Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Otis

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
Now THAT's funny!
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.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.