This will also be posted on sci.med.vision, as Retinula
requests.

      <otisbrown@> wrote:

    PClrNail.txt

Dear Don Rehm,

Subject:  The majority-opinion on any type of non-standard
      PREVENTION.

    The Japanese have a statement about people who do not
conform.

    "The nail that sticks up -- gets beaten down."

    But I prefer the alternative metaphor.

    "A man with only a hammer (a minus lens) will see every problem
as a nail."

    Tragically, that is PClar's ONLY vision of the scientific
world.

    There is a better prespective that RESPECTS the natural
eye as a dynamic SYSTEM -- that it has always been.

Otis

    ====================

Subject:  Majority-opinion PClar's commentary on Don Rehm, and all
      who object to the over-prescription of minus lens -- and
      the long-term effect that policy has on the refractive
      STATE of the fundamental eye.

PClar> These are some of the most ludicrous and idiotic statements
      I have ever read.  I alternate between laughing out loud
      and wondering in amazement about the depth of mental
      illness that the author demonstrates:

Rehm> THE FOUNDING OF THE INTERNATIONAL MYOPIA PREVENTION
      ASSOCIATION

Rehm> Since the organizations in the eye care field were telling
      the public nothing about the true cause of myopia, the idea
      of forming an organization devoted solely to myopia began
      to seem more and more necessary.

PClar> if the cause of myopia is not known, then not telling the
      public what the cause is seems reasonable to me.

[That is of course what PClar is doing.  Or in other words,
      forgive him -- because he knows NOT what he is doing.  OSB]

Rehm> The final decision about forming a myopia prevention
      organization was made at the 1974 Annual Congress of the
      American Optometric Association in Washington, D.  C.  An
      important part of such meetings takes place on a large
      floor where booths can be rented to exhibit optical goods,
      hand out literature, etc.  I rented a booth to show the
      Myopter and give out literature on the latest research on
      myopia and ways of preventing it.  To my amazement, the
      booth was almost totally ignored by the optometrists,
      although an adjoining booth, where the tinting of
      eyeglasses was being demonstrated

PClar> the exhibit hall is where vendors who sell products set-up
      their booths and hand out their marketing literature.  it
      is NOT where research information is discussed.    that
      happens inside the meeting rooms in the general sessions.
      if some idiot was trying to demonstrate his homemade
      myopia-cure gadget I bet he got a lot more than just
      ignored.  this Rehms guy is about the most clueless person
      I've ever heard of.

[Naturally ANY discussion of plus-prevention, and the proven
      effect of a -3 diopter lens on the refractive STATE of the
      fundamental eye is EXCLUDED FROM THESE DISCUSSIONS.
      Scientific review of the facts themselves are deemed "not
      important" in majority-opinion optometry.  OSB]

Rehm> In 1974, I therefore formed a nonprofit, tax-exempt
      Pennsylvania corporation, the International Myopia
      Prevention Association.    When the formation of IMPA was
      announced in various optometric journals (it was ignored by
      the medical journals),

Rehm> in many aspects of vision care, ophthalmology has done a
      better job than optometry.  this is an example of one of
      those aspects.

Rehm> I began to receive letters from optometrists around the
      country expressing their interest in the new organization.
      The response was greater than I had anticipated and
      indicated clearly that there did exist an unfilled need for
      such an organization.

PClar> of course this is not a surprise.  if there was a way to
      cure or prevent myopia then optometrists would certainly be
      interested.  unfortunately, there isn't any way that we
      know of.

[That is because PClar excludes all scientific facts -- where he
      does not like the implications of those facts as they
      concern the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye.  The
      IMPLICATIONS of these self-same facts are too staggering
      for PClar to accept -- so he sweeps them off the table, and
      claims they "do not exist".  OSB]

Rehm> 2.  How myopia develops.    Accommodation, ciliary muscle
      spasm, vitreous pressure increase, and their role in
      creating myopia are explained.  Animation is used to show
      how the eye permanently increases in size from excessive
      accommodation.

PClar> and here is the root of the matter.  this Rehm's idiot and
      his colleague Otis Brown actually claim that this is the
      mechanism for myopia development.  they claim this even
      though there is ZERO data to support it.  and these people
      wonder why no one embraces their theory?

[There is no doubt that plus-prevention is difficult, and take
      PERSONAL judgment and resolution to use it effectively.
      But PClar's "attitude" forces the person to "figure out"
      plus prevention for himself.  OSB]

Rehm> 3.  How concave glasses damage vision.  The harmful effects
      of prescribing progressively stronger concave lenses, and
      the serious problems such as detached retina which
      frequently develop, are discussed.

PClar> hilarious-- the wretched minus.    followed by a little scare
      tactics.  nothing works better at getting peoples attention
      than to tell them they may go blind if they don't listen.

Rehm> 4.  Supporting research.    Various research projects
      conducted over the past twenty-five years are included to
      show that there is solid scientific evidence of the
      environmental cause of myopia.

[I would prefer to say that the refractive STATE of the
      fundamental eye will always change in a minus direction
      when you place a -3 diopter lens on it -- in less than six
      months.    But that is science, not optometry.  OSB]

PClar> really?    there is no supporting research.  and there is a
      boat-load of research that refutes this stupid
      accommodation-based model.

Rehm> 5.  The importance of good reading habits.  This section
      explains why it is important to hold close work as far as
      possible from the eyes, to look up frequently, and to use
      good lighting.

PClar> of course!  and its important to drink milk every day, say
      please and thank you, and respect your elders too!

Rehm> 6.  The use of preventive aids.  The important role of
      preventive aids is discussed.  Such aids as reading glasses
      and bifocals are shown in actual use by children.

PClar> even though there is no proof that these "aids" work.  and
      there is LOTS of data to show that they don't.

Otis> Fortunately, there are now optometrists who support your
      right to an informed choice.  See:

www.chinamyopia.org

PClar> i guess the closest optometrists who swallow any of this
      bullshit is China.  and even then one must be careful--
      because in China if you get caught falsely claiming
      something, they execute you.

Otis> And I am certain that PClar would like to execute any
      second-opinion OD who would offer you a discussion of
      plus-prevention.

Otis> If you wonder about majority-opinion arrogance, and
      ignorance -- then you heard it from PClar.

Just one man's opinion.

Otis

On Jul 27, 9:13 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Parssinen put glasses on one group of myopes and made another group leave
them off.

Which group got myopic faster?

So, are you lying or are you just stubbornly holding on to disproven
notions?

Which is it? You never answer.

-MT

you are a sick old man.  you fabricate a dialogue that never took
place by cutting and pasting (and liberally paraphrasing) statements
that you have taken out of context.  This "conversation" never took
place between me and Don Rehm.

the real answer is NO.  just go by the forum and >95% of the posts are
from Otis himself.  he even replies to his own posts.

there is ZERO science that shows what you claim is true.  and I mean
in humans, not in monkeys or chickens.
however there is volumes of data on humans that show where over-
correcting with excessive minus DOES NOT induce staircase myopia,
while undercorrection actually seems to stimulate myopiagenetsis.
Plus lenses have been statistically proven to not work, as has bifocal
contact lenses.  Otis, you simply conveniently overlook any studies
that contradict you.  And since you are well aware of them, its better
called LYING.

actually Otis, you execute yourself.  no need for me to consider doing
it.  do you think that ANYBODY believes what you say?  you are the
laughing stock of this NG.

I wonder why Goss et al's study with overminused children shows they
DO NOT develop accelerated myopia.  Guess that staircase thing is just
bullshit.