Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2006
Otis
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Doogle - 01 Apr 2006 00:49 GMT Ok first of all, I want to say this, what the **** is the matter with you people? Someone says they improved their vision w/o "eye crutches" and you instantly deem him a nutcase. I'm sick of traditional eye doctors and their bs....Want to slap me on a pair of stronger eye glasses then get pissed if I ask for a 20/40 pair...I hae every right to refuse the eye doctor's choices as these are my eyes. If Otis chooses not listen to them either, then why the **** do you babble **** at him? I too experienced moments of brief clarity w/o my glasses. I'm 20/400 yet I have mo problen in walking around w/o my eye crutches. Tell me this Judy or any of you other **** head doctors, what's the LONG term effects of wearing glasses? Why does vision gets worse when you wear a new RX after a week? And how do you explain a 27 year old starting to see myopai...? Surely not genteitc as that person is past that age and that person is still young so you can't say vision deteriorates with age, By that logic, a 40 year old in normal health should be having health problems from age. Answer my questions doctors and don't give me no bs answers.
Bassslapper - 01 Apr 2006 01:18 GMT This ought to be good. I wait with bated breath for the rebuttal posts to commence :)
I too have experienced clarity and improvement through behavioral optometry. Mine is probably an improvement in my ability to accomodate and be more efficient in the use of my eyes. Any axial-length myopia will probably not resolve thouhg I am not convinced that there cannot be more improvement and that myopia is a 100% genetically-based phenominom. I feel there is a strong environmental stiumuls that activates the myopia genes.
You can refuse the right to what the eye doctor prescribes you but you also need to be smart and make sure you are at least corrected to certain legal parameters, like when you drive. I almost never wear my glasses unless I am driving. As much as I hate them I don't want to risk endangering myself or anyone else while on the road.
Speaking of Otis, I have not seen him on this forum in a while. Hope he is okay. The reason people here slam Otis is because his opponents feel his information is skewed, disproven, and not backed up enough beyond a couple of studies. There is also concern that his views toward using plus lenses are the equivalent of dispensing medical advice, of which Otis readily admits he is not licensed to do.
RT - 01 Apr 2006 02:11 GMT > The reason people here slam Otis is because his opponents feel > his information is skewed, disproven, and not backed up enough beyond a > couple of studies. Well it's actually not backed up by any study on humans. If you are a monkey or a chicken, I'd be the first to recommend his "method" to you.
 Signature ~RT
Doogle - 01 Apr 2006 05:04 GMT I do wear them when driving...That, I will wear them for. However, I do not blame genetics for being a high myope..Sure, one or two diopters maybe but higher, no way...When I was young, I remember I could see well especially in the classroom. However, as time grew on around the mid of Kindergarten, my vision got a little bad and I had to wear glasses...Now my diet was bad at the time, my habits were terrible(sat VERY close to the TV, had the book up close to my nose, etc.), and never played any sports. I will wear my current 5 year old RX but I will not wear anything stronger nor will I buy a new pair of glasses unless I can use my current lens.
Doogle - 01 Apr 2006 05:04 GMT I do wear them when driving...That, I will wear them for. However, I do not blame genetics for being a high myope..Sure, one or two diopters maybe but higher, no way...When I was young, I remember I could see well especially in the classroom. However, as time grew on around the mid of Kindergarten, my vision got a little bad and I had to wear glasses...Now my diet was bad at the time, my habits were terrible(sat VERY close to the TV, had the book up close to my nose, etc.), and never played any sports. I will wear my current 5 year old RX but I will not wear anything stronger nor will I buy a new pair of glasses unless I can use my current lens.
Scott Seidman - 03 Apr 2006 13:32 GMT "Bassslapper" <dr_george@prodigy.net> wrote in news:1143850713.175615.63180 @i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> he reason people here slam Otis is because his opponents feel > his information is skewed, disproven, and not backed up enough beyond a > couple of studies. No, we slam Otis because he says the same thing over and over like a parrot, never adds anything new, and never acknowledges counterarguments. He may as well be standing on a milk crate on a street corner.
He doesn't want a discussion, he wants a pulpit.
 Signature Scott Reverse name to reply
drfrank21@gmail.com - 01 Apr 2006 04:16 GMT > Ok first of all, I want to say this, what the **** is the matter with > you people? Someone says they improved their vision w/o "eye crutches" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > should be having health problems from age. Answer my questions doctors > and don't give me no bs answers. Obviously your mind is already made up and no amount of discourse will satisfy you. I'm not going to be baited from a troll but a couple of points. First, Otis presents his "opinions" as fact. His opinions are just that, opinions from an ill-informed layperson.
Second, vision does not get worse after wearing glasses for a week. I'll make it simple with this analogy- a hearing impaired person gets fitted with hearing aids and suddenly his/her hearing is dramatically improved. When that person removes the hearing aids he/she notices the difference much more dramatically. Does that person now have worse hearing after a week? Of course not. The person just notices the difference more readily.
frank
otisbrown@pa.net - 01 Apr 2006 05:32 GMT Dear Doogle,
Subject: Thanks for your vote of confidence.
There is a need that we "learn together".
There is a need that we understand the nature of the second-opnion as expressed by Steve Leung OD.
www.chinamyopia.org
Prevention (at refractive state of zero) is a one-time offer. Turn it down, and you can expect stair-case myopia to follow, as proven by the Oakley Young study.
I have no problem with a person turning "down" prevention-with-plus.
But THEN I expect him to "accept" the stair-case myopia that in necessarily the PROVEN effect of a minus on a population of fundamental primate eyes.
Yes, these majority-opnion ODs trash the concept of the dynamc eye -- and most of the posters are profoundly hostile to the concept of the PREVENTIVE second opnion.
They make their bed -- and they will lie in it.
Please enjoy our pleasant discussions about they proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye.
Best,
Otis
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 01 Apr 2006 06:23 GMT We miss you, Otis! You have alot of supporters! I strongly believe in natural vision improvement. I too have been wearing weak glasses for more than a year now and my vision has sharpened a little. I remember being told I was almost -6 diopters last year in the worse eye and -5 in the better eye! I believe im now near -5 in the worse eye and -4 or -4.25 in the better! I believe I can get down to around -3 and never get worse ever again. I am wearing -3.25 glasses and as my vision improves, I should see more lines with those! I remember I was 20/70 with -4.5 glasses when I started NVI. 2 months ago, I tested at 20/40 to 20/50 with -4.25 glasses! In fact I am seeing 20/70 some days with my -3.25 glasses! I expect to achieve 20/50 with those by the end of 2006 and get my pescription to less than -4!
