For Ace -- Avoiding entry into stair-case myopia.

Dear Ace,

"All [people] occasionally stumble upon the truth - but most pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and carry on as if nothing had happened."

Winston Churchill

"All great truths begin as blasphemies."

George Bernard Shaw

"The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing".

Albert Einstein

To avoid stair-case myopia -- it is necessary to clear your vision back to normal, and then just montor your Snellen to make certain you always PASS all legal visual-acuity requirements.

That way, you never develop stair-case myopia from an over-prescribed minus.

Here is the discussion. (Name changed due to majority-opinion hostility to an an honest, preventive second-opinion.)

Otis



Subject: Preventive success -- from 20/60 to 20/20

Re: And keeping vision clear through the college years.

I know that there are those who "object" to the use of the "plus" at 20/60 -- and with some reasons. But, as with Bates, or any other second-opinion method -- it is DEPENDENT on the person himself to make the method work.

Here is a statement by "Jon" (name changed) who started the vision-clearing process at age 14. Two years later, his vision is still clear -- and he must now pass the OBJECTIVE DMV level test.

For your enjoyment,

Otis

++++++++++

"We do not see things as they are. We see them as we are."

- Anais Nin

Email from Jon, 8/20/06

Dear Otis

I haven't contacted you in a while. Just an update..... i tested my eyes outside today on a Snellen (with sunglasses on) and I could read 1/4 letters on the 20/20 line.

I haven't worn the plus lenses for over a year, but I do wear them sometimes for extended near work. My vision seems to be the same.

I'll be 16 in less than a month - off to the DMV! Ill have to do a little work with the plus lens before then - or do some eye exercises.

Jon

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

Dear Jon,

Good to hear from you. As you know, I receive incredible "objections" for my advocacy that you personally protect your distant vision -- through the school years.

Your success is due to your personal persistence when you were at 20/60, or about -1.5 diopters.

You now know the "secret" of plus-prevention.

It is an issue like "diet" where you simply monitor your Snellen, and when your visual-acuity starts moving towards 20/40 to 20/50 -- (refracitve STATE moves in a negative direction as a natural process) you simply re-start the preventive effort.

This is a matter of personal responsibility. As long as you pass the DMV or better, you can avoid the minus and stair-case myopia.

I will send this to Stirling Colgate, since I am certain he is as proud of your success as I am.

But always keep me posted. "Plus-prevention" is a trade off.

Use it when necessary -- and be wise about this second-opinion developed by Steve Leung at:

www.chinamyopia.org

Best,

Otis

Unless I'm mistaken, Churchill, Shaw and Einstein never studied the effects of wearing eyeglasses.

Perhaps you could cite some publication that shows a credible comparison between myopes wearing glasses and myopes who don't?

And, perhaps not.

-MT

Dear Ace,

"I know that most men ... can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the very fabric of their lives."

Leo Tolstoy

The formulation of a problem is often far more essential than its solution, which may be a matter of mathematical or experimental skill. To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advances in science.

Albert Einstein

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Hanlon's Razor

Subject: The second-opinion on plus-prevention.

Here is some commentary and a short article on nearsightedness research -- FYI.

THIS IS THE DIFFICULT PROBLEM AN OPTOMETRIST WILL HAVE WITH US IF HE ATTEMPTS TO INTRODUCE PREVENTIVE METHODS WITH US -- AND WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE METHOD.

For the person who has a low-power minus (-1.0 diopters) the pseud-myopia statge that we all go through, the bi-focal is not necessary. All that is required is to make a habit of using a "relaxing" +2 diopter lens for all reading and computer work. The REAL issue is the dicipline it thakes to do it -- as Jon did it.

Best,

Otis

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

From: "Trying to get myopia into focus"

David Holzman, INSIGHT, Feb 16, 1987

Summary: Numerous researchers are exploring the causes of myopia in order to find ways to prevent its onset in children. At the heart of the problem is uncertainty whether genetics or environmental factors such as close work cause the disorder or, as some studies have indicated, it is a combination of both. If one geneticist is right, two-thirds of the myopia developed by children eventually may be preventable.

As the eye grows from infancy through late adolescence, the shape of its lens must remain precisely in tune with the focal length of the eyeball to maintain clear vision. Given the level of precision required, it is a wonder that by the end of high school only 15 percent to 20 percent of students have become nearsighted.

