 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / August 2005Embry Riddle Aeronautical University and Otis...
Otis what is your relation in regards to Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU)? Are you officially conducting a study? Or are you inviting students who attend ERAU to try plus lenses to prevent myopia? To make my point clearer, I highly doubt that any students attend ERAU should worry about their eyesight unless of course they are in USAF ROTC. Even then, they have a -1.50 (20/70 correctable to 20/20) limit to even become a "fighter" pilot. Noone cares about naked eye 20/20 anymore. The people you bring into your conversations are also listed on this page like a team roster, do they all support this study that will take place at ERAU? I would like to contact ERAU, as a matter of fact, I have a friend who is with the USAF ROTC there, if they are having such study? If in your opinion as you have stated, my contact lense use, or laser surgery operation makes me accountable towards the Army during a flight physical that I should disclose everything that has been done to my eyes, why not disclose the wrong use of plus lenses? If students attending ERAU will participate in such study, aren't they accountable to their school administration? otisbrown@pa.net wrote: >Dear John, > >Subject: Posting a statement of your experience. > >I have posted your remarks on my site, and then "Aeronautical College" >under "opposition #2" > >In that manner, a student, say at 20/40 can evaluate the "risks" of >prevention against the proven fact >that the natural eye goes "down" at the rate of 1.3 diopters in four >years at West Point. (Range -1.1 diopters to -1.6 diopters). > >This might put his between the rock and a hard place -- but he will be >duly informed. > >Best, > >Otis > > You have posted my remarks also added your own commentaries which I have not approved, at least yet. I resent that you use USMA of West Point in every chance. I do not have any knowledge of an official study conducted at this Academy to prove that "standard" progress rate of myopia is -0.33 diopters. West Point is not the only academy or university in this country or in the world. My eyesight didn't go bad until I was 27, I did close work all my life. I have many friends who have finished college and still have no refractive errors. This "standard" is highly non-standard. Dear John, I have no connection with the college. I have proposed an "open study" which I believe would be REASONABLE, but would require that the pilot evaluate a number of issues -- before any actions was taken. I have listed your "ghosting" judgment, as well as many other issues. You, and anyone else is free to read it. If I were entering a four year college, with 20/40 vision, and knew that the "down" rate at West Point was -1.3 diopters, (spread -1.1 diopters to -1.6 diopters) I would PERSONALLY like to be informed of these facts. If I chose to do nothing, then of course I would expect my refractive status to go "down" by that amount. This becomes a person decision for the pilot concerned with his distant vision. It is clear that some pilots have looked at these issues, and determined that they would take forceful steps to clear their vision by "doing it under their own control". I have also published an agenda which would be a "tutorial" on the subject, and would be helpful -- what ever choice they might make. This is a "tutorial" that you did not have. If I knew that you absolutly wanted that minus lens -- you would have been elliminated from the discussion at that point. This "proposal" could be conducted at any aernautical college -- where the individuals have an interest in protecting their distant vision. Since you were 28 years old -- perhaps the subject was moot. You can only know your visual future by knowing the behavior of the natural eye at a four year college. At West Point the keep these records in a 201 file (personal file). Thus compiliing these records in a systematic manner shows the -1.3 diopers in four years. You can always ignore these statistics if you wish at 20/40. I do not think I would but each person will have to make up his own mind according to his beliefs. People take action ONLY when they consider the action to be crucial to their personal welfare. The purpose of this "tutorial" at an aeronautical college would be a matter of supplying information of this matter -- which MIGHT be used by them for there own PERSONAL benifit. Or, the person at 20/40 can ignore the "caution" and work with no plus, just to see if his vision will go "down" to 20/100 or so. In NO SENSE would ANYONE be required to do ANYTHING. >From Francis Young's study (using children) we know that the "plus" group showed effectively no movement into myopia. (Please read is report for full details.) The single-minus, went "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. A clear mind would appreciate the significant of those statistics -- I would hope. Under and "open mind" condition, these pilots could check their refractive status using a trial-lens kit or a phoropter, and do a good job of it. I believe that the statics would confirm the accuracy of the Young-Oakley study. So the "Aeronautical" college was proposed as a place (NOT TO DO THE STUDY) but to discuss the possibility of taking that first step. I prefer to be fully informed of my options and choices before this situation gets out-of-hand. I can always turn it down, and "accept" the 20/100 that will develp if I choose to do nothing about it. Reference from my site: www.myopiafree.com Naval Academy Proposal Embery Riddle Proposal www.chinamyopia.org Best, Otis Dear John, Reference: You remarks and judgment about YOUR use of the plus. If you had had a "tutorial" then you never would have used the plus. The purpose of a tutorial would be to elliminate you from the "study". However, if you will organize your thoughts, I am certain that anyone considering the use of the plus would like to hear them. Write them up, and I will post them for the consideration of anyone who has a desire to avoid getting into nearsighedness at a