acemanvx@yahoo.com schreef:

Yes, nonsense.............

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

acemanvx@yahoo.com wrote the following unlearned opinion based upon
absolutely ZERO knowledge of the subject:

nope.  it doesn't make sense.  nothing but an old wives tale that has
been disproven in controlled scientific studies multiple times.

since the eye is not a muscle, then this reasoning is obviously false.
with the possible exception of wearing glasses for treatment of
farsightedness, this statement is totally invalid.  no muscle works
within the eye to help a nearsighted or astigmatic patient see better
without glasses.

no, you need to think a little clearer.  why do you blame the fact that
you started to develop astigmatism, and got a spectacle correction for
it, and then the process continued and got worse, on the glasses you
got?  wasn't the process starting already before you got the glasses?
why do you think the glasses had anything to do with the continuation
of the process?  when you were a kid and your feet grew and you got new
shoes, did you blame those shoes when your feet continued to grow
further?

your inability to reason clearly about cause and effect, and the true
anatomy, physiology, and development of the human eye, clearly
demonstrates your intellectual weaknesses.

please present to us the "various studies" you speak of.  do it now.
now you claim that you have evidence so you are commited to present it.
don't dare pull an "otis" and try to change the subject or switch to a
success story, etc.  I want to see your scientific proof that you
statements are valid.  you say such evidence exists so put it forward
with references, pubmed links, etc.  I am ready to provide my evidence
that what you say has been tested and shown to be bullshit.  do it
now-- you are on the spot!

sorry, but a 20+ year old newsletter from a declining group of fringe
optometrists doesn't qualify as proof.  these types of thoughts were
prevalent and were taught in a few optometry schools decades ago and at
those times the ideas were considered reasonable.  however, studies
that have taken place over the last few decadees have methodically
PROVEN that these ideas are invalid.

besides, have you read the actual article in this old newsletter or did
you get it from otis?  do you realize that these newsletters constitute
the musings and opinions of individual optometrists rather than
statistically-controlled studies?

your sh.t is weak.  very weak.

really?  well the attorney general of the state of Iowa doesn't agree.
some of these "safer and easier" ways are alleged to constitute fraud
in their opinion and they have taken action against them to protect the
public.
http://quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/seeclearly.html

blah blah blah
no, the standard approach is to get regular eye exams and to use the
appropriate refractive correction as the eye changes.  in actuality
most all patients do NOT require stronger and stronger glasses as you
generalize.  glasses or contacts have NO influence on the further
development of the refractive state of the eye (and thats not my
opinion-- its a proven fact).

what are you trying to do-- make a play to take over Otis' position as
the self-proclaimed spokesperson for the "second opinion" fringe group?

you need to go back to your old habits of eating mushrooms and
fantasizing about sex with fat women.

Hi everyone. My name is Aceman, but you can call me Nancy. I will be
dropping in to ejaculate all over this site about things I know nothing
about.

Take Orthokeratology. Even though there is no such thing as soft lens
OK, I am going to get it. I have been going to have OK for 6-8 months
now, but I haven't told everyone yet.

Then there is Lasik. I am going to get that too, but I must have at
least 6 procedures to do it right.

Then there is plus lenses. I am goint to get rid of the evil minus
using good plus. God invented plus and the devil invented minus. I
don't like Satan, so I use plus only.

I have to go and change my tampon now so I will email you all later
with my next installment on OK or Lasik or evil minus.

Nancy, your joy bunny.

Dear AceMan,

Subject:  How and Why the PUBLIC rejects plus-prevention

    The minus is quick-and-obvious.  The plus is not.

    Therefore the "minus" always "sells" and the plus does not.

    This explains why it must be the PARENTS who "wake up" to
plus-prevention.  If not, we only create stair-case myopia for
ourselves -- buy rejecting the plus a the threshold -- when it
MUST BE USED to be truly effective in keeping your distant vision
clear for life.

    It is necessary to understand this issue clearly.    You must
figure out how to do this "preventive" work youself -- or become
victim of that over-prescribed minus.

