Doctors support PREVENTIVE methods -- for free.

On May 21, 8:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You hear the majority opinion, that a negative
> refractive STATE of the eye CAN NOT BE PREVENTED.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Otis

Good one, Otis. *guffaw*

DrG

Reply to this Message

On May 21, 6:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> Be wise! Understand! And if you
> are not to "deep" into

You are TREMENDOUSLY "deep into it," Uncle Otie.

Why did you hurt your niece? Don't you love her??

I mean ... if you take CREDIT for a supposed "success" with your
nephew, Keith, then aren't you also responsible for his sister's
myopia?? You treated them both the same, now didn't you, Doctor
Brown??

Don't you love her??

Reply to this Message

>Here are a group that provide preventive information
>for FREE.
>
>http://www.visiontherapy.net/
>
>Otis

Great! Everyone who wants to follow Otis' fantasy rant about
preventing refractive error with plus lenses, faith, relaxation, or
whatever please follow the link. Otis, just go along with your new
recruits and don't come back.

You are a pathetic old troll.

Reply to this Message

Statement by the second-opinion doctors for
honest preventive methods.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What exactly is the Internet download?

A: The only way we can offer the Power Vision Program free of charge
is as
an Internet download. We don't sell CDs, DVDs, or any other materials.
The Power Vision Program will be downloaded onto your computer as
a .pdf
file so you can start improving your vision right away. It's easy.

_________________________

Q: Why doesn't my eye doctor prescribe eye exercises?

A: Almost all optometric colleges and medical schools are heavily
funded
by the optical glass industry for the purpose of training eye doctors
how to
prescribe and sell corrective lenses. This means that most eye doctors
have
no interest in helping patients reduce their dependency on these
products.
Not surprisingly, some eye doctors regard therapeutic eye exercises as
a
threat to their profits and try to discourage patients from using
them.

_________________________

Q: The eyes are constantly moving. Why do they need exercising?

A: The situation is like a secretary who is constantly moving her arms
as she
handles paperwork. Obviously, this is not equivalent to a good healthy
workout
or a relaxing time at the spa.

_________________________

Q: Will the Power Vision Program give me permanent results?

A: An important feature of the Power Vision Program is that you
develop the
habit of practicing the key techniques on the world around you, so
they become
part of your normal way of seeing.

_________________________

Q: Will the Power Vision Program work for elderly people?

A: No matter how old you are, you can probably improve your vision,
just like
many elderly people can benefit from gentle physical exercise. If you
have an
eye disease such as cataract, glaucoma, or macular degeneration, the
Power
Vision Program contains vitally important information and techniques
that
you need to know about.

_________________________

Q: Can the Power Vision Program relieve computer eyestrain?

A: This is one of easiest visual problems to deal with. The exercises
can
quickly relieve computer eyestrain and headaches, often in a few
days.

_________________________

Q: My entire family is nearsighted. Does that mean it's inherited?

A: If you could see well as a child, your nearsightedness (myopia) is
probably
not inherited. According to the National Eye Institute, the main cause
of myopia
is too much close-up focusing such as reading, TV, and computers. The
reason it
seems to run in families is because everybody in the family does a lot
of close-up
focusing. But if you wore glasses as a child, your myopia probably is
inherited.
The good news is, even inherited visual problems can often be
improved.

_________________________

Q: Will the Power Vision Program work for my child?

A: The Power Vision Program can often help young people and
also provides a rewarding family activity if parents get involved.

Enjoy,

Otis

On May 21, 9:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You hear the majority opinion, that a negative
> refractive STATE of the eye CAN NOT BE PREVENTED.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Otis

Reply to this Message

Neil Brooks - 22 May 2007 15:09 GMT

On May 21, 9:24 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

[David DeAngelis's marketing clap-trap handily snipped]

Amazing. Just when your credibility strikes new lows, you begin
randomly quoting sales-pitch material from random websites.