four year college. Best, Otis > If you had had a "tutorial" then you never > would have used the plus. > > The purpose of a tutorial would be to > elliminate you from the "study". Of course. The purpose of a study designed by an engineer would be to eliminate results that did not agree with the hypothesis. John DID use plus. It didn't work. DrG Dear G, The purpose of the study is to have the person understand ALL the issues and objective scientific facts as they concern the natural eye's behavior. If the person has no interest in "protecting" his distant vision (with the "down" rate of -1.3 diopters in four years) then there would be no reason for him to be involved. In fact, the remarks of my nephew, Keith B. are very much to that point. He in fact was declared to be "nearsighted", and was presented with this West Point data. Since he did NOT what to go down to 20/100 or 20/140, he choose to wear the "protective" muffs, and did not go "deaf" -- if you get my drift. Best, Otis > Dear G, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (with the "down" rate of -1.3 diopters in four years) then > there would be no reason for him to be involved. But, John was interested, which is why he fell into your clutches. It did not work on John > In fact, the remarks of my nephew, Keith B. are very much to > that point. He in fact was declared to be "nearsighted", > and was presented with this West Point data. Since > he did NOT what to go down to 20/100 or 20/140, he > choose to wear the "protective" muffs, and did not > go "deaf" -- if you get my drift. In fact, we're not even sure if it worked on Keith B., since there is no independent verification. In fact, there is no objective independent verification of any of your data. DrG Dear John, Subject: Prevention with plus -- a DECISION for the person concerned with it. Re: Jacob Raphaelson and my sister's children. >From discussions about "The Printer's Son" it was clear that no OD could EVER deliever prevention. It was also clear (from Young's study and other analytical efforts), the prevention is going to depend COMPLETELY on the judgment qualities of the person concerned with it. I was DEEPLY concerned about the -1/2 diopter per year issue. It is finally clear that ONLY prevention is possible, and SLIGHT clearing from the 20/50 level. It is also clear that it take steady consistent efforts by the person himself, and these EFFORTS can never be "prescribed". Here are the remarks of my nephew (now 40, with children of his own) on his work with the plus. Best, Otis ++++++++++++++++++ FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WEARING A PLUS LENS Dear Uncle, February 19, 1990 Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness". I got it yesterday after I came back from the weekend. I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I have a great deal of school work to read. I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check my eyes with the eye chart. I am able to read the 20/20 line on the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most of the time now. I have always passed the driver's license eye test. I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total reading I do. I started using them as much as possible again because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I didn't check them on a chart). I am lucky to have an uncle who showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my nearsightedness. One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and then use or adapt methods to work for me. In the last few years I have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to deteriorate. Then I realize it's time to do something to stop that process. At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I know what it does for my vision. Thanks for taking the time to tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the methods I am using. Keith B. Dear John, And here are the remarks of Captain Fred Deakins. Again, it does take great personal effort. It does become a choice, and each person must decide this issue for himself. Best, Otis +++++++++++++++++ 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 "Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal observations and experiences (often recounted by way of anecdote) that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing. For example, someone who is not a physician or other kind of expert might argue that eating crushed garlic and drinking one glass of red wine per day will prolong your life, just because their own neighbour indulged in that habit and died aged 90. This example is a case of inductive reasoning lacking a broad empirical basis." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence Dear Neil, If I make a measurement as an engineer -- then it is OBJECTIVE for me. If Fred Deakins monitors his eye chart and verifies that he clears his vision from 20/50 to 20/20 -- then that measurement is OBJECTIVE to him. If I REPORT my measurement to you, then the measurement is transformed into a SUBJECTIVE measurement -- and you can choose to believe it -- or not -- as you choose. If I wish to determine the charge on an electronn (oil-drift experiment, very difficult to run) then I am not going to run a "blind study" to determine that charge. I need complete knowledge to run that OBJECTIVE experiment. If I report that charge to you, you can screem that it is subjective since I made the measurement and you don't like the implication. You could say the same thing about Albert Einstein's concept that meter sticks had to shrink in the direction of travel -- in order to insure that the speed of light would be a constant. Everyone thought that Einstein got it wrong -- but he did not. Best, Otis >Dear Neil, > >If I make a measurement as an engineer -- then it is OBJECTIVE >for me. But trying to allege cause and effect--which is the very definition of your life, it would seem--from this single measurement (rather than rigorous testing via the scientific method) is somewhere between unscientific and ignorant. Dear Neil, Subject: Parameters of a large population. If you