    No M.O.  OD can help you with plus-prevention.  And it is a
waste of time to even argue about it.

    Never forget this story -- it is the truth of this tragic
situation.  You can not transfer "responsibility" to anyone other
than youself.

    Best,

    Otis

    ++++++++

WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?

    With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's
behavior, you would think that the insightful and motivated
optometrist or ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and
effective method of solution.  Dr.  Jacob Raphaelson did exactly
that in the following example -- with the following result:

          THE PRINTER'S SON

    "It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge
meeting.  She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in
school.  I gave her my card and told her to bring him to my office
and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles.

    "She said that she had no money at the time and that her
husband was a printer working in another city.    She did not expect
him home for the next six weeks.  I told her all this would not
matter, that she should bring the boy over and I would fit him
with a pair of spectacles.  I told her that she could pay for them
when her husband returned home.

    "She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes.  I found
that his vision for distance was poor.    It was less than 20/40.  I
made him a pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles.  She was to pay
me when her husband came back home.

    "In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to
me.  She stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting
the glasses.  He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints,
far and near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his
naked eyes.  In fact, she said, the boy could see even better
without the glasses than with them.

    "I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery
that quickly.  I could hardly believe this story.  I persuaded the
mother to bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could
really see well with his naked eyes.  She again brought the boy in
and I checked his vision.  I found that the father was indeed
right.    The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

    "I was in a dilemma.  I did not have the nerve to say
anything to the mother.  I just let her go.  How was I to prove
that the boy had poor vision before he received his glasses?  And
who would believe that vision could be restored by just wearing a
pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks?

    "My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn
tendency for exploration.  It gave me an incentive to try to do
special work on children's eyes and on vision restoration.  It
also enticed me to investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I
was myself nearsighted.

    "On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be
cautious in doing such work.  For selling spectacles to persons
who, supposedly, did not need them was almost a crime.    And the
fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a medical
doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy
person who might need or be under medical attention, was, and is
now, and encroachment on the medical profession.

    "To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I
took the following precautions:  First, I quit using the title
'doctor' in any form, in print or verbally.  I was to be known as
a spectacle fitter and nothing more.  Second, I charged a
reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for
any special work or relief I gave.  I did not advertise about this
special work.  I just did it as a matter of routine whenever or
wherever I was given the opportunity.

    "Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the
relationship of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and
health.  I have kept it up, and will continue to do this work as
long as I continue to have the incentive and capability.

    "Who would believe it?  Who would believe that by just
wearing a pair of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that
normal vision to the naked eye could be restored to children whose
eyes have a negative focal state?  This was true in 1904, and it
is also true now, in this decade of 1950." (It continues to be
true in this decade of 1990 -- Otis Brown)

     This statement cuts "both ways" -- and that is a major issue
for all of us.

    SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION

    With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a
profound and adverse effect, you would think that it should be
possible to develop scientific verification for this
characteristic of the normal eye.  You would be correct.  The
testing and verification is impeccable -- if we restrict our
attention to the normal eye's behavior.

    ++++++++++++++

    Remember this:

    If the PARENTS had put their son in a "plus" and verified his
vision-clearing from 20/50 to 20/20 -- they MIGHT have been
convinced.  But since the PARENTS did not make the measurements --
they were CONVINCED that Jake was "cheating" them -- by clearing
their kid's vision back to 20/20.

    This why no OD can help with true-prevention.  DO NOT EXPECT
ANYTHING OF THEM.

    ***********************

    The effect of Raphaelson's staement -- was the recognition
that if any "preventing" was to be done, then:

1.  I must recognize that if I "want" true-prevention -- I MUST DO
     IT MYSELF -- UNDER MY CONTROL.

2.  The M.O.  Optometrist satisfies MOST PEOPLE becase MOST PEOPLE
     have no interest in their distant vision AT ALL!    If you
     EVER attempt to help them UNDERSTAND plus-prevention -- they
     get VERY ANGRY at you -- for attempting to help them with
     PREVENTION.

