Dear Neil,

In can you did not read it -- here
is my legal disclaimer posted
on the first page of my site.

Let me state that I wish that I
personally had this type of information
and scientific proof available to
me.  I think ALL YOUNG CHILDREN
should be provided with the preventive
information when they are
on the threshold of a negative
refractive state.

Hells Bells, they can always
choose pure neglect.  That
is no problem at all.

They will just get into
that -1/2 diopter per year business
proven by the Oakley-Young study.

If that is what they desire -- then
I am not going to stand in their
way.

This is just about an "informed choice"
at the critical point -- where the
PARENTS make that choice.

Got it?

Enjoy,

Otis

________________________
                    (Legal15.txt)

    Legal Notes on, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness" and
      your choice about using the preventive method.

     "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of
thinking we used when we created them."

                   Albert Einstein

            LEGAL DISCLAIMER 1

    Let me recite my personal disclaimer.  Because I am not
medically trained and because I am averse to the prospect of being
sued for giving advice (medical or otherwise), I am stating
emphatically that everything written here ("How to Avoid
Nearsightedness", including all related pages on this site) is
nothing more than my personal opinion and experience.  If you are
interested in reading about that experience, I invite you to
continue reading.  If you want a medical opinion or advice, you
should contact a medical professional.

    If something I write seems to be advice, you should re-read
this paragraph and understand that I am only using literary
license to convey my experiences and opinions.    I offer you NO
ADVICE and I do not recommend to anyone that they should subscribe
to any treatment for any condition without proper medical advice,
EVEN IF I TELL YOU THAT I AVOID SOME MEDICAL ADVICE OR TREATMENT
FOR MYSELF.

    I take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for my health.  You should
take personal responsibility for your health (not my advice - just
my opinion).  It is up to you to decide if medical professionals
and the medical industry, the food industry and others act in your
best interest or not.  It is up to you to decide, if after reading
my experiences, how and whether to address any health issues
including those related to your vision.

PS:  These statements are adapted from Donald Rehm's "Myopia Myth"
    and the "Vision Freedom" site -- but the insight they
    developed about legal responsibility applies equally to this
    site.

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

            LEGAL DISCLAIMER 2

    "How to Avoid Nearsightedness", is an educational tool that
can assist you in accurately understanding the eye's proven
dynamic behavior.

    Our book is not intended to be a medical text, nor does it
substitute for medical diagnosis or treatment of eye disease by an
ophthalmologist.  The techniques developed for prevention are
derived from the concept presented in the book and is considered
to be the second opinion.  This second opinion is based on proven
scientific facts as they concern the dynamic behavior of the
natural and fundamental eye.

    It is the reader's sole responsibility to determine the
suitability of this book's advocacy for his use.  Once you make up
your own mind to use the preventive method, you should then find
an OD who will support you in your major effort -- based on your
own best judgment.  There are ODs who are now helping their own
children in the use of the plus lens for prevention.  That is the
type of "open minded" OD you need.

    This site is dedicated to your own personal interest and your
own goal in life -- where you assume complete technical and legal
control over your own eyes.

    You must understand the intended purpose of this site and
assume all risks and liabilities resulting from your actions.

    I can tell you personally that I wish I had been offered the
preventive method advocated here.  I acknowledged that the method
is difficult and requires your own understanding.  I wish I had
been offered this alternative -- when I was at the threshold.  I
believe that the method would have been effective at that point.

    Because of the advocacy of Dr.  Jacob Raphaelson, I realized
that the person (you) must play a very strong role in prevention.
If the effort is neglected or ignored at that point (by you) then
nearsightedness can not be prevented.  In the future you will find
some ODs who will help you -- once you personally make the
decision to use the plus for prevention.  The very nature of these
scientific arguments assumes that you have both the knowledge and
motivation to take a large if not total responsibility to carry
out the preventive work successfully.

