Maybe it was the phrasing.  Let me post the questions in this format.
Please feel free to answer asap.

1)      There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have widely
differing visual systems.  How is it that you feel so secure in saying that
"all primate eyes" behave similarly . in ANY regard?

2)      In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that the
SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the minus lens,
the myopia was prevented?

3)     If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION of
somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results?  If so, how?

4)      You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that you
call "stair-case myopia."  Presuming that you mean that it does this in
humans, can you cite your source for this claim?

5)      You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is "proof"
of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only establishes
that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time.  It doesn't even CLAIM
that a minus lens CAUSES this.  Please explain your position.

6)      Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you recommend
that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia.  Are you aware that the only
people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus lenses made ANY difference
were those with diagnosed "near-point esophoria?"  This is a convergence
disorder.  Do you have ANY EVIDENCE that the same result is likely with
people who DO NOT HAVE this convergence disorder?

7)      You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades.  I presume
that you are familiar with his FDA petition.  In it, Mr. Rehm states:

"A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a large add
because of the strong linkage in the human visual system between
accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when looking at
something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes, accommodation and
convergence increase in proportion to each other. Over thousands of years,
the brain has learned that this is the normal situation.  Consequently,
accommodation stimulates convergence and vice versa.  Thus, if we converge
without accommodating the appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without
converging the appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small
percentage of children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of
fusion problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together
without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered with."

Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people aware of
these SERIOUS risks?

8)      You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story.
Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Deakins is trying to sell
a $40.00 product, and that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy
this product?

9)      Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?

10)      Would you please clarify whether or not you have ever received
money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid nearsightedness: A scientific
study of the normal eye's behavior?"  If so, please state how many copies
you have sold, and when the last copy was sold.  If not, please state how
long it has been since you received any money for this book.

11)      Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you have a
commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?

Please answer these for now.  I'm sure there will be others.

Thank you.