are working to repersent the behavior of a population of natural eyes -- then you test the ENTIRE POPULATION of primate eyes -- not INDIVIDUAL EYES. I have made this manifestly clear -- in my book. If you do not understand that concept -- then I regret it. Best, Otis Dear Otis, Your claims that you can cure people of nearsightedness simply by standing three feet in front of them and shouting at them in Latin for fifteen minutes strike me as patently absurd. Further, the fact that you are working with elementary school children WITHOUT the consent of their parents seems unethical, if not criminal. (You're right, Otis. It IS more fun when you refuse to use standard Usenet quoting ettiquette, quote out of context, misquote, or blatantly lie! I wish I'd learned of it sooner). Best, Neil > If you are working to repersent the behavior of a population of natural > eyes -- then you test the ENTIRE POPULATION of primate eyes -- not > INDIVIDUAL EYES. So, hmm, you gather up all the monkeys on earth and test them all at one time? And when someone gets around to testing your hypothesis on _humans_, we should ignore those results. -MT > If Fred Deakins monitors his eye chart and verifies that > he clears his vision from 20/50 to 20/20 -- then that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is transformed into a SUBJECTIVE measurement -- and > you can choose to believe it -- or not -- as you choose. That isn't how we use "objective" and "subjective" in vision science. If you care. -MT Otis, and Otis alone determines the rules in his universe. Please, do not disturb him. DrG <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in message > Dear John, > And here are the remarks of Captain Fred Deakins. Otis, a Google of "Captain Fred Deakins, USAF" only brings references to you . . . . He must be a W.W.1. pilot? Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "He tautalogical course free of redundancy and repetition." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ><otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in message >> Dear John, >> And here are the remarks of Captain Fred Deakins. > >Otis, a Google of "Captain Fred Deakins, USAF" only brings references to you >. . . . He must be a W.W.1. pilot? Otis changes the name to protect the identity of the fictitious. >Otis changes the name to protect the identity of the fictitious. > Capt Deakins name would not have been changed in this case, because Otis named him in the prevention team on the ERAU page of his website. Dear Robert, Fred wrote a book describing his experience. I think he retired from the service. We exchange Christmas cards. He has two small children -- who are wearing the "preventive plus" when necessary. That is the first step. Best, Otis >Dear Robert, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Otis Satisfied about Fred Deakins's existence now, Robert? >Dear Robert, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Otis, Kindly ask Capt Deakins to email me, or write him a letter asking if we can write to him also. If you exchange cards, you should have his address. I can't find his published book anywhere, military database searches don't provide his basic service record either. So our only way to him is you. I really want to get in touch with this guy. If he flew KC-135s and retired from the AF now, he must be in the airlines by now. That is a given. Dear John, Subject: Fred Deakins -- where is he? I called his last phone number. I will discuss your experience and as his permission to give you his email. I know that people are vastily different in how they "understand" issues of this nature. (PLEASE no insult intended.) That is just the way it is. I think that anyone at 20/40, entering a four year college should understand your dislike of the plus-for-prevention, and why. To counter-balance your experience, they should also understand Fred Deakins success with it. I have modified the syllabus to cover that topic. I identify you only as "John M." That should "clear the air" for the person concerned with it. I will let you know about Fred as soon as I find out. Best, Otis _______________________ [I will add that this is a "generic" program that could be conducted at any aeronautical college -- where their is strong interest in the subject. OSB] Subject: A proposed syllabus for a nearsightedness prevention program at a four-year aeronautical college such as Embry-Riddle. THE FRESHMAN YEAR 1. A two hour introductory statement for the entering student body about the general concept of nearsightedness prevention. 2. All pilots accepted into this program must have previously had 20/20 (in high school). The only issue will be a slight negative refractive status of their eyes. All students will pass the Florida Snellen-DMV visual test. The only issue will be failure to read the 20/20 line on the Snellen chart. a. There eyes will be free of any medical problem. (i.e., Glaucoma, detached retina, macular degeneration. "ghosting" or diplopia. b. All "risks" that are know shall be explained to them. Assuming they accept this scientific proposal, they will be checking their refractive status using their own trial-lens kit, and an eye chart. They will pay close attention to their distant vision generally. If they report any slight "ghosting", they will be removed from the study at that point. (Reference John M's statements) c. The "legal" control issue and responsibilities will be fully explained to them -- and that will be part of the preliminary review study. d. The current status of prevention (as the second-opinion) will also be reviewed, as per Steve Leung's site, www.chinamyopia.org 3. The publish statistics concerning the U. S. Naval Academy will be reviewed and understood. If the pilot is interested in this study, he should identify himself to us. His vision must be such so that he can function with out wearing a minus lens. (Pilots with refractive states from zero to +1/2 diopters would be encouraged to review the concept for possibly joining the study in the Sophomore year. The method of measurement will be taught using a Snellen chart and a simple