Otis, don't you understand that--when you RAIL against eye doctors as
profiting from the status quo .... all the while quoting people
(Leung, Deakins, YOU) who are ALSO TRYING TO PROFIT ... that you look
like a hypocrite AND a moron (not that stopping the former would
affect the latter, by the way)?

YOU are the greatest proof for my continued presence on this board:
there truly ARE people who believe that--if it appears on the
Internet--then it must be true.

Astounding.

Reply to this Message

otisbrown@pa.net - 23 May 2007 02:34 GMT

You asked for scientific publication that:

1. The fundamental eye is dynamic, with respect to
CHANGE in accommodation, and

2. Published report supporting both scientific and
clinical studies to that effect.

Yes, Doctors do support these methods. And Majority-opinion
optometrists HATE the concept of the dynamic behavior
of the natural eye, and the this type of published
scientific research.

Of course you can ignore it, get a strong minus,
and get stair-case myopia....

Yes, Bates was correct, that a negative refractive
STATE could be prevented -- as the second-opinion.

Read and enjoy,

Otis

+++++++++++

Scientific Research and Clinical Studies.

Adler-Grinberg D., Questioning our classical understanding of
accommodation and presbyopia. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt.,
1986, 63(7): 571-580.

Aronsfeld G.H., Eyesight training and development. J. Am.Optom.
Assoc., 1936, 7(4): 36-38.

Atkinson, R.P., Sewell, M.M., Enhancement of visual perception under
conditions of short-term exposure to sensory isolation. Percep.Motor
Skills, 1988, 67: 248-252.

Balliet R., Clay A., Blood K., The training of visual acuity in
myopia.
J. Am. Optom. Assoc., 1982, 53(9): 719-724.

Barber T.X., Changing "unchangeable" bodily processes by suggestions.
Advances, 1984, 1(2): 7-40.

Beach S.J., Myopia cures. Trans. Am. Ophth. Soc., 1948, 46: 284-294.

Berens C., Girard L.J., Fonda G., Sells S.B., Effects of
tachistoscopic training on visual functions in myopic patients. Am. J.
Ophth., 1957,
44(3): 1-48.

Beresford S.M., Muris D.W., Tableman M., Young F.A.,
Clinical evaluation of the See Clearly Method. 2005, (unpublished).

Berman P.E., Levinger S., Massoth N.A., Gallagher D., Kalmar K.,
Pos L., The effectiveness of biofeedback visual training as a viable
method of treatment and reduction of myopia. J. Optom. Vis. Dev.,
1985, 16:17-21.

Bettman J.W., Apparent accommodation in aphakic eyes.
Am. J. Ophth., 1950, 33(1): 921-928.

Birnbaum M.H., Clinical management of myopia.
Am. J. Optom.Physiol. Opt., 1981, 58(7): 554-559.

Ciuffreda K.J., Dynamics of voluntary accommodation.
Am. J.Optom. Physiol. Opt., 1988, 65(5): 265-270.

Collins F.L., Ricci J.A., Burkett P.A., Behavioral training for
myopia:
long term maintenance of improved acuity. Behav. Res. Ther., 1981,
19: 265-268.

Collins F.L., Epstein L.H., Hannay H.J., A component analysis of
an operant training program for improving visual acuity in myopic
students. Behav. Ther., 1981, 12: 692-701.

Copeland V.L., Increased visual acuity of myopes while in hypnosis.
J. Am. Optom. Assoc., 1967, 38(8): 663-664.

Davison G.C., Singleton L., A preliminary report of improved vision
under hypnosis. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hyp., 1967, 15: 57-62.

Epstein L.H., Collins F.L., Hannay H.J., Looney R.L., Fading and
feedback in the modification of visual acuity. J. Behav. Med., 1978,
1: 273-297.

Epstein L.H., Greenwald D.J., Monocular feedback and fading training.
Behav. Mod., 1981, 5: 171-186.

Eskridge J.B., Review of ciliary muscle effort in presbyopia. Am.J.
Optom. Physiol. Opt., 1984, 61(2): 133-138.