Quick - 01 Apr 2006 08:10 GMT > We miss you, Otis! You have alot of supporters! I Ace, Ace, and Ace, and Brasslapper. oh, and the troll who can't type because he refuses to wear his glasses.
-Quick
otisbrown@pa.net - 02 Apr 2006 02:47 GMT Dear AceMan,
Subject: True-prevention with the plus is possible.
This depends COMPLETELY on the person's understanding of:
1. The Eskimo developing myopia -- over three generations.
2. The position of an person who can only "react" to this situation. (The OD in his office -- "servicing" Neil Books "types")
3. The implication of the dynamic behavior of the fundamental primate eye.
4. The implicaion of the Oakley-Young study, that if the plus is agressively used at that threshold, nearsightedness (a negative refefractive state) can be avoided.
I have forwarded these majority-opinion statements to Keith for his own judgment.
Here is my statement about this current thread.
Otis
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dear Keith,
Subject: The OBLIGATION of a professional
"New ideas are always criticized - not because an idea lacks merit, but because it might turn out to be workable, which would threaten the reputations of many people whose opinions conflict with it. Some people may even lose their jobs."
Physicist, requested anonymity
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt -- prior to investigation."
Herbert Spencer
It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.
G. K. Chesterson
A professional should keep current with developments in fundamental science. (i.e., the implications of the primate studies.)
He should begin understanding the scientific fact that the natural primate eye is "dynamic", rather than stone-walling the public about those self-same facts.
But you will NEVER get this from a majority-opnion OD.
It is true that prevention-with-plus is difficult. It requires personal insight, and considerable fortitude to keep on using it. The consequences of NOT using it (in school and college) become serious. But very few people "wake up" in time to do it "right".
I know of few people who have managed to "wake up" in this preventive issue and have done it "right".
I count "success" this way. You verify your distant vision a "blurry". Some majority-opinion OD stated you "need" a minus lens. You UNDERSTAND the nature of the "choice" and "work" the plus as a "habit" -- because you are wise enough to know the long-term consequences if you don't do it.
That "ability" seems to be beyond the "grasp" of 99 percent of the population at this time.
For your enjoyment, here is Doogle, a 20/400 myope -- who "objects" to his current situation.
And then you have the response of these majority-opnion ODs -- who seem to ONLY "defend" the "practice" -- rather than offering you a "choice".
The general public is (tragically) intellectually blind, and the majority-opnion ODs only slightly less so. They "go together". It takes a "good mind" to penetrate this God-awlful minus-lens mess.
Otis
The Central Scrutinizer - 01 Apr 2006 23:30 GMT >Answer my questions doctors and don't give me no bs answers. I'm not a doctor, but I have seen Otis' posts for long enough to conclude that he should not be trusted. I say this because he is more closed-minded than his detractors. If his positions were credible, he would AT LEAST be willing address specific questions concerning his views. As an example, I have asked him on SEVERAL occasions why studies on chickens and monkeys should be considered applicable to humans. I illustrated why, in my layman view, these studies should not be applied to humans. I asked for him to explain to me why I was wrong, or what I was missing. He has on every occasion declined to comment. Not promising.
As well, he continually ignores calls for supporting evidence. His positions are based on a scarce number of resources, some of which are questionable at best. Steve Leung and chinamyopia.org is pretty much all that's consistently on the Otis menu.
And finally, he is an unmitigated HYPOCRITE. He repeatedly denies that he gives medical advice; but in one post, he advises that a patient question their OP about use of the plus lens, and that if the practicioner does not return a point of view consistent with Otis', that the patient FIND ANOTHER PRACTICIONER who will. My calls of foul at this blatant hypocrisy, again, went unanswered.
I don't pretend to speak for others, but I expect there are several in the group who share these concerns and objections.
It is not Otis' views that I personally object to; rather, it the way he conducts himself in the group. He has an agenda. This much should be clear. That bias in itself puts his credibility into question. His continued disregard for calls for clarification, and his utter hypocrisy about giving medical advice have ruined any hope of him regaining that credibility.
If he wants to become less of a pariah, he does not need to change his views; he does need to take a long, hard look at how he has chosen to express these views.
BD
otisbrown@pa.net - 02 Apr 2006 01:41 GMT Dear BD,
Subject: The TYPE of questions you are willing to ASK about the behavior of all natural (primate) eyes.
Doogle>Answer my questions doctors and don't give me no bs answers.
BD> I'm not a doctor, but I have seen Otis' posts for long enough to conclude that he should not be trusted.
Otis> "Trust" is always an interesting word. The question is do I "trust" a professional who discusses the second (preventive) opinion with me -- when my refrative state is zero?
Otis> Do I "trust" a professional who examines the primate data, the Oakley-Young data, the Eskimo data, and other issues, and concludes that his OWN CHILDREN must start wearing that plus BEFORE they even "required" the minus.
Otis> As long as you are informed of these issues, and DECIDE FOR YOUSELF -- then I have no problem if you LOVE that minus, and develop stair-case myopia from it. That is a large part of the "trust" question, isn't it.
Doogle asked the question -- what would happen if you placed a minus lens on a population of primate eyes. Would they go "down", or wouild they not. All he has received are "evasions" and chage-of-subject from these majority-opinion ODs. It is up to Doogle to decide if he "trusts" the majority opinion -- any more.
BD> I say this because he is more closed-minded than his detractors.
Otis> I assume that includes you also. Just be honest here.
BD> If his positions were credible, he would AT LEAST be willing address specific questions concerning his views.
Otis> I have. See the scientific statement about the PROVEN behavior off all natural eyes. Only use the NETURAL word REFRACTIVE STATE -- to show you know how to make OBJECTIVE measurements.
BD> As an example, I have asked him on SEVERAL occasions why studies on chickens and monkeys should be considered applicable to humans.
Otis> That is truly the "break point". I consider that issue of critical scientific importance -- to lead any further discussion of PREVENTING a negative refractive state for the fundamental eye.
Otis> If you consider the primate studies a JOKE -- then we part company -- permanently -- at that point.
BD> I illustrated why, in my layman view, these studies should not be applied
to humans.