trial-lens kit. The measurements will be made by the pilots and will be confirmed by the volunteer optometrist or ophthalmologist. A team of two pilots would exchange places if a phoropter (trial-lens) measurement is made. This is to insure that the pilots understand the measurements and can repeat them for consistency. Nothing further would be done in the freshman year. The pilot should think very carefully about his visual future to determine if he wishes to enter into the "practical-use" part of the study. It is essential that the student be taught control-system concepts as they apply to the dynamic behavior of the eye. THE SOPHOMORE YEAR Having review all information appropriate to the study, he would be part of a team of 100 pilots who would intelligently use the plus lens for four months. The group all measure their focal status (see original measurement in the freshman year). By now they would be experienced with this process. The would randomly divide themselves into two groups. Both groups would continue to measure their focal status at periodic intervals by use of the Snellen chart and trial-lens kit. The group using the plus lens would be given precise instructions about the proper use of the plus. The other group would simply record their average visual-environment in terms of diopters. The statistics of this type of work would be understood by the group of 100 pilots. At the end of four months final measurements by the pilots will be made, and the results will be discussed. If the refractive status of the test group and the control group is identical, i.e., both groups have no significant difference (.05 confidence level) the results would be written up and submitted to an engineering journal (IEEE/EMBS) for potential publication. If a difference exceeds the 0.05 confidence level then the effort will be continued. This result will be contingent on the judgment of the men conducting the study. If these results are excellent, then the pilots in the next cohort of pilots be offered the same opportunity to go through this educational process. The purpose is to ensure that the results are repeatable, with a completely different group of men. THE JUNIOR AND SENIOR YEARS The individual pilots can elect to continue with the preventive process if they judge that it is effective in helping them maintain 20/20 through their remaining two years at Embry-Riddle. PUBLICATION The results will be submitted for publication in the Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society magazine. <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in message > Dear Robert, > > Fred wrote a book describing his experience. Can you give me the title of the book, Otis? I can't find it on bn or amazon, or anywhere on the web using the authors name. Thank you, Robert ---------------------------------------------- mixed grill: an ecumenical inquisition ---------------------------------------------- My guess is he was a civil war pilot. ><otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > My guess is he was a civil war pilot. Robert wrote: <otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in message Dear John, And here are the remarks of Captain Fred Deakins. Otis, a Google of "Captain Fred Deakins, USAF" only brings references to you . . . . He must be a W.W.1. pilot? Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "He tautalogical course free of redundancy and repetition." ------------------------------------------------------------------------ William, Didn't they use manned kites during the Civil War to see over the enemy lines? I wonder if Fred was the observer? Robert ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Gross ignorance is 144 times worse than ordinary ignorance. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Robert, Since you failed to find Fread Deakins, maybe you could research Stirling Colgate's C.V. Best, Otis +++++++++++++++++++ To the Parents: In the Matter of Steve H. Leung OD and Alfred H. Bossino. Dear Sir, I am a senior scientists, astrophysicist and nuclear physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. For all of my scientific career I have been dedicated to understanding the cause of natural phenomena. From the age of 13 years, now 66 years ago, I recognized that the standard response to myopia was perhaps miss guided. Instead I used positive lens glasses to correct, or alter my focal environment, namely one of reading nearly all the time. (A positive lens "corrects" a near-point focal environment by altering the light rays to be more parallel from the near-point object. as if the print were made more distant.) Being young and therefore developmentally plastic, my eyes and their focal properties immediately responded. Within just a few weeks, the clarity or focus of distant objects had been restored. This was just as I expected from scientific arguments. I had to maintain a positive lens for reading thereafter. This was a small price to pay for perfect distance vision for all my life. I have continued an effort to bring this awareness of the focal adaptation of the natural eye to the public, but unfortunately the ease and immediate response of the standard treatment of using a negative lens to reverse the myopic adaptation to a near point environment is so immediate and so rewarding to the myope that I and a few associates have not been successful. This is regardless of the decades after the ground breaking scientific research by Dr. Francis Young, and Dr. Howard Howland and others. I have worked scientifically with Prof. Joshua Wallman of City College New York where his research on the response of the natural eye to focal and neurological environments is leading the fundamental research on this topic in the US. The animal model used is the recovery function of the deprivation induced myopia of the chicken eye. Here myopia and recovery can be altered by 10 diopters in a few weeks. This extreme animal model allows many factors of influence to be investigated in a short time. Although the complexity of the response of the eye is extraordinary and a detailed understanding of the