Ewalt W., The Baltimore myopia control project. J. Am. Optom.Assoc.,
1946, 17(6): 167-185.

Ewalt H.W., Visual training and the presbyopic patient. J. Am.Optom.
Assoc., 1959, 30(11): 295-298.

Feldman J., Behavior modification in vision training. J. Am.Optom.
Assoc., 1981, 52(4): 329-340.

Forrest E., Eye scan therapy for astigmatism. J. Am. Optom.Assoc.,
1984, 55(12): 894-901.

Friedman E., Vision training program for myopia management.
Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt., 1981, 58(7): 546-553.

Gallop S., Myopia reduction: a view from the inside. J. Behav.Optom.,
1994, 5(5): 115-120.

Geisler W.S., Physical limits of acuity and hyperacuity. J. Opt.Soc.
Am., 1984, 1(7): 775-782.

George S., Rosenfield M., Blur adaptation and myopia. Optom. Vis.
Sci., 2004, 81(7): 543-547.

Giddings J.W., Lanyon R.I., Modification of refractive error through
conditioning. Behav. Ther., 1971, 2(4): 538-542.

Giddings J.W., Lanyon R.I., Effects of reinforcement on visual acuity
in myopic adults. Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom., 1974, 51(3):
181-188.

Gil K.M., Collins F.L., Behavioral training for myopia. Behav.
Res.Ther., 1983, 21(3): 269-273.

Gottlieb R.L., Neuropsychology of myopia. J. Optom. Vis. Dev., 1982,
13(1): 3-27.

Graham C., Leibowitz H.W., The effect of suggestion on visual acuity.
Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hyp., 1972, 20(3): 169-186.

Granger L., LeTourneau J., Behavior modification techniques in vision
training. Optom. Wkly., 1977, 68(15): 423-427.

Gregg J.R., Variable Acuity. J. Am. Optom. Assoc., 1947, 18(3):
432-435.

Hildreth H.R., Mainberg W.H., Milder B., Post L.T., Sanders T.E.,
The effects of visual training on existing myopia. Am. J. Ophth.,
1947, 30: 1563-1576.

Hirsch M.J., Apparent accommodation in aphakia. Am. J. Optom. Arch.
Am. Acad. Optom., 1950, 27(8): 412-414.

Hirsch M.J., Prevention and/or cure of myopia. Am. J. Optom.Arch. Am.
Acad. Optom., 1965, 42(6): 327-336.

Jensen H., Myopia progression in young schoolchildren and intraocular
pressure. Documenta Ophthalmologica, 1992, 82(3): 249-255.

Kaplan R.M., Hypnosis, new horizons for optometry. Rev. Optom., 1978,
115(10): 53-58.

Kelley C.R., Psychological factors in myopia. J. Am Optom.Assoc.,
1962, 33(6): 833-837.

Lancaster W.B., Present status of eye exercises. Arch. Ophth., 1944,
32(3): 167-172.

Lancaster W.B., Woods A.C., Hildreth H.R., Visual training for myopia.
J. Am. Med. Assoc., 1948, 136: 110.

Lane B., Nutrition and Vision, J. Optom. Vis. Dev. 11(3): 1-11, 1980.

Leber L., Wilson T., Myopia reduction training. J. Behav. Optom.,
1994, 4(4): 87-92.

Le Grande Y., The presence of negative accommodation in certain
subjects. Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom., 1952, 29: 134-136.

Letourneau J.E., Application of biofeedback and behavior modification
techniques in visual training. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt., 1976, 53(4):
187-189.

Levine S.M., Adult visual system plasticity. J. Am. Optom.Assoc.,
1988, 59: 135-139.

Marg E., Flashes of clear vision and negative accommodation with
reference to the Bates method of visual training. Am. J. Optom.
Arch.Am. Acad. Optom., 1952, 29(4): 167-184.

Marg E. An investigation of voluntary as distinguished from reflex
accommodation. Am. J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom., 1951, 28:
347-356.

National Eye Institute, Vision Research: A National Plan, 1999,
pp. 100, 102.