Otis> Fine -- you have made YOUR position absolutly clear. You should NEVER be concerned with prevention.
Otis> But the issues was to provide Doogle with an HONEST answer about the behavior of the natural primate eye -- on a scientific level. And explain the majority-opnion BS that denies scientific proof.
BD> I asked for him to explain to me why I was wrong,
Otis> You are not "wrong" to excluse all scientific data and proof that YOU DO NOT "LIKE". Just confused.
BD> or what I was missing.
Otis> If you don't know what you are "missing" then obviously I can not explain it to you.
BD> He has on every occasion declined to comment.
Otis> Read the above -- that is my comment. If you are completely happy with you minus contact -- the this discussion is obviously not for you -- in the first place.
BD> Not promising.
Otis> As you wish.
Best,
Otis
Neil Brooks - 02 Apr 2006 03:08 GMT Annnnd ... he *still* didn't answer you.
The Central Scrutinizer - 02 Apr 2006 05:28 GMT >Annnnd ... he *still* didn't answer you. Yeah, I had a mental 'drum roll' running in my head all afternoon, waiting for his (non) response.
Interesting attempts to dodge this time, too; suggesting that if I think primate studies are a joke (which I don't, I genuinely wanted a thought out answer, not just another website link), then we part company... trying to shift the onus on me to somehow be 'qualified' to receive a thoughtful response. A little egocentric, but I guess that's consistent.
Oh well. At least there are words in there, rather than just a vacuum. Still makes me a little sad to read, though - the guy's little more than a broken record; all he does is replace the needle once in a while.
retinula@hotmail.com - 02 Apr 2006 03:58 GMT otis,
lets discuss HUMAN primates, not baby chicks or shrews or monkeys.
why did shotwells study show that plus didn't reduce myopia progression in humans? why did Goss' study show that overminusing did not induce myopia progression in humans as you claim it does? why did chung's studies show that undercorrection using reduced minus actually increases myopia development? how come the preponderance of bifocal studies shows no myopia reduction?
why do you not acknowledge these studies and instead cling to old disproven theories from 30 years ago?
forget the tired old raphaelson stories. and forget about keith and other anecdotal reports of improvement. lets discuss real scientific studies with controls and statistical analysis on HUMANS.
HOW COME YOUR THEORY ISN'T SUPPORTED BY THE HUMAN DATA?
P.S. hows your investigation by the licensing authorities from the state of pennsylvania coming along?
The Central Scrutinizer - 02 Apr 2006 05:56 GMT >If you consider the primate studies a JOKE -- then we part company -- permanently -- at that point. I did not even HINT that they were a joke. I asked you specific, reasoned questions - I presented my position, and in case you've forgotten, I will repeat it here.
My position/argument was that the normal adjustment/accomodation that humans go through in the course of a normal day is different than that of primates: we humans spend hours at a time staring at TV sets, computer screens, et cetera, while primates do not - they change their area of focus from the flea on their fur, to the horizon, to the bars on their cages - they are VERY unlikely to be staring at an object the same distance away for hours on end. Therefore, reason suggests, that the muscles which affect the lens of their eye are behaving differently, changing the shape of the lens more frequently. This strikes me as a fundamental distinction between humans and primates. Further, I argued that if there are fundamental distinctions in the behavior of the muscles of the eyes of different species, that these MUST be considered as variables in the development of their vision. Before studies conducted on primates can be seriously extended to be taken as relevant to humans, this variable should be quantified, and ideally eliminated.
These may not be correct points, Otis, but they are reasonable.
Will you now: -Argue that the behaviors of humans versus primates are NOT different in this regard? -Argue that even though the behaviours and accomodations of primates may indeed differ from those of humans, that these differences have no effect on the development of the vision of the two species?
You mention the word JOKE: Well, sir, I give you a perfect opportunity to establish the credibility you seem to desperately seek.
ADDRESS MY QUESTION.
And PLEEEASE, do not just use rhetoric. PLEEEEASE, do not ask me to visit chinamyopia.org. PLEEEEASE, do not ask me to read Steve Leung's research.
What I am asking is SIMPLE.
ANSWER
MY
QUESTION
DIRECTLY.
BD
Doogle - 02 Apr 2006 06:59 GMT You've yet to answer my question Mr. I Hate Otis Because He Chooses To Find A Better Way.......
How come the eyes get worse even after following the OD's advice? How come the vision gets worse after getting a new RX and wearing it for about a week? Why does my eyes hurt when putting on my glasses then I have problems trying to focus but when I take them off, my eyes feel better and I have no problem focusing. How come my vision improved a little from doing vision exercises because I was able to move books and stuff a bit farther away from me to read.... Go on and answer. Otis gave info. from research so why can't you do the same. You claim and act as if you know so much about myopia enough to prove Otis wrong so how come you keep dodging my questions. If ODs are right, why did they pressure the FDA to raid a warehouse filled with pinholes when the things are virtually harmless unlike "eye crutches?"
The Central Scrutinizer - 02 Apr 2006 10:03 GMT >You claim and act as if you know so much about myopia enough to prove Otis wrong Horseshit. I never claimed any such thing. Make me a liar.
>how come you keep dodging my questions I'm not dodging anything. I do not pretend I can answer your questions. I'm not an OD. Never said I was. You go find a post in which I make a direct claim about myopia... good luck.
Oh, and by the way - when you start a thread with such a sweepingly venomous attack on people as you have chosen to unleash here, don't be particularly stunned if people are reluctant to indulge you. It's kind of like coming up to someone and saying "Hey! F*ckf@ce! Can I borrow twenty bucks?"
Anything else?
Dr. Leukoma - 02 Apr 2006 12:30 GMT How come you never use your accommodation, and then when forced to do so by wearing your glasses, you get accommodative spasm?
How come objects seem more blurry after you have been used to seeing them clearly with your glasses?
How come some people have a small amount of non-axial myopia called pseudo-myopia? Why do people in their late forties and fifties undergo a small amount of myopia reversal of about the same magnitude, and without changing their eyeglasses or their behavior?
Why does Otis quote sparse research that is more than 20 years old, and then conveniently ignore some very key aspects of those studies.
Why doesn't Otis ever answer a question directly?
Why do you think there is a worldwide conspiracy to withold the "truth." Why is it that you never see real eye doctors, vision researchers, their families, or their children wearing minus lenses?