            ***********************

            LEGAL DISCLAIMER 3

             TRUTH ON THE INTERNET

    Truth goes through three stages:

    First it is ridiculed.
    Then it is violently opposed.
    Finally it is accepted as self-evident.

    I subscribe to the "HONcode" principles of the Health On the
Net Foundation.

    [Although technically, I deal with the eye's behavior as a
well-engineered system, and present objective facts on that basis.
Therefore the term "health" is not the quite correct term to use
to describe the method of prevention that I advocate in my book
and on this site.]

    In conformance with the principles of the HONcode, I state
that:

1.   Funding, services and material for this site are provided
    solely by advocates for prevention.  Our advocacy is a result
    of an exhaustive effort on our part to determine if
    nearsightedness can be prevented.    I published a book to
    detail this judgment of optometrists, ophthalmologists and
    myself on this matter.  No commercial interests (including the
    commercial interests of doctors, hospitals, and/or the
    optical industry and the pharmaceutical industry) are
    involved.

2.   Our advocacy exists solely to benefit you and for that
    reason I consult with professionally qualified, scientists,
    engineers, consumer advocates, and medical people.

3.   Unlike the American Medical Association, which routinely
    spends millions of dollars influencing legislation and the
    operation of our government to benefit its members
    financially, I spend no money for such purposes.

4.   The purpose of this site is to provide you information which
might enable you to make an intelligent choice between two
    mutually exclusive alternatives.  The specific issue concerns the
    scientifically proven effect that the minus lens has on
    the refractive status of the natural eye.    If you do not believe
    this scientific truth -- then you should run the experiment
    yourself.    Only you must judge the experimental outcome.
    Science works in no other way.

        MORE ABOUT TRUTH AND THE INTERNET

    The Internet has made a nearly unlimited amount of scientific
(and health) information available to the public, and reliance on
this source will continue to increase.    In past generations --
before the widespread availability of such information -- one
could do little else but rely upon the advice of one's doctor.
Please remember that "the doctor" has children of his own.  Some
doctors who understand the deep scientific issues and proof
involved are helping THEIR OWN CHILDREN in the use of a plus lens
for prevention.  This is the origin of the "second opinion"
concept in medicine.

    Information from the government and the media tends to be
censored and further, is intended to serve the interests of big
money and "traditional medicine".  Further, some public sprinted
engineers and pilots have been sued to shut them up.

    You will not find a program devoted to prevention with a plus
on television, nor even on public television.  This would
antagonize too many powerful and vested interests.  Now, because
of the true freedom of speech that does exist on the Internet, all
this is changing.  We are learning how much influence "traditional
methods" can have on our lives.

    We are learning that there is more than one opinion on nearly
everything.  In many cases, the opinions are profoundly
contradictory or even in direct opposition.  Finding the truth
about fundamentally scientific topics -- when properly implemented
-- can result in your being able to enjjoy clear distant vision
for life.  The facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the
fundamental eye.  can be agonizingly difficult to establish.

    How does one determine if information presented on a Web site
is accurate?

    Even organizations with prestigious sounding names and people
with impressive titles do not necessarily know or speak the truth.
Their beliefs are very often flawed because of a biased education,
limited experience, open or hidden financial interest, face-saving
concerns, peer pressure or other factors.

    When you learn to ask the right question you can lead
yourself to a better answer -- than we have had in the past.  That
is the philosophy and approach presented to you on this site.

    The history of health care is full of instances where
something easy-to-use was widely believed to be a fact by all the
experts -- and was later shown to be false.

    When you actually CHECK the experimental data yourself, you
find that the "wildly held" belief that "environment" has NO
EFFECT on the refractive status of the eye is indeed a "false
belief".

    You must be thorough and complete to gather as much
information as you can before making a scientific and/or "health"
decision.  The truth is there but you must search for it using
YOUR qualities of common sense and scientific judgment.

     **********************************************

            LEGAL DISCLAIMER 4

    This site is dedicated to the concept of freedom of speech as
established by the U.  S.  Bill of Rights.  In addition there is
the issue of academic freedom, since I hold the unpopular but
accurate concept that the natural eye is proven to change its
refractive state when the visual environment is changed.