Nolan J.A., An approach to myopia control. Optom. Wkly., 1974,
65(6): 149-154.

Oakley K.H., Young F.A., Bifocal control of myopia. Am J.
Optom.Physiol. Opt., 1975, 52: 758-764.

Orfield, A., Seeing space: undergoing brain re-programming to reduce
myopia. J. Behav. Optom., 1994, 5(5): 123-131.

Pascal J.I., Visual exercises in ophthalmology, Arch. Ophth., 1945,
33: 478.

Poggio, T., Fahle M., Edelman S., Fast perceptual learning in visual
hyperacuity. Science, 1992, 256: 1018-1021.

Provine R.R., On voluntary ocular accommodation. Percep.
Psychophysics, 1975, 17(2): 209-212.

Quinn G., Berlin J., Young T., Ziylan S., Stone R., Association
of intraocular pressure and myopia in children. Ophthalmology,
1992, 102(2): 180-185.

Roscoe S.N., Couchman D.H., Improving visual performance through
volitional focus control. Human Factors, 1987, 29:311-325.

Sells S.B., Fixott R.S., Evaluation of research on effects of visual
training on visual functions. Am. J. Ophth., 1957, 44(2): 230-236.

Sheehan E.P., Smith H.V., Forest D.W., A signal detection study of the
effects of suggested improvement on the monocular visual acuity of
myopes. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hyp., 1982, 30: 138-146.

Shepard C.J., The Baltimore project. Optom. Wkly., 1946, 37(5):
133-135.

Sherman A., Myopia can often be prevented, controlled or eliminated.
J. Behav. Optom., 1994, 4(1): 16-22.

Smith E.L., Hung L., Harwerth R.S., Effects of optically induced blur
on the refractive status of young monkeys. Vis. Res., 1994, 34(3):
293-301.

Smith E.L., Spectacle lenses and emmetropization. Optom. Vis.Sci.,
1998, 75(6): 388-398.

Smith P.B., Treatment of sight problems by the Bates method: a two
year study. 1978, (unpublished).

Smith W., Report on ocular reconditioning. Am. J. Optom. Arch.Am.
Acad. Optom., 1945, 22(11): 499-533.

Takahashi Y., Igaki M., Suzuki A., Takahashi G., Dogru M., Tsubota K.,
The effect of periocular warming on accommodation. Am. Acad. Ophth.,
2005, 112(6): 113-118.

Trachtman J.N., Giambalvo V., The Baltimore myopia study 40 years
later. J. Behav. Optom., 1991, 2: 47-50.

Trachtman J.N., Biofeedback of accommodation to reduce functional
myopia. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt., 1978, 55(6): 400-406.

Trachtman J.N., Biofeedback of accommodation to reduce myopia,
a review. Am. J. Optom. Physiol. Opt., 1987, 64: 639-643.

Troilo D., Wallman J., The regulation of eye growth and refractive
state: an experimental study of emmetropization. Vis. Res., 1991,
31(7/8): 1237-1250.

Treue S., Perceptual enhancement of contrast by attention. Trends
Cog. Sci., 2004, 8(10): 435-437.

Woo G.C., Wilson M.A., Current methods of treating and preventing
myopia. Optom. Vis. Sci., 1990, 67(9): 719-727.

Woods A., Report from the Wilmer Institute on the results obtained
in the treatment of myopia by visual training. Am. J. Ophth., 1946,
29(1): 28-57.

Yackle K., Fitzgerald D.E., Emmetropization: an overview. J.Behav.
Optom., 1999, 2: 38-43.

Young F.A., The effect of restricted space on the refractive error of
the young monkey eye. Invest. Ophth., 1963, 2: 571-577.

Young F.A., Leary G.A., Baldwin W.R., West D.C., The transmission
of refractive errors within Eskimo families. Am.J. Optom. Arch. Am.
Acad. Optom., 1969, (46)9: 676-685.