How can Uri Geller bend spoons on TV?
DrG
John Yasar - 02 Apr 2006 13:16 GMT Doogle;
I have used "plus" lenses forever. They don't work. Simple as that. I did try them because I was desperate, just like many out there. I did try them because of the strict restrictions of military flying which I would like to make a career from in the future.
Instead of yacking away here, I suggest to all Otis supporters here to go ahead and get "plus" lenses according to his instructions and suggestions. Try them, what are you going to lose? Nothing... All ODs over here will agree that using a +1.00 or +1.50 for reading is not going to do any harm to you. What are you going to gain? A bunch of well-trained and educated OD friends who are not out there to rob you give you valid advice. And oh, yes, same or a little worse Rx despite the lengthy use of "plus" lenses. You ain't going to have eagle vision after using your plus lenses for many months. It just doesn't work that way.
Dan Abel - 02 Apr 2006 17:34 GMT > I have used "plus" lenses forever. They don't work. Simple as that. Plus lenses work great. I wear them all the time, like right now, even. That's why they sell them OTC, because they work. For folks like me who have lost the ability to focus, plus lenses let me see the computer screen and read.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
John Yasar - 04 Apr 2006 08:09 GMT > Plus lenses work great. I wear them all the time, like right now, even. > That's why they sell them OTC, because they work. For folks like me who > have lost the ability to focus, plus lenses let me see the computer > screen and read. Dan, we are not on the same page here, when I said "they don't work I meant that they don't work as Otis suggests them to work. You certainly don't use your near glasses for *reversing* your myopia!!!
Dan Abel - 04 Apr 2006 09:11 GMT > > Plus lenses work great. I wear them all the time, like right now, even. > > That's why they sell them OTC, because they work. For folks like me who [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > meant that they don't work as Otis suggests them to work. You certainly > don't use your near glasses for *reversing* your myopia!!! I knew exactly what you meant, it was just a little gentle reminder of why they sell these lenses OTC, which is to help folks like me, not to prevent myopia in children.
I have no myopia now, and my vision is set for distance, which is why I use OTC reading glasses. I have little plastic lenses inside my eyes, which were implanted surgically when they fixed my cataract.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
John Yasar - 04 Apr 2006 09:22 GMT > I knew exactly what you meant, it was just a little gentle reminder of > why they sell these lenses OTC, which is to help folks like me, not to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > use OTC reading glasses. I have little plastic lenses inside my eyes, > which were implanted surgically when they fixed my cataract. Sorry about using such a broad term "they don't work" I should have said, they don't work as advertised by Otis. Yes I got that habit of using it when reading and using computer. Though not for reversing myopia, but to prevent the strain of accommodation to a level.
otisbrown@pa.net - 02 Apr 2006 18:10 GMT Dear John,
Good to hear from you.
You express your opinion well.
But even among pilots, there is a jugement that a negative refractive state of the natural eye can be prevented.
Here is Fred Deakin's experience with the plus.
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
Simon Dean - 02 Apr 2006 18:44 GMT Good god, can't you just give us all a link to your website instead? Would make things so much easier and nicer and less cluttered. And when are you going to fix your line width to wrap at 72?
acemanvx@yahoo.com - 03 Apr 2006 06:42 GMT Doogle wrote:
> You've yet to answer my question Mr. I Hate Otis Because He Chooses To > Find A Better Way....... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > pressure the FDA to raid a warehouse filled with pinholes when the > things are virtually harmless unlike "eye crutches?" I agree with you 200% optometrists are out to give you a quick fix, let your eyes worsen then have you as a repeat customer and make more and more money! Many people find that after wearing new glasses, their eyes go into accomodative spasms and when they take their glasses off or go to old glasses, thing are more blurry. I have worn full power glasses for a few hours then I switch to weaker glasses and everything is more blurry than usual but after wearing the weaker glasses for a few hours, some of the blur clears up! As for reading, I also noticed I can read further now. I remember reading like 3 inches closer than I do now. The improvement is gradual so theres no "wow" factor and you dont even remember how bad your vision was before as youve taken your new, improved vision for granted. Measure your progress and keep records like I did.
"How come some people have a small amount of non-axial myopia called pseudo-myopia?"
almost everyone has 1/2 diopter of pseudomyopia but some people may have around 2 diopters of it, probably like me for example. This explains why 95% of people improve at least half a diopter, 50% of people improve at least a diopter. Not only that, they also stop their eyes from worsening.
"I have used "plus" lenses forever. They don't work. Simple as that"
Whats your myopic pescription? Has it been stable forever? You may have lenticular myopia or steeper than normal corneas and no pseudomyopia and no axial myopia.
"Try them, what are you going to lose? Nothing... All ODs over here will agree that using a +1.00 or +1.50 for reading is not going to do any harm to you. What are you going to gain?"
the 95% with at least 1/2 diopter pseudomyopia will improve their vision. +1 readers are way too weak. My vision improvement guide suggests +3 and a focal point of at least 13 inches. If you are -1.5, wear +1.5 readers and read NO closer than 13 inches!
"You ain't going to have eagle vision after using your plus lenses for many months. It just doesn't work that way."
Of course not considering an eagle sees 20/2!
"> And of course, 85 percent myopia in Singapore
> seems to be a big joke to you. No one said its a joke. Lets talk about treatments. Do plus lenses help Asians? Why do you think that the high prevalence of myopia in Asian countries somehow supports your stupid plus lens theory in any way?"
Asians really know how to ruin their eyes with all the reading they do, sometimes forgetting to take off their glasses to read!
Doogle - 03 Apr 2006 07:12 GMT Trad. ODs don't give a damn about anything but money. I've playe tested the VFL program and I saw a small improvement in a day. That's from doing some of the exercises and I'm 20/400 I have no problems using my eye glasses as tools when I need them. if I don't need them, I take them off. Come on people who criticize Otis. Why have you not answered my questions. How come myopia worsens after getting a new RX? How come a 27 year old develops myopia? If my myopia is "genetic," how come I saw well when I was little. You trad. OD followers criticize Otis and try to prove how wrong he is yet none of you who critizes him have the balls to answer such a simple question. Why did the ODs pressure the FDA to attack a warehouse filled with pinholes? What's wrong trad. OD followers. Can't answer a few simple questions or are you spending so much time kissing the trad. ODs' a.ses.... Seems like even a chimp can be an OD and that's just sad. Why else would Wal-Mart have a dead beat OD in their store? Simply because it doesn't take much to slap on "eye crutches"
Simon Dean - 03 Apr 2006 07:15 GMT > Trad. ODs don't give a damn about anything but money. Lie.
