
Dear Prevention Minded Friends,

Subject:  Vision clearing from -1.5 diopters (20/60) to 20/20 --
     by applying the "Pullman" scientific concept correctly.

RM-OD> Anyway, who cares if Francis Young believed plus lenses
      would work anyway.  A lot of people believed that back in
      the 60's and 70's.  Francis Young was an important figure
      in his time but lots of research has occurred in the
      meantime and the results clearly show plus has no
      beneficial influence in humans.

_________________________________________________

    "I know that most men ...  can seldom accept even the
simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them
to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in
explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the very
fabric of their lives."

    Leo Tolstoy

__________________________________________________

Re:  The person concerned with protecting his distant vision for
    life cares greatly about prevention-with-plus even as you
    (majority opinion) choose to deny it.  This suggests that
    the person has little choice but to "do it himself" under
    the guidance of a prevention-minded OD like Steve Leung,
    as the accepted "second opinion".

Re:  Applying the principles of the scientist Francis Young for
    the PRENTION of a negative refractive state for the
    natural eye.  (Pseudo-myopia.)
    Here is the commentary for your interest.

    Obvously some scientists take objective facts concerning the
natural eye's proven behavior seriously.  It is equally clear that
RM chooses to ignore these critical scientific facts.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

Subject:  Remarks by Jon on keeping 20/20 -- now, and into the
       future.

    Prevention with the plus means that a person starts using a
plus before he begins wearing the minus.  The natural eye "adapts"
very rapidly to the minus and makes "vision clearing" almost
impossible as stated by some.

    The "easy" way is indeed the minus.  It take a great deal of
fortitude to use the plus aggressively and clear vision to pass:

1.  The 20/40 line (to drive a car) and then with more work

2.  Clear the 20/20 line.

    Here are some remarks by "Jon" who has gone through this
successful process for your interest.

    Some people ask for "proof".  Perhaps their is no proof,
other than your own experience and what you see when your are
obviously successful.

    Best,

    Otis

    ++++++++++++++++++++

    From:  Jon

    Subject:  My eyes reaction to no plus

Dear otis

Jon > I have stooped wearing the plus lens for about a week.  My
    vision hasn't gotten worse, or gotten better.  I can't
    give you my snellen measurement because I am away at my
    uncle's house, and his computer is in a room that is only
    12 feet long.

Jon > My eyes have gotten used to focusing automatically.  And I
    don't have pre-presbyopia from using the plus, like my OD
    said I would.

Jon > I am happy at 20/20.  When I get my license in a year,
    nobody will be putting a minus lens on my face.

> Jon

    _________________________________

Dear Jon,

Subject:  Successful Clearing through accurate understanding of
     the implication of the Oakley-Young "Pullman Study".

    You have done what most people consider is impossible --
i.e., clearing your vision from -1.5 diopters (or 20/60, I
believe).

    It takes great personal fortitude and good judgment to do
this -- and I am pleased you have succeeded.

    Strange as it sounds, our eyes simply go "down" when you
place them in a more-confined environment.  This is proven by the
"primate" studies.  The "conventional" ODs totally ignore this
data -- and insist that we ignore it also.  Wrong!

    Once you have achieved 20/20 (refractive status approximately
zero) you can "relax" -- and quit the use of the plus.

    The 20/20 will "hold" as long a summer lasts and into the
fall.  In fact you need do nothing at all now -- but engage in
out-door sports (best for the eyes.)

    Once you start school, you only need to monitor your eye
chart and restart the "plus" when you vision starts "down" again
-- as all normal eyes do.

    It has been a real pleasure for me to listen to you as you
worked your way out of nearsightedness.

    In your college years you can continue to analyze this
advocacy (and Francis Young's Pullman Study) and make more sense
of it.    before you I know of few have mastered the scientific art
of clearing their vision with their own intelligence and great
motivation.

    Keep me posted at to your thoughts.

    Best,

    Otis
Neil Brooks - 28 Jul 2005 20:49 GMT
>Dear Prevention Minded Friends,
>
[quoted text clipped - 132 lines]
>
>     Otis

I don't understand.  I'm a high hyperope.  I was about a +5.50 OU for
years, but . . . after extensive reading, through college and two
decades of working, I now seem to be roughly +8.00 OU.

If your theory about a confined environment causing the eyes to "go
down" 1/3 of a diopter per year was valid, wouldn't I be emmetropic by
now?  Even myopic??

I don't understand.  Help me, Otis . . . oh, won't you please??
otisbrown@pa.net - 29 Jul 2005 02:32 GMT
Dear Neil,

Given the nasty emails you sent me -- you don't deserve
my respect.

Best,

Otis
Neil Brooks - 29 Jul 2005 03:23 GMT
>Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Otis

Just warming up, Otis.  Just warming up.

Long as you continue to post your blather here, expect my love letters
to continue.

Also, garnering "your respect" would not feel very flattering.
otisbrown@pa.net - 29 Jul 2005 03:35 GMT
Dear Neil,

If you have somthing postive to say, or some anlysis,
or fact, then present it.

We are all listening.  But you just don't have it -- and
don't "get it".

This "Jon" who did this preventive work has been a wonder -- in
his ability to put in a full-effort with the plus.  I admire
him greatly.

This is obviously and effort that is "unique" to the individual
himself.  Clearly no one can "prescribe" the type
of personal "insight" and the fortitude it takes
to make this preventive process work.

Since no one can "prescribe" this internal good jugment,
I suggest that the solution can not be called
"medical" at all.  I consider the qualities required
to be on the order of the qualities of Stirling Colgate.

In fact, that is why I reported on Raphaleson's statement
of "The Printer's Son".

Best,

Otis
otisbrown@pa.net - 29 Jul 2005 03:39 GMT
Dear Neil,

Why not have the guts to post your insults on sci.med.vision
for all to see.

That way the reader can form a judgment of both
your character and relative-sanity.

Scientific-technical arguemtns are NEVER resolved
by personal insults.

Best,

Otis
otisbrown@pa.net - 29 Jul 2005 03:29 GMT
Dear Neil,

I do have a "prescription" for you.  It is this.

If doing work to establish the fact that the natural eye
is dynamic, when directly tested under controlled
science distress you -- then stop reading about it.

If you don't like scientific (not medical) efforts to
prevent the development of a negative refractive state
for the natural eye -- the stop reading about it.

An lastly, I respect the various people on this News Group.

We disagree about a the scientific concept of
representing the behavior of the natural eye
as a sophisticated system.

This is like two ships that pass in the night.

Since we can not agree on fundamentals or
basic facts -- we obviously can not
agree on any "conclusion".

But the arguments are intresting and provocative -- as
they should be in science.

Any true exploration of new ideas and concepts
in science always produces this kind of
give-and-take.

As the great Harry S Truman said, If you can't stand
the heat -- get out of the kitchen.

Enjoy,

Otis

Rate this thread:






 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.