    Optometrists and ophthalmologist who disagree with this
concept should respond on this forum with an honest discussion,
rather than bringing legal actions against me.    I will post their
objections so that you can judge the nature of their opposition to
this reasonable concept that the evolution-designed eye is dynamic
rather than passive.  It is your right to be adequately informed
about this preventive "second opinion".

    By open, honest technical review and discussion you should be
able to learn more about their reasons for the objections to
effective prevention with a plus lens.

    Yes, prevention (and recovery from 20/60 to 20/20) is
difficult.  But why not be fair minded about both the difficulties
and opportunities of prevention?

    To avoid confusion as to the nature of the discussion, please
use the term, "focal state" to describe what you actually measure.
This will save us a great deal of technical difficulty, and these
words will enable us to avoid anger and misunderstandings.  We can
have an accurate technical discussion about the behavior of all
eyes.  The Donders-Helmholtz theory and picture of the eye as a
box-camera is no longer a technically accurate concept of the
eye's behavior.

    When all fundamental eyes are tested they always change their
focal state in a negative direction when a minus lens is placed on
them.  All primate eyes do this.  This is a matter of engineering
and science -- and confirmed by direct experimental test.

    Since this issues is not about medicine, nor even related to
medicine, (unless you believe that a positive or negative focal
state of the natural eye is an organic defect) you can examine the
objective factual data yourself and reach your own conclusion
about the inherent behavior of all fundamental eyes.

    There is no intention to make improper statements, only the
desire to help you form an opinion about the course of action that
you MIGHT take to clear your distant vision to 20/20.  (i.e., to
change your focal state from -1/2 diopter to a value of +1/2
diopters).  This change can be of great value to you if your
long-term career goal requires that you have 20/20 distant vision
for life.

    I believe that evolution designed a sophisticated
automatically focused camera.  A scientific review of this type
should precede any discussion of the defective eye -- or the
"cause" of any defect.  Since the focal state of the eye tracks
the average visual environment, (or accommodation system) then the
eye can not be regarded as defective if it has either a positive
or negative refractive status.

    Ultimately your own review of the objective experimental data
will help you resolve the issue.  I am concerned about being
accused of making statements about the eye that I have never made.
I have never said that a confined environment causes the eye to
become defective.  In simple terms I stated that, since all eyes
track or follow the average visual environment, a more negative
environment will simply produce an eye with a more negative focal
state.

    I am responsible however, for technical typos and
inaccuracies that may exist in the text of my book.  If you find
them, please contact me so that I can correct them.

    I provide this engineering advice with the idea that I wish I
PERSONALLY could have been on the "receiving end" of this advice.
By this, I mean WHEN the method COULD have been effective for me.
I take this advice as an "either-or" decision you must make BEFORE
you begin wearing a minus lens.  I hope YOU understand the
recommendations and suggestions in that context.

                    Sincerely,

                    Otis Brown

Actually, Neil Brooks *has* reported you to the Optometry Board, and
to the District Attorney in your county.

Nobody (especially you) has a clue what you're talking about.  Making
up terminology doesn't change the fact that you have consistently
attempted to *prescribe* particular lenses for particular patients on
this forum.  It seems that you may have caused harm to at least a few
of them.

There just doesn't seem to be any proof of this "stair-case myopia"
stuff that you prattle on about, nor any proof that your proposed
therapy has any favorable effect on it.

The relevant governing bodies *have* already investigated Dr. Leung.
Now we'll see what the relevant bodies have to say about *you*.

You're back-pedaling ... as always.  You've been warned oh, so many
times that you're trying to play optometrist with neither a license,
the background, the education, the training, or the knowledge.  I gave
you ample notice that I fully intended to bring your actions to the
appropriate legal authorities if you couldn't control your OCD.