<Snip>

"The human eye is beautifully designed for a life of hunting for game and foraging for fruit on the savannas of Africa", Torsten N. Wiesel of Rockefeller University and Elio Raviola of the Harvard Medical School wrote last year in THE SCIENCES MAGAZINE. "It is a less than ideal optical instrument for creatures who devote their days to grading papers, reading memos, and consulting THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

<Snip>

Animal studies have shed light on the matter but have raised as many questions as they have answered. In the early 1960s, Washington State University psychologist Francis A. Young, a pioneer in the field, put hoods over monkeys, severely restricting their vision in order to simulate close-work conditions. The monkeys became slightly myopic, which Young attributed to their eyes being constantly focused on the hoods. Other researchers considered the experiments to be somewhat inconclusive because of the mildness of the myopia. **

** [Since this was published, a great deal more information concerning both the chicken and primate eye shows much more dramatic effect about the effect both the plus and minus lens have on the focal state of the eye. If you consider these studies and effort to establish the fact that the natural eye "follows" the visual environment, then the "primate" studies would be conclusive. To talk exclusively about a "myopia" and ignore to broad general question about the fundamental behavior characteristic of all eyes is intellectually blind -- in my opinion. OSB]

<Snip>

Despite the fact that results of studies of children who have been given bifocals are highly equivocal, Theodore Grosvenor of the University of Houston College of Optometry -- a proponent of the role of bifocals in the prevention of myopia -- insists that persistent close work causes myopia. (In what researchers generally consider to be the most carefully performed study to date, the two scientists ** disagree on the results.) Some of the studies have not borne out his hypothesis, he says, because they were conducted too late. "Once the eye has started to stretch, it may be too late to keep it from stretching," he says, explaining that most of the children in the study had already become myopic. "The ultimate study would be to put reading glasses on first-graders before anyone has developed myopia," he says.

** [One of the scientists was Dr. Francis Young. His bifocal study showed that a combination of under-correction and a strong plus stopped the eye's movement into myopia, i.e.,, would help the natural eye maintain clear distant vision if used when the eye was at the 20/40 to 20/50 level. OSB]



Mike Tyner wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, Churchill, Shaw and Einstein never studied the effects of wearing eyeglasses.

Perhaps you could cite some publication that shows a credible comparison between myopes wearing glasses and myopes who don't?

And, perhaps not.

-MT

I must not have been clear. I was asking about comparisions between emerging human myopes wearing glasses and those who don't. If your "staircase myopia" is hidden in these comparisons, I couldn't find it.

Shotwell: "At the end of 4 years, the tropicamide refraction showed approximately -0.25 D of myopic shift in all groups. There were no significant differences between the myopic shifts in the controls and experimental groups.

Grosvenor: "For the 124 subjects who completed the study, the mean changes in refraction were found to be -0.34 D per year for subjects wearing single vision lenses, -0.36 D per year for those wearing +1.00 D add bifocals, and -0.34 D per year for those wearing +2.00 D add bifocals. These differences were not statistically significant."

Goss: "Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly different."

Ong: "based on their wearing patterns, subjects were divided into four categories: (1) full-time wearers; (2) myopes who switched from distance to full-time wear; (3) distance wearers; and (4) nonwearers. Exponential functions were fit to the individual refraction data. The age of onset of myopia, the mean myopia at onset of spectacle wear, and the refractive shift over a period of at least 3 years were derived from these fits. Results show that the 3-year refractive shifts are not significantly different among the four groups."

Parssinen: "progression cannot be reduced by diminishing accommodation with bifocals or by reading without spectacles."

Parssinen: "After 2-years follow-up the change in the spherical equivalent was greatest in the distant use group. There were no significant positive correlations between changes in refraction and accommodation or refraction and convergence."

If you like, I can provide the specific citations, along with more, so you can read those articles yourself. Meantime, would you please tell us where we can see Dr. Leung's comparisons showing "staircase myopia"?

-MT

otisbrownpa.net wrote: Dear Ace,

"All [people] occasionally stumble upon the truth - but most pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and carry on as if nothing had happened."

Winston Churchill

"All great truths begin as blasphemies."

George Bernard Shaw

"The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing".

Albert Einstein



You f***ing crook, f***ing whore and evil b***ard, trying to leech gain from the brilliance and genius of others. You should be ashamed.

otisbrownpa.net schreef:

several snips made in much blablabla .........

For the person who has a low-power minus (-1.0 diopters) the pseud-myopia statge that we all go through, the bi-focal is not necessary. All that is required is to make a habit of using a "relaxing" +2 diopter lens for all reading and computer work. The REAL issue is the dicipline it thakes to do it -- as Jon did it.