mechanisms still eludes all in the scientific field, nevertheless there is no experiment, no anecdotal example that contradicts, and no doubt in my mind that myopia in all animals, including humans, is induced in response to a near point environment. In view of this research and countless personal successful examples the growing number of myopic individuals in the world is deplorable, when such a simple remedy is available to the public. Steve H. Leung OD is a dedicated optometrist who has taken a lead in attempting to bring this knowledge and benefit to their patients. For them to be persecuted within his own professional societies is wrong. He should be lauded and encouraged instead. I am reminded of the first health professionals who spoke out about the health problems that smoking brings to a society. Theirs was a difficult task, but now thirty years later, smoking in the US has declined to a negligible fraction of society. If we, as a culture, can give up smoking, we can also be weaned from the negative lens. I do hope and recommend that you strongly support what these dedicated optometrists are bringing to your profession. Sincerely yours, Stirling A. Colgate Ph.D. Dr. Colgate is a Senior Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory and a Member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. > Dear Robert, > > Since you failed to find Fread Deakins, > maybe you could research Stirling Colgate's > C.V. Otis, You -cowrote- a paper with Dr. Colgate? btw, what is the name of Deakin's book? Sincerely, Robert Sign in an Optometrists shop "We dispense with accuracy." Dear Robert, I gave Fred Deakins a call -- he is probably flying at this point. The title of his book is: "America 20/20" Best, Otis >Dear Robert, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >"America 20/20" Can't find the book. OTOH, here is the website of one Fred T. Deakins, pilot. Peculiar: he's selling a "natural vision improvement" program for forty bucks. It's chock full of "testimonials" and other anecdotal evidence. Bird of a feather . . . . . Is this actually you, Otis? Do you have *any* financial interest in this company or in this website? Do you profit, financially, from the sale of this product in any way? >>Dear Robert, >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >this company or in this website? Do you profit, financially, from the >sale of this product in any way? Whoops. Quite a little omission on my part: http://www.eyezercise.com > Whoops. Quite a little omission on my part: > > http://www.eyezercise.com The other important link is http://www.fda.gov/oc/buyonline/buyonlineform.htm  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Dear Neil, No, I just do not "bother" with money. My interest was in translating the scientific facts concerning the natural eye's behavior into a "protective" method for my sister's kids. Very difficult to deal with kids -- but some get the idea -- and some do not. My book is on the web, for those interested -- for free. Fred Deakins is a pilot and a friend. Best, Otis > Dear Robert, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "America 20/20" Otis, here's what Fred Deakins says about you, "During my years of study, I made friends with one of the most respected optical engineers at NASA, Mr. Otis Brown, who has made painstaking contributions to my system" Have you been holding out on us? "one of the most respected optical engineers at NASA, Mr. Otis Brown . . . " Wow, high praise indeed. How long have you been at NASA? Yours, Robert mongoose: a scottish gander. Don't tell me. Otis was responsible for fixing the Hubble telescope's myopia? Or causing it??? w.stacy, o.d. >Otis, here's what Fred Deakins says about you, "During my years of study, I >made friends with one of the most respected optical engineers at NASA, Mr. >Otis Brown, who has made painstaking contributions to my system" > > >Have you been holding out on us? "one of the most respected optical >engineers at NASA, Mr. Otis Brown . . . " Wow, high praise indeed. How >long have you been at NASA? > >Yours, Robert > NASA? I am sick to my stomach, I don't want to hear nothing about all these snakeoil salesmen! This Deakins character better be retired from the AF. Dear Robert, There is another "Otis Brown" -- I heard the name. I worked as a contractor at the Goddard Space Flight Center (NASA) on a number of projects. Great place to work! Best, Otis >> Dear Robert, >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >engineers at NASA, Mr. Otis Brown . . . " Wow, high praise indeed. How >long have you been at NASA? I'm thinking that the chimerical Fred Deakins may well be referring to /this/ gentleman (Otis. *B*. Brown, PhD): http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/divs/mpo/People/Faculty/Brown/ Our pesky little friend is Otis *S*. Brown, who sells books for 25 bucks and looks like this: http://www.nbeener.com/Oda_May_Brown.html Are they related? Could be . . . could be. I think you're right. Dr. Otis B. Brown has done a lot of work at NASA, while Otis S. Brown is nowhere to be found in NASA's publications... w.stacy, o.d. >I'm thinking that the chimerical Fred Deakins may well be referring to >/this/ gentleman (Otis. *B*. Brown, PhD): > > don't change the subject. how come noone can find record of any pilot named fred deakins? is this another misquote (=lie)? how come when someone whom you did quote finally comes to this forum (John) they say that you misrepresented them and they become angry at you? are you a snakeoil salesman or just a troll? go away I asked the same question a few months ago before I gave up, deciding that he was neither; just a well-meaning but confused and unhappy old myope who claims broad expertise in an area in which he actually does have a small bit of knowledge... Unfortunately, I think he actually has caused some inadvertent, I'm sure, but nevertheless real harm to some unsuspecting people and their kids. > are you a >snakeoil salesman or just a troll? > > >Otis, a Google of "Captain Fred Deakins, USAF" only brings references to you >. . . . He must be a W.W.1. pilot? Otis replied: >Since you failed to find Fread Deakins, >maybe you could research Stirling Colgate's >C.V. I just thought it would be helpful for people to see these two posts juxtaposed. Classic Otis bait-and-switch :-) Don't forget, Otis: I don't care whether any of these people actually exists (though I strongly suspect that most of them exist only in your mind). The bottom line is: you cite only anecdotal (and, quite likely, made up) evidence which--if you're /really/ an engineer--you know is bogus science at best. Actually, the first pilots the Trojans launched by catapult. The precision of landings were relatively unimportant, so I think they recruited old myopes for the job... > William, > Didn't they use manned kites during the Civil War to see over the enemy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Gross ignorance is 144 times worse than ordinary ignorance. