acema...@yahoo.com wrote:

Ace-

Thank you very much for providing more anecdotal (or purely made up)
'evidence.'

Perhaps -- just perhaps -- the mushrooms are wearing off.  Maybe it's
time you progressed to LSD, mescaline, peyote, or even ayahuasco.

Best,

Neil

Dear Ace,

Subject:  The pure science of Francis Young.

Re:  Remarks about the sincere RT -- and myself.

Re:  "Quick's" Statement.

The primate data proves that the fundamental eye is
dynamic -- as a dynamic system.  Ergo, the living
eye can and does have positive or negative refractive
states.

This is pure science -- and not medicine.  As long as
we understand the natural eye's behavior in this matter
we can PREVENT a negative refractive states by
ENDING that "near" environment with a plus lens.

That is engineering and science -- and NOT MEDICINE.

As long as we have these "distortion" of understanding
(sematics) and call natural refractive states (organic defects,
or words to that effect) we wind up making scientific
facts and truth into a "medical issue".  Let is be
clear -- I make engineering statements about the
behavior of all natural eyes -- which is respect as
dynamic systems -- and I EXPECT this type of
behavior.

It is our "choice of words" that is a failure.

To further respond.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Quick>  ..theme song of Weird Science playin in background.

Otis>  General "attitude" of the general public.  Quick
understands NOTHING of this issue.

Otis> But I do respect your ingelligence in this matter.
But in a deeper sense -- your right of choice.

Quick>  Parse error...

Otis>  I get is.  Quick is "perfect".

Otis> Ace, your questions are all over the map -- with due
respect.

Otis>  What about the one where he asked how much
you've "cleared" your own vision?

Otis>  Good question.  The Oakley-Young study is clear
on that point.  It is possible to PREVENT, and
"cear" PROVIDED YOU START BEFORE YOU
BEGIN WEARING THAT MINUS LENS.

Otis>  That is why I suggest that to begin "changing"
this situation we be OFFERED a "choice" in this
matter when your refractive STATE is -1 diopter
(20/60).  You can clear your vision at that point,
and under your control (not OD CONTROL).  This
is what Stirling Colgate did -- as well as other
pilots.  Again, the Oakley-Young study implies
that beyond -1 diopter -- clearing is almost
impossible.  Thus I MAKE NO STATEMENT
ABOUT CLEARING BEYOND -1 DIOPTER.
It is a second-opinion choice -- and you must
make it.

Otis>  This is the type of choice Keith had -- and
he WORKED AT THE USE OF THE PLUS.

Otis>  And consistent with the Oakley-Young study
he kept is vision clear from age 13 to age 40.

Otis> But that is a "statement" of HIS ability.
Others can make their own judgment of it.

Otis> I make my statement about the
behavior of all PRIMATE eyes from the
study of the primate eyes.

Otis> Others who do  not like the proof
for the dynamikc living eye -- can "trash" the
science of it -- and wear their minus lens and
get stair-case myopia from it.  Is
that what you want?

Otis>  Just remember, I "accept" that I did some
"dumb things" with my eyes (described by RT)
so I take personal responsibility for the
consequences to me.  No one is to
"blame" but we must take the
first "preventive" steps.

Otis> In my opinion.  

Best,

Otis

-Quick