Young F.A., Leary. G.A., The inheritance of ocular components.
J. Optom. Arch. Am. Acad. Optom., 1972, (49)7: 546-555.

Young F.A., The development and control of myopia in human and
subhuman primates. Contacto, 1975, (19)6: 16-31.

Young F.A., The nature and control of myopia. J. Am. Optom.Assoc.,
1977, (48)4: 451-457.

Young F.A., Leary. G.A., Accommodation and vitreous chamber pressure:
a proposed mechanism for myopia. Refractive anomalies: research and
clinical applications. Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991, 301-309.

On May 22, 12:24 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> Statement by the second-opinion doctors for
> honest preventive methods.
[quoted text clipped - 123 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Reply to this Message

Neil Brooks - 23 May 2007 02:51 GMT

On May 22, 6:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You asked for scientific publication that:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 2. Published report supporting both scientific and
> clinical studies to that effect.

My Lord, Uncle Otie: what DID you do here? I take it you simply
regurgitated every citation that you've ever even LOOKED AT,
regardless of its subject matter, veracity, scholarly cred (peer-
reviewed, for example, vs. "unpublished" that you include)??

Hell, I GAVE you the one about periocular warming. Again, you are the
unanimously-elected poster child for zero critical thinking
skills......

> Yes, Doctors do support these methods.

And just HOW did your aforementioned regurgitation support THAT claim,
or what you listed in your items 1 and 2??

Hint: it didn't.

> And Majority-opinion
> optometrists HATE the concept of the dynamic behavior
> of the natural eye, and the this type of published
> scientific research.

a) What "type of published scientific research?"

b) Why are you trying to control terminology again? Your concepts
don't apply--nor do they hold up to testing.

see: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

> Of course you can ignore it, get a strong minus,
> and get stair-case myopia....

1) What's a "strong minus," exactly, and -- as to "stair-case
myopia--" please review the questions posited in the above link.

2) ... or ... you can listen to Uncle Otie ... just like niece, Joy,
did ... and become a myope with a restricted driver's license.

[ostensibly bibliographic diarrhea snipped]

Reply to this Message

Neil Brooks - 23 May 2007 02:52 GMT

On May 22, 6:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You asked for scientific publication that:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 2. Published report supporting both scientific and
> clinical studies to that effect.

My Lord, Uncle Otie: what DID you do here? I take it you simply
regurgitated every citation that you've ever even LOOKED AT,
regardless of its subject matter, veracity, scholarly cred (peer-
reviewed, for example, vs. "unpublished" that you include)??

Hell, I GAVE you the one about periocular warming. Again, you are the
unanimously-elected poster child for zero critical thinking
skills......

> Yes, Doctors do support these methods.

And just HOW did your aforementioned regurgitation support THAT claim,
or what you listed in your items 1 and 2??

Hint: it didn't.

> And Majority-opinion
> optometrists HATE the concept of the dynamic behavior
> of the natural eye, and the this type of published
> scientific research.

a) What "type of published scientific research?"

b) Why are you trying to control terminology again? Your concepts
don't apply--nor do they hold up to testing.

see: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

> Of course you can ignore it, get a strong minus,
> and get stair-case myopia....

1) What's a "strong minus," exactly, and -- as to "stair-case
myopia--" please review the questions posited in the above link.

2) ... or ... you can listen to Uncle Otie ... just like niece, Joy,
did ... and become a myope with a restricted driver's license.

[ostensibly bibliographic diarrhea snipped]

Reply to this Message

Neil Brooks - 23 May 2007 02:52 GMT

On May 22, 6:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You asked for scientific publication that:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 2. Published report supporting both scientific and
> clinical studies to that effect.

My Lord, Uncle Otie: what DID you do here? I take it you simply
regurgitated every citation that you've ever even LOOKED AT,
regardless of its subject matter, veracity, scholarly cred (peer-
reviewed, for example, vs. "unpublished" that you include)??

Hell, I GAVE you the one about periocular warming. Again, you are the
unanimously-elected poster child for zero critical thinking
skills......