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Otis what is your relation in regards to Embry Riddle Aeronautical > University (ERAU)? Are you officially conducting a study? Or are you > inviting students who attend ERAU to try plus lenses to prevent myopia? Otis has an idea for a study, no one at ERAU has agreed to it, I don't know if they have even been approached. If they were approached, they would, in all likelihood, turn him down since there are many design flaws in the study he has proposed. You can search past posts for numerous threads in which various people here attempt to explain to Otis why the design is flawed and offer suggestions on how to improve it. He, of course, rejects all suggestions, since he claims to be doing an engineering study not a clinical trial. BTW, Otis has posted one of his bogus conversations on I-see (created by cutting and pasting selected comments from SMV) so that it looks as you and he have had a dialogue about the use of plus lenses. Dr Judy > To make my point clearer, I highly doubt that any students attend ERAU > should worry about their eyesight unless of course they are in USAF ROTC. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > work all my life. I have many friends who have finished college and still > have no refractive errors. This "standard" is highly non-standard. Dear Judy and John, John is invited to join the open-minded i-see group and discuss his judgments about this issue of the preventive-plus. He can certainly speak for him self. I have also not INCLUDED "Embry Riddle" on my site. I have a picture of Datona Beach I believe. It would be nice if we could get some cooperation for Embry -- but that is not necesary. The issue will still remain with the person who has 20/40 and knows the statistics of West Point. Of course the minus lens is wonderful, and no one is arging that issue. Further, given the constraints John is posting I would "prescribe" a minus lens with out constraint if I were an OD -- what else could I do -- I would get sued if I attemped to do anything "different" that the standard method of the last 400 years. It is just that I think that a "alternative", i.e., second opinion would be wise. That issue, however will be resoved by the person who considers these issues. Best, Otis >I have also not INCLUDED "Embry Riddle" on my >site. I have a picture of Datona Beach I believe. > >It would be nice if we could get some cooperation >for Embry -- but that is not necesary. Wrong... the link is; http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/*Embry.html * /Dear Fellow Pilots, As you have seen, pilots such as Captain Fred Deakins have successfully restored their distant vision to 20/20. Would you like to clear your distant vision as part of a well organized scientific-engineering team? We need a group of highly motivated aeronautical engineers to work on this project with us. *Embry-Riddle* would be the ideal location to make that type of scientific commitment with excellent results. You would be responsible for all of the measurements and the ultimate success of this prevention work./ Otis, I would like you to *remove* any references to me or my experience with the plus *IMMEDIATELY*. You do not have the right to post anything on any forum WITHOUT MY APPROVAL. Dr Judy is right in her observations that you are creating bogus conversations. I do not wish to JOIN any eyesight groups as I have SMV enough for me here where WE HAVE MORE THAN 5 LICENSED AND TRAINED EYE CARE PROFESSIONALS helping people. I am not interested in alternative methods as they do not guarantee any hope. >BTW, Otis has posted one of his bogus conversations on I-see (created by >cutting and pasting selected comments from SMV) so that it looks as you and >he have had a dialogue about the use of plus lenses. > >Dr Judy This is the last drop. Otis, I have stopped the activity on the myopiafree yahoo group I have started. It was under my ownership and I do not wish to be a part of it as there are comments I have not approved and misquotations I didn't even mean. You are free to open another one at yahoo groups as it is so easy to do so. Good luck. Dear John, Subject: I have posted the remark that all reference to you shall be removed from my site -- and elsewhere. I will write up your experience (with no mention of you) so that a person is aware of the possibility of ghosting. Best, Otis >Dear John, > >Subject: I have posted the remark that all reference to >you shall be removed from my site -- and elsewhere. > Otis, you needn't do this, just remove the entire opposition 2 link that will do it. >I will write up your experience (with no mention of you) >so that a person is aware of the possibility of >ghosting. > > Instead of creating opposition links, you can create a BIG LINK for Science Med Vision Discussion Group and those who are interested can stop by and talk to doctors. Dear John, Subject: Success and no-success with prevention For all we have been through -- I still suggest that a person review the concepts and ideas associated with prevention. I would not completely close your mind to the idea of prevention with the plus. I look for the day when an "educated" parent is presented with this alternative. One day you will become