3.  Some issues like this MUST BE DECIDED BY THE PERSON HIMSELF.

    +++++++++++++++

    If the above is UNDERSTOOD, and the person is not "too deep",
(i.e., not yet BELOW 20/70 on the Snellen, and not DEPENDENT on
that minus) then a certain degree of vision-clearing is possible.

    But he must understand the issue of self-motiviation, and
have a rather intense desire to clear his vision under HIS
CONTROL.

    There is no "easy" way about this.  Just knowledge and common
sense -- and a realization of the fact that these M.O.    OD are
destructive of you long-term vision.  No intentionally, as the
above will SUGGEST, but destructive none the less.

    The real question is what you PERSONALLY are going to do
about it.

    ==================================

Dear AceMan,

Some more stupid remarks by a M.O.  OD.

{Comment:  DrL recommended the "bifocal" for a person with 20/50
     vision -- at a cost of $350 OSB]

(Just remember what S.O.  Raphaelson said about this issue.)

    Remember, I said AVOID ENTRY into a negative refractive
STATE.    (Objective science).

    More commentary:

Otis> but since single-minus costs $350, and a bifocal $350, and
     this August GOT HIS VISION TO PASS THE DMV, then why the
     hell should he wear a minus

Otis> When a "plus" costs about $8?

DrL> Probably a lot cheaper at Walmart, or that mail order place
     you are always recommending.

[Comment:  You could get a low-cost $20 minus from Zennioptical if
     you wished.  This would be a TEMPORARY MEASURE -- to be used
     on your DASHBOARD -- UNTIL you cleared the 20/40 line and
     passed the DMV.  Remember, these M.O.  ODs don't give a damm
     about you protecting your distant vision for life.  OSB]

Otis> As long as he takes PERSONAL responsibility to always PASS
     the legal visual-acuity requirement for the DMV, then there
     is no reason at all why he should wear a bi-focal.

DrL > Well, single vision then.  If a person wants to see, that is
     their right.  If a cure for myopia were available, I
     certainly would recommend that as well.

Otis> Again, PREVENTION is not a "cure".  But that is a profound
     difference in understanding the eye's proven behavior -- as
     a dynamic system, versus the conceptual errors made by DrL.

Otis> And in fact, the MINUS part of the bifocal will PREVENT his
     vision- clearing.

[Comment:  In other words, a kid would get a -1.5 diopter in the
     "upper" bifocal -- when he passes the Snellen with 20/40.
     NO GLASSES most of the time, and a plus -- only for near
     work -- at $8.  The -1.5 diopter bifocal will always "fail".
     This is the reason why all the "Comet" studies FAIL.  It is
     because of that excessive minus on top.  This is why the
     plus alone (at the threshold) can be successful -- for the
     person who wakes up in time.  OSB]

DrL> Not according to your pet Young-Oakley study -- remember?

Otis> Again, DrL is attempting to destroy the real meaning of the
     Oakley-Young study -- which used a +1.5 diopter (plus) and a
     weak minus.  The "plus"group did not go down, while the
     pure-minus went down at a rate of -2 diopters in four years.

Otis> Thus, if the MINUS is avoided, and a stronger plus is used,
     a MOTIVATED person could clear from 20/60 to 20/40 or better
     -- provided he uses no minus at all -- under HIS CONTROL.
     And that truly IS THE ISSUE.

    %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Dear AceMan,

Subject:  The ignorance of the general public.

    I do not attempt to "deal" with "most people" -- concerning
plus-prevention.

    All you have to do is go to sci.med.vision and read the
particularly inane remarks by "Quick" and others.

    If I were a "OD" and had to deal with them -- well they would
get a strong "minus" and stair-case myopia to follow -- as well as for
their children.

    They truly shoot themselves in the foot -- with their
arrogance and ignorance.

    In other words -- you can continue to be part of the
"problem", or part of the solution.

    The preventive choice is yours, not mine.

    Otis

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