Quick - 03 Apr 2006 07:28 GMT > Trad. ODs don't give a damn about anything but money. > I've playe tested the VFL program and I saw a small [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > develops myopia? If my myopia is "genetic," how come I > saw well when I was little. I read a fairly detailed point by point answer to your questions. Maybe you didn't have you glasses on and didn't see it or couldn't read it when you did recognize it as a response?
PUT YOUR GLASSES ON. SOMEONE ALREADY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS. can you see that?
> You trad. OD followers criticize Otis and try to prove how > wrong he is yet none of you who critizes him have the balls [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > their store? Simply because it doesn't take much to slap > on "eye crutches" A poster boy for the Otis fan club...
-Quick
Dr. Leukoma - 03 Apr 2006 13:38 GMT C'mon yourself, Doogle. Why haven't you answered my questions?
Optometry is a profession by which some people seek gainful employment and become productive citizens by performing a necessary service.
You state that you have seen improvement, but where is the documentation?
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Which comes first, the myopia, or the prescription for the myopia? What happens if a myopic person chooses not to wear their first pair of eyeglasses? Answer: they usually get worse.
Why do 27 year/olds develop myopia? Why do some people get genetic eye diseases in the fourth or fifth decades?
Perhaps the firm selling the pinhole glasses was promoting a fraudulant practice. C'mon, Doogle, you can still purchase them. You can even make them yourself out of cardboard. What a crock!
A chimp would appear to be one or two rungs up on the evolutionary scale from you, Doogie.
DrG
Doogle - 03 Apr 2006 14:42 GMT <C'mon yourself, Doogle. Why haven't you answered my questions? >
Oh yes Doctor. I'm a trad. OD or one of your supporters who spends their time here kissing your a.s...I'll answer as soon as the ODs actually tell us somethingf worthwhile rather than slap a pair of eye crutches onto our face just so they can leech us back into their office. Well not me.
<Optometry is a profession by which some people seek gainful employment
and become productive citizens by performing a necessary service. >
A service that even a common begger or a chimp can do...Nice try there ace...
<You state that you have seen improvement, but where is the documentation? >
Even if I did provide documentation, what makes me think you'll believe even after countless number of people have posted documentations on the 'net. The program I used even posted the guy's results from both the Navy and the trad. OD. And the improvement I said I gained was small.
<Which came first, the chicken or the egg?>
What the **** does that have to do with anything doctor. Why don't you answer my questions rather than pull stuff from your a.s...
< What happens if a myopic person chooses not to wear their first pair of eyeglasses? Answer: they usually get worse. >
Where's YOUR documentation there...Anyone's eyes will get worse if they strain to see.. Like I said, I'm about 20/400 yet I have np in walking around casually w/o my "eye crutches."
<Why do 27 year/olds develop myopia? Why do some people get genetic eye diseases in the fourth or fifth decades? >
Same reason they develop presbyopia. Seems to me that the risks for those diseases you speak of increases after being in the care of a trad. OD... You've yet to answer my question. Putting cataracts and glaucoma aside, why does a 27 year old develop myopia hmm....Well pass the age where the body stops growing. If myopia is genetic and it appears during childhood, how come other genetic diseases like cleft palettes, club feet, etc. don't appear at the same time? How come myopia started becoming widespread AFTER tvs and computers became big. Don't give me any answers that you pull from your a.s doctor. Why do you feel so threatened by my questions. i'm just a humble, curious, and in your POV misguided patient. Surely, you wouldn't be going against your will to help a patient unless you don't know the answers...
<Perhaps the firm selling the pinhole glasses was promoting a fraudulant practice.>
Even if they did exaggerate on what they can do, they were still harmless unlike eyeglasses... Surely you didn't feel threatened by something as simple as a pinhole....
<C'mon, Doogle, you can still purchase them. You can even make them yourself out of cardboard. What a crock! >
Crock..? LOL, you're asking me questions that you would know yet you refuse to answer mines since you're a doctor and I'm the crock..? Hah, you're a coward.
<A chimp would appear to be one or two rungs up on the evolutionary scale from you, Doogie. >
Oooh very nice. Very very nice. That was a good one. Wonder how long did it take for you to make that insult up. That's coming from someone who's afraid of pinhole glasses and can't answer simple questions...
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 03 Apr 2006 14:59 GMT > Oh yes Doctor. I'm a trad. OD or one of your supporters who spends > their time here kissing your a.s...I'll answer as soon as the ODs > actually tell us somethingf worthwhile rather than slap a pair of eye > crutches onto our face just so they can leech us back into their > office. Well not me. so i see you believe in the "conspiracy" theory of using eyeglasses. been abducted by any UFO's recently?
> A service that even a common begger or a chimp can do...Nice try there > ace... i can see why you think it would only take a chimp to do the job since you have no real understanding of what an eye doctor does! its not all about glasses moron.
> <You state that you have seen improvement, but where is the > documentation? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 'net. The program I used even posted the guy's results from both the > Navy and the trad. OD. And the improvement I said I gained was small. i can provide you with all the documentation we need to prove that glasses don't make myopia worsen, and that plus lenses or not wearing your glasses or undercorrection doesn't help (and may actually accelerate myopia). obviously it isn't worth discussing these with you because they involve science and statistics and controls-- something you don't understand
> < What happens if a myopic > person chooses not to wear their first pair of eyeglasses? Answer: > they usually get worse. > read an article by Chung. if you can find a website called Pubmed you can actually look at the SCIENCE around these topics that you seem to have your mind made up on already. anyway, i don't think you'll understand what they are talking about in those articles. better just tune in to NASCAR instead.
> <Why do 27 year/olds develop myopia? Why do some people get genetic > eye [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > trad. OD... You've yet to answer my question. Putting cataracts and > glaucoma aside, why does a 27 year old develop myopia hmm. he answered your question dumbass but i guess it went over your head. "sh.t happens". just like people get diabetes, arthritis, gray hair etc when they get older. do you really think that a genetically-influenced disease manifests immediately when a baby is born? could you stretch your brain a little and consider that genetic predisposition might interact with environment?
go ahead, continue your pinhead arguments just for the sake of throwing some sh.t at people. you are a simpleton-- go away!