that parent. You have most likely made your choice now for your child -- I don't know. In fact I wish I had been on the "receiving end" of this type of advocacy. But I know that "prevention" must start BEFORE that minus lens is used. I would gladly PAY a professional for this advice, whether I took it seriously or not. Indeed this is the thesis of Steve Leung OD, as expressed on: www.chinamyopia.org These various sites are designed to help a person THINK and review the various issues associated with prevention. The easiest thing to do -- is to just do nothing. I have set up MyopiaFree2 to continue that discussion. Incidently, our fiend Mike who was wearing a -2.75 diopter lens is now reporting vision of 20/30 and 20/25. I have written up your concerns, and asked them to contact you if they wish. And I do thank you for helping them with this issue. Best, Otis >Incidently, our fiend Mike who was >wearing a -2.75 diopter lens is now >reporting vision of 20/30 and 20/25. There is no way anyone can verify Mike's condition. There is no way of knowing what Mike's cyclo refraction results if it was ever performed. And noone has any idea what his current refraction is. I don't care what visual acuity he is reporting. Acuity doesn't mean whole a lot to me as I have 20/20 in the mornings. Does it stay the rest of the day? No. It disappears in an hour or so, sometimes not even that long. So should I report 20/20 also? >>Incidently, our fiend Mike who was >>wearing a -2.75 diopter lens is now [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >disappears in an hour or so, sometimes not even that long. So should I >report 20/20 also? You've clearly figured out Otis.... You wrote "I would not completely close your mind to the idea of prevention with the plus. I look for the day when an "educated" parent is presented with this alternative. " any "educated" parent would not recommend plus lenses for their child since it has been proven to be ineffective in humans. the reason parents are not presented with this alternative by eye doctors is because it has been proven not to work. (or do you think its the conspiracy thing again?) do physicians who are discussing a medical issue with the patient or his family discuss treatment alternatives like exorcism or bloodletting? Of course not, they have been proven not to work. but to you this is the cherished "second opinion". Live in reality Otis. Either that or actually perform (not propose) a scientific study that PROVES your point of view. otherwise, your pissing in the wind. > BTW, Otis has posted one of his bogus conversations on I-see (created > by cutting and pasting selected comments from SMV) so that it looks as > you and he have had a dialogue about the use of plus lenses. I absolutely love that seen in The Two Towers where Gollum has that conversation with himself. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply To: John M. Subject: A proposed DISCUSSION of prevention (20/40 to 20/70) for students wishing to PROTECT there vision in a four year college. Re: You have made some excellent commentary concerning our SUGGESTED preventive effort at a "generic" four year college. Here are my answers. John> Otis what is your relation in regards to Embry Riddle Aeronautical University (ERAU)? Otis> I have no relationship with this college. But, in my judgement, a student at 20/40 (-3/4 diopters) should be introduced to the concept of prevention at that point, and should be aquainted with the -1.3 diopter rate (in 4 years) estabished at West Point by examination of the 201 (personell) files. John> Are you officially conducting a study? Otis> No, but it is necessary to present and organized plan for such a preventive study. Success favors the prepared mind. John> Or are you inviting students who attend ERAU to try plus lenses to prevent myopia? Otis> In order to conduct an intelligent long-term study, it is necessary to have a group of people at one place -- for four years. It also requires that the person have a chance to personally examine the reasons for the effort -- accepting the statistics of the natural eye's behavior established at West Point. The LAST STEP would be the actual use of the plus -- AFTER the person had time to review all the issues and questions that are important to him. John> To make my point clearer, I highly doubt that any students attend ERAU should worry about their eyesight unless of course they are in USAF ROTC. Otis> Each of us is different! Some people are concerned with keeping their distant vision cler -- some are not. That is a PERSONAL decision. Since prevention (at 20/40) takes a strong personal commitment, that judgment must preceed ANY use of the plus-for-prevention. John> Even then, they have a -1.50 (20/70 correctable to 20/20) limit to even become a "fighter" pilot. Otis> If they have 20/70 (1.5 D) at entry, and they have the West Point statistics before them, then they will understand that their vision will not at 20/70 -- that would be wildly optomistic. It would be highly probably that they would pick up an AVERAGE of -1.3 dipoters, for an end result of -2.8 diopters, or about 20/140 to 20/200. Presented with these objective facts, it would have the person whould have to make his choice accordingly. The "easy" thing to do would be to do nothing, and hope for the best, obviously. John> No one cares about naked eye 20/20 anymore. Otis> Perhaps you do not. But you do not speak for everyone who is at 20/50 to 20/70 entering a four year college. The issue is personal choice and decision -- when facing objective facts. John> The people you bring into your conversations are also listed on this page like a team roster, do they all support this study that will take place at ERAU? Otis> I assume you mean the names listed on the "generic" ERAU. The answer is yes for the (v) people. We have not asked David Guyton at this time. John> I would like to contact ERAU, as a matter of fact, I have a friend who is with the USAF ROTC there, if they are having such study? Otis> We would like to make contact with ERAU also. But in the future. The proposal is good. We would need some