> Yes, Doctors do support these methods.

And just HOW did your aforementioned regurgitation support THAT claim,
or what you listed in your items 1 and 2??

Hint: it didn't.

> And Majority-opinion
> optometrists HATE the concept of the dynamic behavior
> of the natural eye, and the this type of published
> scientific research.

a) What "type of published scientific research?"

b) Why are you trying to control terminology again? Your concepts
don't apply--nor do they hold up to testing.

see: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

> Of course you can ignore it, get a strong minus,
> and get stair-case myopia....

1) What's a "strong minus," exactly, and -- as to "stair-case
myopia--" please review the questions posited in the above link.

2) ... or ... you can listen to Uncle Otie ... just like niece, Joy,
did ... and become a myope with a restricted driver's license.

[ostensibly bibliographic diarrhea snipped]

Reply to this Message

Neil Brooks - 23 May 2007 02:52 GMT

On May 22, 6:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You asked for scientific publication that:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 2. Published report supporting both scientific and
> clinical studies to that effect.

My Lord, Uncle Otie: what DID you do here? I take it you simply
regurgitated every citation that you've ever even LOOKED AT,
regardless of its subject matter, veracity, scholarly cred (peer-
reviewed, for example, vs. "unpublished" that you include)??

Hell, I GAVE you the one about periocular warming. Again, you are the
unanimously-elected poster child for zero critical thinking
skills......

> Yes, Doctors do support these methods.

And just HOW did your aforementioned regurgitation support THAT claim,
or what you listed in your items 1 and 2??

Hint: it didn't.

> And Majority-opinion
> optometrists HATE the concept of the dynamic behavior
> of the natural eye, and the this type of published
> scientific research.

a) What "type of published scientific research?"

b) Why are you trying to control terminology again? Your concepts
don't apply--nor do they hold up to testing.

see: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

> Of course you can ignore it, get a strong minus,
> and get stair-case myopia....

1) What's a "strong minus," exactly, and -- as to "stair-case
myopia--" please review the questions posited in the above link.

2) ... or ... you can listen to Uncle Otie ... just like niece, Joy,
did ... and become a myope with a restricted driver's license.

[ostensibly bibliographic diarrhea snipped]

Reply to this Message

Neil Brooks - 23 May 2007 02:52 GMT

On May 22, 6:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You asked for scientific publication that:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> 2. Published report supporting both scientific and
> clinical studies to that effect.

My Lord, Uncle Otie: what DID you do here? I take it you simply
regurgitated every citation that you've ever even LOOKED AT,
regardless of its subject matter, veracity, scholarly cred (peer-
reviewed, for example, vs. "unpublished" that you include)??

Hell, I GAVE you the one about periocular warming. Again, you are the
unanimously-elected poster child for zero critical thinking
skills......

> Yes, Doctors do support these methods.

And just HOW did your aforementioned regurgitation support THAT claim,
or what you listed in your items 1 and 2??

Hint: it didn't.

> And Majority-opinion
> optometrists HATE the concept of the dynamic behavior
> of the natural eye, and the this type of published
> scientific research.

a) What "type of published scientific research?"

b) Why are you trying to control terminology again? Your concepts
don't apply--nor do they hold up to testing.

see: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

> Of course you can ignore it, get a strong minus,
> and get stair-case myopia....

1) What's a "strong minus," exactly, and -- as to "stair-case
myopia--" please review the questions posited in the above link.

2) ... or ... you can listen to Uncle Otie ... just like niece, Joy,
did ... and become a myope with a restricted driver's license.