You're SO fond of quotes.  I got one for ya': as ye sow, so shall ye
reap.

Best of luck, Uncle Otie....

As always, enjoy our pleasant discussions about the fundamental nature
of this old coot.

Subject:  On the issue of pure scientific
(not medical) proof that the natural eye
is a dynamic system.

     A HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE BOX-CAMERA THEORY OF THE EYE

          A QUESTION CONCERNING THE NATURE OF PROOF

Reference:  "Introduction to Physiological Optics", by James
        Southall

    I have often hear the words, "prove it", with respect to the
fact that the fundamental eye can have a negative refractive
state.

    Since the "it" is never described, it follows that no one can
ever "prove it".

    But if the requirement is to prove that the eye is an
auto-focused camera versus the box-camera concept, then proof is
possible.

    I wrote my book so that you could help your own daughter
avoid nearsightedness.    I know you want to help others but --
regardless of proof -- I do not think the general public will
understand what must be done.

    Dr.  Jacob Raphaelson went through this 100 years ago, as
described in, "The Printer's Son".  The public wants their distant
vision sharpened instantly, and expects this of you.  Anything
beyond that point they will reject -- unless they are very
motivated and intelligent about this difficult situation.  It is
very clear that the person who desires prevention must have strong
motivation and support from you if the person plans to use the
plus lens effectively.

    In my opinion, your work with the public is very difficult
because the public is not logical, and not consistent in what they
expect.  Unless they have the motivation, they will not push hard
in the proper use of a plus lens.  A professional pilot, who looks
at his own eye chart and sees the results as they develop will be
your best candidate for effective prevention.

    The public demands immediate results and does not listen to
explanations.  They will quit an effort if their is the slightest
problem, or if some other ophthalmologist or optometrist uses
"scare" tactics against them.  If this happens, they will quit the
effort and blame you for anything that might happen with their
eyes.  There is no incentive to attempt to help most people -- and
both you and I understand that truth.

    The health profession has no choice except to apply a minus
lens and (with a few exceptions) suggests that anyone who asks
deeper questions about these issues must be "not-scientific".

    I can accept this as the reality of medicine.  They should
say "non-medical", rather than "not-scientific".

    In science, you pay attention to direct objective
measurements.  This is not quite true in optometry -- as I
described above.

    Tragically, this unfortunate situation has continued since
its inception 400 years ago.  The theory of the eye began this
way:

1.  The lens-developers dealing with the public found a plus lens
   that would sharpen near vision -- when you reached old-age.

2.  In addition, they found that young people with slightly blurry
   distant vision, could clear their distant vision with a minus
   lens.

    The theory of using a lens on the public is based on the
above understanding of responsibility and resulting direct action.
There has been very little improvement in this concept of the eye.

    Around 1600 Johan Kepler (Astronomer) began developing a
pure-refractive theory of the eye.  This was good work, but
assumed that you could "freeze" the eye and make all your
measurements based on the box-camera concept.  This idea never
attempted to analyze the eye's dynamic behavior at all -- only the
refractive properties of an intellectually frozen eye.

    This analysis this approach was good, so the fact that the
eye is not frozen was forgotten.  Kepler's analysis could be used
to support Items 1 and 2.  For this reason the "frozen eye" theory
was accepted as a medical theory -- and anyone who challenged the
concept concerning the bad results of item 2 were told that
Kepler's theory was "proven" and that the natural eye is a rigid
box cameras.

    Kepler's theory was further refined and re-published in 1858
by two ophthalmologists, Dr.  Donders and Dr.  Helmholtz.

    They accepted Kepler's frozen-eye concept, and added further
assumptions.

1.  They assumed that a focal state of exactly zero could be
   considered normal.    Donders invented the word emmetropia to
   describe this idealization of the "frozen" eye.

2.  They assumed that any focal state other than exactly zero must
   be a defect, or "refractive error".  They invented the word
   "ametropia" to describe both positive and negative focal
   states of all normal eyes.