faculty support but no money. The "paper work" is complete. John> If in your opinion as you have stated, my contact lense use, or laser surgery operation makes me accountable towards the Army during a flight physical that I should disclose everything that has been done to my eyes, why not disclose the wrong use of plus lenses? Otis> If the military requires it -- then disclose it. Render unto Cesar -- those things that are Cesar's. John> If students attending ERAU will participate in such study, aren't they accountable to their school administration? Otis> The "school adminstration" does not "own" the student's eyes. They can not dictate what the student does or does not do. As you know, my nephew, Keith B., worked with the plus and kept his distant vision to avoid that -1.3 diopter change in vision. He had every right to protect his naked eye vision by using the plus in this manner. Are you suggesting that a person be prohibited from protecting his distant vision in this manner? Otis> Remember, this is a "proposal", not an actual "execution" of a plan. Best, Otis Dear John, Subject: One man's work on preventing HIS nearsighdness. Re: Prove effective prevention (or avoidance) with the plus. Keith was declared to be officially nearsighted at age 13. I talked to him and explained that prevention (at least) was possible based on the scientific work of Francis Young. But I also explained that he would have to do it himself, and if he did not the situation would be get completely out-of-hand, an THEN he would not be ablie to get out of it. Since Keith knew of the standard "down" rate of -1/2 diopter per year that occurs when you put a child in a minus lens, he has every reason to wish to avoid that result. Further the West Point records show that the "un-protected" eye goes "down" by -1.3 dopters (spread -1.1 to -1.6 diopters) in a four year college. As a result, Keith just used the "plus" as a "protective" method -- much like wearing "ear muffs" in a high-noise enviroment. Here are his comments on a proposed preventive study at a four year college -- where the students might be able to take the same "protective" actions that Keith took. As always, enjoy our pleasant scientific discussions about the "dynamic" behavior of the natural eye. Learn how to "prevent" for your children's long-term visual welfare. ++++++++++++++++++++++ From: "Keith B Subject: Commentary on the preventive ERAU study. Uncle Otie, Interesting, John's line of thinking with regard to "disclosing" the use of the plus lens. In a health and fitness discussion this would be similar to asking whether or not each person is required to disclose what they do to positively or negatively affect their health. I realize the military is significantly different than civilian life many times. As you've stated, it's not only the pilot who is interested in prevention efforts, although they should have a high level of motivation. His comments that no one cares about 20/20 might also parallel health and fitness in that statistics describe the average population thumbing their noses at personal accountability for prevention of health problems. Just the same, if no one tries, and with baby boomers just getting into their 60s, we should see a real drain on health care in the next 10 years. On an "amazing" side of things, I've recently heard a radio commercial for LASIK that is trying to buck the fashion trend. In it they have a couple of people saying just how much of a pain it is to wear glasses and how they would love to get rid of those things on the end of their noses that keep sliding off. Ulterior motives and marketing is too often redundant. Keith ***************************************** "Otis Brown" <otisbrown@pa.net> writes: John> To make my point clearer, I highly doubt that any students attend ERAU should worry about their eyesight unless of course they are in USAF ROTC. Otis> Each of us is different! Some people are concerned with keeping their distant vision cler -- some are not. That is a PERSONAL decision. Since prevention (at 20/40) takes a strong personal commitment, that judgment must preceed ANY use of the plus-for-prevention. ***************************************** John> No one cares about naked eye 20/20 anymore. Otis> Perhaps you do not. But you do not speak for everyone who is at 20/50 to 20/70 entering a four year college. The issue is a personal choice and decision -- when facing objective facts. ***************************************** John> If in your opinion as you have stated, my contact lense use, or laser surgery operation makes me accountable towards the Army during a flight physical that I should disclose everything that has been done to my eyes, why not disclose the wrong use of plus lenses? Otis> If you clear your vision from 20/40 to 20/20 with the plus, how exactly does this constitute "wrong" use of the plus lens? If the military requires it -- then disclose it. Render unto Ceasar -- those things that are Ceasar's. John> If students attending ERAU will participate in such study, aren't they accountable to their school administration? Otis> The "school adminstration" does not "own" the student's eyes. They can not dictate what the student does or does not do. As you know, my nephew, Keith B., worked with the plus and kept his distant vision to avoid that -1.3 diopter change in vision. He had every right to protect his naked eye vision by using the plus in this manner. Are you suggesting that a person be prohibited from protecting his distant vision in this manner? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Otis> There are many people who would pay $10,000 if they could get vision from 20/50 to 20/20 in order to meet the military standard. ____________________ Amen! This is why I tell people they could become healthy and meet most of their fitness needs with walking but they don't thank me for something that requires "that much" effort. The way I look at it, it takes a lot of effort to make $10,000. Walking can be so much more efficient and has long-term benefits.
|
Reply to this Message |
 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.