Neil Brooks - 03 Apr 2006 16:45 GMT The irony about this "doggie" guy, and the other "short bussers" who've made cameo appearances on s.m.v. in the last year or so is that--much as we suspected--they ARE being sent here by Senile Ol' Uncle Otie.
If you get bored ... or desperate ... or are seeking perverse entertainment ... do take a moment and look at the (moderated, of course) Natural Vision Improvement forum [1]
All you need to do is search within for "sci.med.vision." Uncle Otie attempts to bolster his (non-existent and fallacious) case by referring that site's participants to s.m.v.--ostensibly to see how those OD conspiracists pillory the optometric version of Charles Manson.
Outraged that the Great White Hope for Myopes is being lambasted (questioned and contradicted) so, the result is the presence of *stereotypical* Alabamans and Georgians like Doggie and (sp)Ace.
Yes, this is Ol' Uncle Otie's pathetic attempt (see the pattern) at getting even with the participants of this forum ... whom he roundly insults repeatedly on that other site.
You're a beautiful creature, Uncle Otie.
[1] http://www.visionimprovementsite.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=natural
Simon Dean - 03 Apr 2006 19:28 GMT > A service that even a common begger or a chimp can do...Nice try there > ace... Go on then... Can I make an appointment with you a week on tuesday bubbles?
> Even if I did provide documentation, what makes me think you'll believe > even after countless number of people have posted documentations on the > 'net. The program I used even posted the guy's results from both the > Navy and the trad. OD. And the improvement I said I gained was small. Ahh. Otis!
> <Why do 27 year/olds develop myopia? Why do some people get genetic > eye [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > palettes, club feet, etc. don't appear at the same time? How come > myopia started becoming widespread AFTER tvs and computers became big. Surely genetic problems come on at all stages during life. And it's not necessarily genetic. But things like thyroid problems, lichen aureus, mental issues...
I must say, with your energy and paranoia, sure you've not got a touch of hyperthyroidism?
But Im not a Doctor.
> Don't give me any answers that you pull from your a.s doctor. Why do > you feel so threatened by my questions. i'm just a humble, Ha!
> curious, Ha!
> Even if they did exaggerate on what they can do, they were still > harmless unlike eyeglasses... Rishi?
> <C'mon, Doogle, you can still purchase them. You can even > make them yourself out of cardboard. What a crock! > > > Crock..? LOL, you're asking me questions that you would know yet you > refuse to answer mines since you're a doctor and I'm the crock..? Hah, > you're a coward. Well, I guess you already have your mind up see... so why not ask you what your thoughts are, then they can be challenged.
> <A chimp would appear to be one or two rungs up on the evolutionary > scale from you, Doogie. > > > Oooh very nice. Very very nice. That was a good one. Wonder how long > did it take for you to make that insult up. That's coming from someone > who's afraid of pinhole glasses and can't answer simple questions... My word, how ignorant.
"Tell me this Judy or any of you other **** head doctors", "Answer my questions doctors and don't give me no bs answers."
All this from such a humble person.
Cya Simon
John Yasar - 04 Apr 2006 08:47 GMT > Whats your myopic pescription? Has it been stable forever? You may have
> lenticular myopia or steeper than normal corneas and no pseudomyopia > and no axial myopia. What does my prescription have anything to do with this, does "plus lens use" help every and any kind of myopia or not? That is the question. Does it only help accommodation induced myopia? If so, then Otis and his supporters should state!!! I don't have lenticular myopia, I am a healthy 29 year old who had a pre-op (for PRK) exam a few months back, and no nowhere it was stated that I had lenticular myopia. It revealed 3/4 diopters in both eyes plus 1/4 astig on the right. Might have changed since then, maybe at most to a full diopter in both eyes but I really don't care anymore. I can wear glasses or contacts. My concern was the military requirements and nowadays if you don't meet the requirements, PRK/LASIK is waiverable, I am at no loss. I had fine vision until I was 27 and then it started. Plus lens is a false hope which is offered more widely to low myopes and I desperately tried. It doesn't reverse anything.
> the 95% with at least 1/2 diopter pseudomyopia will improve their > vision. +1 readers are way too weak. My vision improvement guide > suggests +3 and a focal point of at least 13 inches. If you are -1.5, > wear +1.5 readers and read NO closer than 13 inches! And this reverses your myopia? I tried +3s too. As a matter of fact I have one laying around here somewhere I tried to see if it makes any difference when I play my PSP. Doesn't make any difference. In fact makes it worse. A few hours of PSP gaming with pluses causes you to see its little circular green power light *doubled* tripled or in weird shapes or form. Without pluses you get extreme pseudomyopia but none of the other crap.
> Of course not considering an eagle sees 20/2! You knew what I meant. Though when did you have an eagle in the office reading the snellen chart?
Quick - 04 Apr 2006 18:06 GMT >> Of course not considering an eagle sees 20/2! > > You knew what I meant. Though when did you have an eagle > in the office reading the snellen chart? It was a body guard one of the more well to do chickens brought with them.
-Quick
Neil Brooks - 04 Apr 2006 18:40 GMT p.clarkii@gmail.com - 02 Apr 2006 19:17 GMT otis,
what is Fred Deakin's current prescription after using plus lenses to improve his myopia? i seem to recall that most recently he said that his prescription is -1.25. i seem to recall that his prescription was reported to be similar to that before he started using plus lenses. also, isn't fred deakins selling a book where he recommends using plus lenses? it sounds fishy to me, and AT BEST its just another anecdotal story. At worst, its misleading and plus lenses had no beneficial effect for him and he is standing to benefit financially from selling a book!
so lets focus on the discussion of the proof that staircase myopia occurs in human primates, that plus lenses cause an acceleration of myopia in humans, and that plus lenses slow myopia progression.
please provide the scientific references and lets discuss them. i am ready to provide the references that disprove what you assert. don't run from the discussion AGAIN.
========
> Dear John, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Here is Fred Deakin's experience with the plus. otisbrown@pa.net - 03 Apr 2006 02:03 GMT Dear PClar,
Subject: Judgment of the dynamic nature of the primate eye.
Your "majority opinion".
Yes, I know exactly what you will say.
EVERY SCIENTIFIF FACT, every scientific study you will deny.