    Don't get me wrong at this point.  These were great men in
medicine at that time.    But they continued the academic assumption
of Kepler, that you could "freeze" the eye and do a pure
refractive analysis.  They also assumed that you could translate a
relative focal state into an absolute dimensions.  (i.e., they
assumed that if the eye had a focal state of zero, it must have an
exact length of 24.38 mm.  In fact no relationship has ever been
established.)

    By doing this, they thought that they made the Kepler's
theory into proof that the eye was "too long", when the natural
eye simply had a normal but undesired negative focal state.

    This box-camera theory made the use of a plus or minus lens
seem more systematic, although it requires a belief that the eye
is defective if it has a negative or positive focal state.  (i.e.,
if your eyes have a focal state that is not zero, you are
suffering from "stress and strain" because the eye is too long or
too short.  The reasoning here is circular, because it is not
proven that a focal state of zero corresponds to a exact length.
It is only an assumption that you can convert relative
measurements into absolute dimensions.)

    In any event, this theory makes all eyes defective by
definition -- a thesis of doubtful validity.

    Why should we object to Kepler's theory, which became the a
theory of practice?  As a theory that allows refractive analysis
of an idealized eye it is excellent.  As a theory of the eye that
reproduces the actual motion and change of focal state of the
natural eye -- it is not accurate.

    Kepler's pure-refractive theory was correct, but the
assumptions of the follow-on (Donders-Helmholtz) theory are not
accurate or correct.

    In the light of experimental data developed in the last 50
years we should begin developing a better conceptual model of the
eye's dynamic behavior.

    The experimental facts demonstrate that all eyes change their
focal state as the visual environment is changed.  By reference to
the facts, the eye is established to be a well designed
auto-focused camera.  (i.e., you can make ALL eyes nearsighted by
forced wearing of a minus lens.)

    The type of data needed to demonstrate this truth was not
available in 1860.  So the original conception should undergo
evolution to account for these recently developed facts.  But in
fact, the operative reasons for using a plus or minus lens have
not change since their original inception -- 400 years ago.  Thus
the "theory of the eye" is driven by expediency, and not by
objective scientific facts -- in my humble opinion.

    Science is based on objective facts.  We should be able to
recognize that there is a problem with expanding Kepler's theory,
beyond its original intended scope.  He did an excellent
refractive analysis.  He did not intend that we believe that all
eyes are rigid box cameras that are defective because they have
focal states other than zero.

    We suggest that the natural eye is an auto-focused camera,
and that, for this reason, the natural eyes must change its focal
state (which you measure) as you change the visual environment
(which you control).  Since we are using neutral language to
describe this situation, it follows that experimental conformation
(that all eyes are auto-focused cameras) will be straight forward.
The nature of this type of experiment can hardly be argued.

    This means that the evolution-designed eye can have both
negative and positive focal states, and not be defective.

    In fact, the measured focal state of your eyes is directly
dependent on your accommodation level -- in diopters.

    Obviously, if you work for long hours, your normal eyes are
going to develop a negative focal state.  This is perfectly normal
and an expected for an auto-focus camera.

    The Helmholtz-Donders theory, and its required assumption has
never been objectively tested -- as stated by Dr.  William H.
Bates.    This means, that the box-camera picture of the eye is
misleading at best.  At worst, it blinds us to a potential method
of preventing the development of nearsightedness by aggressive use
of a plus lens.

    Sincerely,

    Otis Brown

What's perfectly clear is you have adopted your own sign convention, the
exact opposite of conventional use.

Simple concepts for simple minds.

Human physiology should be redesigned so it isn't so blasted complicated.
Don't you think?

I'm using "force-of-will" to keep elephants from trampling my front yard. So
far, it's worked great.

It is an elaborate ruse to glorify fringe pseudoscience as medical advice.

Perhaps you could get Dr. Leung to participate here. Because you aren't
making sense.

Nice to know you have our future mapped out so neatly.

Everyone should be offered elephant repellent.

-MT