Ace-

Aren't you troubled, at all, by the evidence that has been presented
here DISproving the nonsense, and the LACK of evidence provided by
Otis that /proves/ his theory?

Dear Aceman,

Subject:  Prevention as the second-opinion, applied correctly.

I wish I had known back when I got my first pescription at -1 that I
had a choice.

Otis>  You SHOULD have had a choice, but due to the Neil-Brooks
effect (an OD will get sued if he attempts to help you with the plus)
NO OD WILL SAY SQUAT ABOUT IT.)  But you find this out
by interviewing prevention-minded ODs.  The real "test" is what
the second-opinion OD does with his own children.  If that
OD insists that his kids begin wearing the preventive-plus (when
the kids refractive state is zero) then you have found the "right" OD
for you.  It then becomes a matter of whether you will follow his
advice -- or not.
Payment should be based on his professional time.  But I do admit
that some kids have some serious "bad visual habits" that the parents
would have to stop -- and part of this second-opinion process.

Ace> I didnt even have internet back then and never heard of
any vision improvement.

Otis>  I prefer to say avoiding a negative refractive state of the
natural eye -- but
then that would make the situation absolutly clear -- when you
check the primate data -- on a scientific level.

Ace> Theres nothing I can do about the past but I am
doing my best to fix the present.

Otis>  Ace, why not just throw in the towel -- and get Lasik?  Your
retina
is capable of 20/20, and I believe you are 23 years old.  That will
solve your "problem" and you will be done with it.  Providing you
are not in school, your normal vision will last for about 20 years.

Ace>  I do know I can clear some myopia, I
already cleared .75 diopters and have at least another diopter to
clear. I will be happy just to be able to get down to 20/200
uncorrected, this is my relistic goal. Any idea what choice of glasses
I should take? I dont want to become a high myope!

Otis> If you are out of college -- then your vision will remain stable.
But why bother.  Just get Lasik and be done with it.

Best,

Otis

Dear Aceman,

I would also point out that "medical treatement" is a system -- that
protects itself from psychos like Neil Brooks.  (Read his latest
blast against your right to an informed, competent second-opinion.

It is any surprise that "treatment" sinks to the lowest common
denominator -- essentially defined and envorced by idiots
like Neil?

This is not the fault of the ODs -- but we all get caught up in
this "system" -- don't we?

Sorry you did -- my friend.

Best,

Otis

Dear Aceman

Subject:  Success clearing from 20/70 to 20/40 or better.

As you now understand -- practice is not defined by a scientific
understanding of the facts concerning the dynamic behavior of
the natural primate eye.  It is defined by the Neil-Brooks effect,
and indeed, it is very easy to "crank" on a minus lens and
give a person who PASSES the DMV very sharp vision -- of
20/15 and even 20/10.  (Best Visual Acuity.)  But the
real issue is  the question of doing that -- and the
secondary effect of it.

But the real issue of prevention is that it is "tedious" and
most people do not "like" it.  Fine, but that these are
the two (and only) reasons why prevention is not
"used" or offered.

But I think you figured this out already.

Here is an evaluation of effective prevention and
why it is so darned difficult.   Maybe this will explain why a person
will "reject" it.

Chalmer Prentice, M.D. had some good insights about:

1.  The dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye, and

2.  The public's rejection of the plus, and

3.  It can be effective for the person how masters the understanding
and skill in using it "correctly".

_____________

The difficulty is not the statement of what is necessary. It
is in helping the person develop the knowledge and
force-of-character to successfully implement this advice.

Today a great mass of explict DIRECT factual data spells out
the true effect that both a "confined environment" AND a minus
lens ultimately has on the refractive status of the eye.

What happens when you try to help a person use the plus as
described by Chalmer at the 20/50 level? The person states -- I
don't understand why I must use the plus -- my eye's are OK. Take
your plus lens and shove it.

This should explain why, even the ODs who "wake up" to the
necessity of using the plus -- never volunteer information about
it.  (The Neil-Brooks effect.)

When I encounterd this information (after a long search)
I was pissed.  Why not just TELL ME ABOUT THIS?

If I have the fortitude, and am 20/70, then I should
know this -- and DO IT MYSELF.  While indeed
difficult, what is wrong with that?

Best,

Otis

----------------

The Eye in its Relation to Health

===============================

By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.

Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004

Chapter IX

...The following are some very interesting experiments in
myopia which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
near point.

[In the case of 20/50 myopia, "repression" means using a
strong plus that completely ellimates the "near" environment.
This means that the person finds the "blur point" at near, and
pulls the book in SLIGHTLY. This is to insure that the "plus" has
the maximum possible effect. OSB]

In either class of cases, repression must be made at the near
point.

In various lengths of time, we shall be able to reduce the
myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more.

[I would suggest that the person himself (at -1 diopters) IF
HE HAS THE MOTIVATION can clear his distant vision to pass the
required 20/40 line on his own eye chart. OSB]

In most cases satisfactory results will require considerable
time and patience; but a few experiments after the following
example will suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of
myopia, it is possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward
course by repression at the near point.

[This just suggests that much greater emphasis should be
placed on PREVENTION with the plus -- when the person himself can
take the responsibility to do this work completely under his own
control. OSB]

This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes
an open question.

[From the Oakley-Young study, it is clear that a slighly
myopic eye will pick up a rate of -1/2 diopter per year (average)
if a minus is worn all the time. The issue now is far more than
an "open
question". It is a proven reality. OSB]

AGE 43 NEARSIGHTEDNESS

...Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right
eye -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space
of two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths (20/20 OSB)
of vision, while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the
acuity was just perceptibly less.

[Since then, the DMV standard around the world has become
approximately 20/40. Almost the only people legally REQUIRED to
have 20/20 are professional pilots. Be clear in your mind about
this issue. OSB]

During this time the general health had improved somewhat,
including considerable gain in the nervous condition.

Similar results have been attained in thirty-four like cases;

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

EMPHASIS:

"...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Anyone who is considering "prevention" at the -1.5 diopter
level (20/60) must realize that the process is tedious. That
seems to be the real "objection" to prevention. This really
becomes a "personal" issue for you to resolve. It is easy to
"talk" about vision-clearing with the plus. Sounds simple until
you realize that you must make the use of a strong-plus a "habit"
for from 8 to 15 months. Just remember, it takes about 15 months
to develop -3/4 diopters of myopia -- and it is likley to take the
same amount of time to clear back to 20/40 (to pass the DMV) and
then to 20/25 and 20/20. If you are looking for an "easy" or
"quick" method -- there is none. OSB]

_____________________________________________

Otis> This suggest that a "tutorial", or an "education" review
must be supplied to the person BEFORE that minus lens is
used. Clearing vision from 20/70 to 20/40 (-1.0 diopters to
-1/4 diopter) is possible and reasonable -- provided the
issue is handled HONESTLY. I suggest the term "second
opinion" should be used as part of an offer of
true-prevention.

Otis> If the person can not accept this requirement, and gets
"stair-case" myopia because of an over-prescribed minus lens
then he would have only himself to blame -- in my opinion.

Otis> I would GLADLY PAY a professional for his time to describe
the above to me. I would have nothing to lose. I think it
is time that we learn to take this issue more seriously.

Otis> Today, we can state that there is almost absolute proof for
this dynamic-eye concept -- provided we keep the subject on
a pure-scientific level.

So, Catman, now you know how you got caught up in this sytem!

Best,

Otis