And you will then say, "trust me -- I am God".
And offer no rebuttal.
But the second-opinion OD has his own child in a strong plus -- at a refractive state of zero.
And of course, 85 percent myopia in Singapore seems to be a big joke to you.
After all, we KNOW that Chinese have "bad heredity".
And of course, the Eskimos, whose grandparents had good vision (and postive refractive states) means absolutly nothing to you.
And the fact that 88 percent of some groups of the grand children were myopic, means NOTHING TO YOU. Must be there bad heredity.
Yes, you can ignore all facts you do not like, and continue using the simplistic method of the minus-lens -- put in place 400 years agon -- because it works "instantly".
Yes, I understand your "position" here -- and indeed, IN YOUR POSITION I WOULD DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING?
Why, because prevention-with-plus is indeed difficult, and takes personal motivation to do it -- successfully.
And the person who "manages" it, and passes all legal visual-acuity requirements -- never is placed in an excessively strong minus -- and never develops stair-case myopia.
Best,
Otis
Dan Abel - 03 Apr 2006 02:56 GMT > But the second-opinion OD has his own child > in a strong plus -- at a refractive state of zero. I like the way you use "the" and "has". That means there's only one, right? One "second opinion OD" in the whole world. Not a glowing endorsement of your concept.
 Signature Dan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA
RM - 03 Apr 2006 04:11 GMT Dear Moron Otis,
I just had to check back to this newsgroup again after awhile and low and behold you are still here posting the same old crap. You may be a charlatan but you are at least persistent. You never give up do you Otis?
> EVERY SCIENTIFIF FACT, every scientific study > you will deny. > > And you will then say, "trust me -- I am God". > > And offer no rebuttal. No Otis, the guy simply asked you to provide the references from peer-reviewed scientific studies that support your claims that what you propose works in humans. I did the same a year or two ago and others did before me. You never seem to respond directly to these requests but instead you give some stupid kind of circular argument where you pretend that YOU are the scientist and that everyone else has no evidence for their statements. You are one-of-a-kind!
> And of course, 85 percent myopia in Singapore > seems to be a big joke to you. No one said its a joke. Lets talk about treatments. Do plus lenses help Asians? Why do you think that the high prevalence of myopia in Asian countries somehow supports your stupid plus lens theory in any way?
> After all, we KNOW that Chinese have "bad heredity". > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > NOTHING TO YOU. Must be > there bad heredity. Yes Otis, a near environment definetly correlates with myopia progression. The association is clear. No one disputes that. Now lets talk about your foolish plus lens theory. Its been disproven.
Simon Dean - 03 Apr 2006 07:16 GMT > Dear PClar, > > Subject: Judgment of the dynamic nature of the > primate eye. Hrm. try:
Subject: what is Fred Deakin's current prescription?
Neil Brooks - 03 Apr 2006 01:46 GMT > Here is Fred Deakin's experience with the plus. Mr. Deakins is trying to sell vision related books and computer programs for forty bucks or so [1] -- some of which you may well receive.
Doesn't that make his motives and any of his (purely anecdotal) statements highly suspect?
[1] http://www.eyezercise.com/
John Yasar - 03 Apr 2006 07:27 GMT > 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. *
*You posted this before and I read it a thousand times. Though I will write more on this later, Otis, answer this question for me, since Fred avoided it.
If his exercise program is not endorsed by the United States Air Force, what is the purpose of showing off in the KC-10 cockpit in uniform? I asked him if USAF *knows* about this business of his, he never responded to me AGAIN!
otisbrown@pa.net - 03 Apr 2006 15:19 GMT Dear John,
Subject: The second-opnion and ODs
As you know, there are ODs who strongly support PREVENTION with the plus. You do not, and you have now made this permanent choice for your own children.
That is how you should be informed.
There is a profound reason to be skeptical of an OD who INSISTS that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of all eyes. The reason is the scientific data -- and objective testing.
If you choose to ignore it -- then that is your right. But do not complain about the consequences -- if you child gets strong minus -- and stair-case myopia.
The Oakley-Young study spells this issue out with stark clarity -- and you can ignore this also -- if you wish.
But Fread Deakins had every right to protect his distant vision with the plus -- and clear to 20/20. This is a personal second-opnion choice, which Fred had to implement UNDER HIS OWN CONTROL for obvious reasons.
To further respond:
*You posted this before and I read it a thousand times. Though I will write more on this later, Otis, answer this question for me, since Fred avoided it.
Otis> Sorry, I can not speak for Fred. If he chooses to NOT respond to you -- then I can not either.
If his exercise program is not endorsed by the United States Air Force,
Otis> As Fred states -- this is HIS OPINION, and his judgement about what FRED DID to clear his vision. The fact that other ODs put their own children in a strong plus is SUGGESTIVE of the nature of this scientific second-opnion. You do not "like" the second-opinion, that is fine with me -- just don't use it.
what is the purpose of showing off in the KC-10 cockpit in uniform?
Otis> That is up to Fred. He was pilot in that plane.
I asked him if USAF *knows* about this business of his,
Otis> I do not know what you mean by "knows". Are you going to tell them.
he never responded to me AGAIN!
Otis> You have made your choice -- and Fred made his second-opnion choice. I see no problem with that.
Best,
Otis
The Central Scrutinizer - 03 Apr 2006 16:50 GMT >Dear John, >Subject: The second-opnion and ODs ...and you CONTINUE to ignore my question.
Shocking.
Maybe I'll just keep posting it until you respond.
Simon Dean - 03 Apr 2006 19:20 GMT > Dear John, > > Subject: The second-opnion and ODs No it wasnt
John Yasar - 04 Apr 2006 08:57 GMT > As you know, there are ODs who strongly support PREVENTION with > the plus. You do not, and you have now made this > permanent choice for your own children. I will tell my children to watch TV from a little far away, I won't slap plus glasses on their face when they are 5! Though my wife is -5.00 and my dad was about -7. We have it in our genes. My children will have it on their mothers side.
> That is how you should be informed. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > choice, which Fred had to implement > UNDER HIS OWN CONTROL for obvious reasons. I have heard the same thing millions of times. Don't be concerned about my kids now. Provide me with the means of reversing myopia. You thought you did and IT DID NOT WORK. I am living example of your failure. Anything else you want me to try? Any explanations do you have why it never worked on me? I didn't use them correctly? I was too old? What is your excuse?