[ostensibly bibliographic diarrhea snipped]

Reply to this Message

p.clarkii@gmail.com - 24 May 2007 04:38 GMT

On May 22, 9:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You asked for scientific publication that:
>
[quoted text clipped - 287 lines]
>
> read more »

otis you idiot. of course the ability of the eye to accommodate
constitutes a dynamic ability. no one argues that with you. and
inappropriate accommodation can cause pseudomyopia that might in fact
be able to be relaxed over time by various methods. but the degree of
pseudomyopia that a person has is seldom very large and naturally
diminishes with age. so whats your point? so you did a literature
search and found some references and simply pasted them here. so
what?

so if you believe that the use of minus lenses induces myopia, do you
think it is real anatomical myopia where the eye elongates? at what
age do you think these changes can occur? so how come studies where
excessive minus lens power is purposely used on human children (not
monkeys, or chickens, or shrews) do NOT result in accelerated myopia?
so how come uncorrected hyperopes, who accommodate 24/7, do not begin
to move to a more myopic (=less hyperopic) state? and how come myopic
patients who are purposely undercorrected so they don't have to
accommodate as much to read (physiolgically equivalent to a reduced
reading distance) actually accelerate in their myopia development?
and how come all the studies using bifocals and plus lenses and
removing myopic glasses to read DO NOT impact myopia development in
the slightest? why can't you see the overwhelming evidence against
your simple-minded concept of myopia development?

not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed are you otis?

now don't run off and start posting again in a different thread as if
you didn't see these questions. answer them. you constantly dodge
questions when you get stumped.

Reply to this Message

odisbrown@pa.net - 24 May 2007 05:44 GMT

Dear P.Clark,

Subject: difference in materials

Re: your Majority-Opinion stance

I am rubber, you are glue.

Anything you say bounces off of me and
sticks to you.

Enjoy,

Odis

>otis you idiot. of course the ability of the eye to accommodate
>constitutes a dynamic ability. no one argues that with you. and
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>you didn't see these questions. answer them. you constantly dodge
>questions when you get stumped.

Reply to this Message

On May 21, 8:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You hear the majority opinion, that a negative
> refractive STATE of the eye CAN NOT BE PREVENTED.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Otis

This appears to be the system formerly known as the "See Clearly
Method." More information can be found here in Quack Watch:
http://tinyurl.com/4pbpf

The company was the target of an investigation by the Iowa Attorney
General's office and resulted in a settlement.

One cannot take anything Otis says for granted.

DrG

Reply to this Message

On May 21, 8:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You hear the majority opinion, that a negative
> refractive STATE of the eye CAN NOT BE PREVENTED.

Yes, a negative refractive state CAN be prevented with the use of
ATROPINE on a daily basis. The use of atropine is accompanied by many
unpleasant side-effects, which makes it impractical to use.

Sugar pills have been found to be effective in the treatment of
medical conditions. This is called the PLACEBO EFFECT. This is why
ALL studies of new drugs must be conducted against a placebo. It's
called a controlled study. Under those conditions, the plus lens
treatment advocated by OTIS has not been shown to be effective.

DrG

Reply to this Message

Neil Brooks - 22 May 2007 15:10 GMT

> On May 21, 8:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> ATROPINE on a daily basis. The use of atropine is accompanied by many
> unpleasant side-effects, which makes it impractical to use.

It's also preserved--typically with Benzalkonium Chloride--a proven
cytotoxic chemical.

So ... while effective ... it doesn't seem safe.

That means it's one for two. STILL better than what Elevator Boy is
pushing, though ;-)

Reply to this Message

On May 21, 8:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You hear the majority opinion, that a negative
> refractive STATE of the eye CAN NOT BE PREVENTED.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Otis

This appears to be the system formerly known as the "See Clearly
Method." More information can be found here in Quack Watch:
http://tinyurl.com/4pbpf

The company was the target of an investigation by the Iowa Attorney
General's office and resulted in a settlement.

One cannot take anything Otis says for granted.

DrG

Reply to this Message

On May 21, 8:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> You hear the majority opinion, that a negative
> refractive STATE of the eye CAN NOT BE PREVENTED.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Otis

This appears to be the system formerly known as the "See Clearly
Method." More information can be found here in Quack Watch:
http://tinyurl.com/4pbpf

The company was the target of an investigation by the Iowa Attorney
General's office and resulted in a settlement.

One cannot take anything Otis says for granted.

DrG

Reply to this Message