I'm wondering when you'll get around to answering these questions:

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:

Quote:"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 of unprescribed plus lenses?

8. You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success story.
Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr.  Deakins is--in
truth--myopic, that he 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. You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is, I
provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address).  You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. 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?

12. Presuming that you understand the difference between accommodative
spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you please provide
credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES axial-length myopia,
or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES axial-length myopia

13. You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views.  Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD?  Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make?  Would you
please provide it?

14. Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book.  Do you have any
economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung?  Do you think it is
honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that he is
trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his website,
and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as inducements to
sell both your and his  book?

15. Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though your
niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she is,
at this time, a myope?

ACE!!!

For God's sake, man ... just ONCE in your life ... DO NOT take Otis's
word for things.  Do some independent research, like:

http://www.nice.org.uk/page.aspx?o=IP_233

OR

http://www.nice.org.uk/download.aspx?o=IPG102publicinfo

THEN ... if you HAVE half a brain ... you can decide: Did Otis outright
LIE, or did he present a very distorted and incomplete picture of the
truth.`

Dear Ace,

Subject:  Source of article and date was from YaBB.

I think there is a strong warning to be VERY CAREFUL WITH
LASIK.

The "restrictions" could have been removed since the date
of the article -- and "new" techniques.

However, the article still supports the lead-in to this
thread -- that some people have their vision totally
screwed up by "bad outcomes" from Lasik -- and
this should be part of the "document" you sign
when you "release" your surgeon from
the bad effects of Lasik.

Obviously the woman who signed the "release" never
saw the 1 in 10 figure as to "bad outcomes".

Best,

Otis