> Otis> As Fred states -- this is HIS OPINION, and his judgement > about what FRED DID to clear his vision. The fact [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Otis> That is up to Fred. He was pilot in that plane. You avoided my point. I didn't ask you this. Fred says his program is not endorsed by the USAF but he shows off in uniform which is being used as a marketing tool because him showing off as a pilot would have a better effect on the population which already believe that pilots should have good vision and they are educated about vision.
> I asked him if USAF *knows* about this business of his, > > Otis> I do not know what you mean by "knows". Are you > going to tell them. I would like to know if USAF is aware of one of its officer's bogus business.
> Otis> You have made your choice -- and Fred made > his second-opnion choice. I see no problem with that. I made the professional choice, listened to the eye professionals, one of whom served in the AIR FORCE. Fred tried the trivial option, saying "eh no harm in trying" You are not able to explain why it worked for him and not me, in scientific terms.
John Yasar - 04 Apr 2006 08:19 GMT > Here is Fred Deakin's experience with the plus.
Otis, you told me in an email dated 12/5/2004 12:36 PM and titled "Response to questions on threshold 20/20" that, I quote,
"Remember, Captain Fred Deakins went through the same process and is now flying tankers. He says he is the first man on the flight deck to see other tankers -- at 100 miles (by the DME) -- if you can believe it."
No Otis, I don't believe it, 100 miles, heck no! If we could see 100 miles ahead, there would be no need for radars in interceptors. Fred is a tanker pilot turned transport tanker instructor, show me a "fighter pilot" who reversed his sight with plus use. I am not interested in Fred's experience, he is your friend in this matter and that doesn't impress me, show me a naval aviator who lands on a carried deck at night, that reversed his myopia with plus. Show me that Fred's business involves plus lens use from the eyezercise.com
otisbrown@pa.net - 02 Apr 2006 01:41 GMT Dear BD,
Subject: The TYPE of questions you are willing to ASK about the behavior of all natural (primate) eyes.
Doogle>Answer my questions doctors and don't give me no bs answers.
BD> I'm not a doctor, but I have seen Otis' posts for long enough to conclude that he should not be trusted.
Otis> "Trust" is always an interesting word. The question is do I "trust" a professional who discusses the second (preventive) opinion with me -- when my refrative state is zero?
Otis> Do I "trust" a professional who examines the primate data, the Oakley-Young data, the Eskimo data, and other issues, and concludes that his OWN CHILDREN must start wearing that plus BEFORE they even "required" the minus.
Otis> As long as you are informed of these issues, and DECIDE FOR YOUSELF -- then I have no problem if you LOVE that minus, and develop stair-case myopia from it. That is a large part of the "trust" question, isn't it.
Doogle asked the question -- what would happen if you placed a minus lens on a population of primate eyes. Would they go "down", or wouild they not. All he has received are "evasions" and chage-of-subject from these majority-opinion ODs. It is up to Doogle to decide if he "trusts" the majority opinion -- any more.
BD> I say this because he is more closed-minded than his detractors.
Otis> I assume that includes you also. Just be honest here.
BD> If his positions were credible, he would AT LEAST be willing address specific questions concerning his views.
Otis> I have. See the scientific statement about the PROVEN behavior off all natural eyes. Only use the NETURAL word REFRACTIVE STATE -- to show you know how to make OBJECTIVE measurements.
BD> As an example, I have asked him on SEVERAL occasions why studies on chickens and monkeys should be considered applicable to humans.
Otis> That is truly the "break point". I consider that issue of critical scientific importance -- to lead any further discussion of PREVENTING a negative refractive state for the fundamental eye.
Otis> If you consider the primate studies a JOKE -- then we part company -- permanently -- at that point.
BD> I illustrated why, in my layman view, these studies should not be applied
to humans.
Otis> Fine -- you have made YOUR position absolutly clear. You should NEVER be concerned with prevention.
Otis> But the issues was to provide Doogle with an HONEST answer about the behavior of the natural primate eye -- on a scientific level. And explain the majority-opnion BS that denies scientific proof.
BD> I asked for him to explain to me why I was wrong,
Otis> You are not "wrong" to excluse all scientific data and proof that YOU DO NOT "LIKE". Just confused.
BD> or what I was missing.
Otis> If you don't know what you are "missing" then obviously I can not explain it to you.
BD> He has on every occasion declined to comment.
Otis> Read the above -- that is my comment. If you are completely happy with you minus contact -- the this discussion is obviously not for you -- in the first place.
BD> Not promising.
Otis> As you wish.
Best,
Otis
retinula@hotmail.com - 02 Apr 2006 03:47 GMT > Ok first of all, I want to say this, what the **** is the matter with > you people? Someone says they improved their vision w/o "eye crutches" > and you instantly deem him a nutcase. I'm sick of traditional eye > doctors and their bs.... good. go to otis' i-see forum at Yahoo groups and hang out there. in this forum only PROVEN methods are discussed and recommended. undercorrection with reduced minus has been tested in controlled scientific studies and shown to actually accelerate myopia progression. have you ever wondered why your prescription is getting worse? maybe its because you aren't listening to your eye doctor!
> Want to slap me on a pair of stronger eye > glasses then get pissed if I ask for a 20/40 pair...I hae every right > to refuse the eye doctor's choices as these are my eyes. If Otis > chooses not listen to them either, then why the **** do you babble **** > at him? your welcome to do whatever unwise treatments you wnat to your eyes. who's stopping you? why not try topical bleach treatments?
otis is disliked because he presents out and out misinformation to people. he suggests therapies thathave actually been PROVEN ineffective and he tries to claim they are "scientific". apparently he has you wrapped around his finger but i don't think that takes too much judging from your spelling and your faulty reasoning.
> Tell me this Judy or any of you other **** head doctors, what's the > LONG term effects of wearing glasses? err, sometimes they leave marks on your nose!?
>Why does vision gets worse when > you wear a new RX after a week? it doesn't. it just seem that way to you.
> And how do you explain a 27 year old > starting to see myopai...? Surely not genteitc as that person is past > that age and that person is still young so you can't say vision > deteriorates with age err-- what??
>, By that logic, a 40 year old in normal health > should be having health problems from age. Answer my questions doctors > and don't give me no bs answers. you are a simpleton. go away.
|
|
|