Otis you cite to much, it is "pseudo" not "pseud" (to much Freud)

By any chance, can we expect real recent scientifically proof from your side , besides your citations from some well known persons, as Mike Tyner (see below) did asked? I'll think Mike is to polite when he said ''And, perhaps not'' Let's say, certainly not.

Otis, charlatan, beat the retread.

Mike Tyner wrote: Unless I'm mistaken, Churchill, Shaw and Einstein never studied the effects of wearing eyeglasses.

Perhaps you could cite some publication that shows a credible comparison between myopes wearing glasses and myopes who don't?

And, perhaps not.

-MT

Free to Marcus Porcius Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

In conclusion, I think that the "old plus lens junk recovered by Otis" should be destroyed.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

Dear Mike,

THE ESSENCE OF IMAGINATION

What we can easily see is only a small percentage of what is possible. Imagination is having the vision to see what is just below the surface, to picture that which is essential, but invisible to the eye.

How can anyone learn anything new -- who does not find it a shock?

John A. Wheeler

The task of the physicist is to see through the appearances down to the underlyling, very simple, symmetric reality.

Steven Weinberg



What I said was that SOME ODs preceive the natural, or fundamental eye as a dynamic system -- versus your concept -- that it is NOT.

You have every right to your box-camera paradigm, to the effect that the fundamental eye will not change its refractive STATE when tested in a pure scientific manner.

Thus you PREDICT that a population of fundamental eyes will not change their refractive STATE when you place a -3 diopter lens on them. But you never submit your box-camera pardigm to objective, scientific testing.

Thus your null hypothesis(Ho) would be this for the natural eye.

1. Take a population of natural eyes and measure all their refractive STATES.

2. Place a -3 diopter lens on 1/2 of them.

3. Measure the refractive STATES at 2 week intervals for a year.

4. Verify Mike's box-camera paradigm, but determining if a DIFFERENCE in refractive STATE will develop between the control group (no -3 diopter lens) and the test group.

I suggest that this scientific test will demonstrate that you concept of the eye is NOT VERY ACCURATE -- on a pure-scientific level.

And the very minimium, this test certifies the basis for the preventive second-opinion as stated by Steve Leung at:

www.chinamyopia.org

Have a pleasant day.

Best,

Otis

Mike Tyner wrote: I must not have been clear. I was asking about comparisions between emerging human myopes wearing glasses and those who don't. If your "staircase myopia" is hidden in these comparisons, I couldn't find it.

Shotwell: "At the end of 4 years, the tropicamide refraction showed approximately -0.25 D of myopic shift in all groups. There were no significant differences between the myopic shifts in the controls and experimental groups.

Grosvenor: "For the 124 subjects who completed the study, the mean changes in refraction were found to be -0.34 D per year for subjects wearing single vision lenses, -0.36 D per year for those wearing +1.00 D add bifocals, and -0.34 D per year for those wearing +2.00 D add bifocals. These differences were not statistically significant."

Goss: "Rates for the experimental and control groups were not significantly different."

Ong: "based on their wearing patterns, subjects were divided into four categories: (1) full-time wearers; (2) myopes who switched from distance to full-time wear; (3) distance wearers; and (4) nonwearers. Exponential functions were fit to the individual refraction data. The age of onset of myopia, the mean myopia at onset of spectacle wear, and the refractive shift over a period of at least 3 years were derived from these fits. Results show that the 3-year refractive shifts are not significantly different among the four groups."

Parssinen: "progression cannot be reduced by diminishing accommodation with bifocals or by reading without spectacles."

Parssinen: "After 2-years follow-up the change in the spherical equivalent was greatest in the distant use group. There were no significant positive correlations between changes in refraction and accommodation or refraction and convergence."

If you like, I can provide the specific citations, along with more, so you can read those articles yourself. Meantime, would you please tell us where we can see Dr. Leung's comparisons showing "staircase myopia"?

-MT

<otisbrownpa.net> wrote

You have every right to your box-camera paradigm, to the effect that the fundamental eye will not change its refractive STATE when tested in a pure scientific manner.

We were hoping you would document your "staircase myopia" or explain why it didn't occur in those studies I listed.

Once you do that, then you can teach me statistics.

-MT

MT asks: Meantime, would you please tell us where we can see Dr. Leung's comparisons showing "staircase myopia"?

otisbrown responds: What we can easily see is only a small percentage of what is possible. Imagination is having the vision to see what is just below the surface, to picture that which is essential, but invisible to the eye.

I guess that pretty much settles it. lol

-Quick

Simple Simon,

This thread was adressed to Ace -- and NOT TO YOU.

I do not see why you are getting "huffy" about -- since you don't know what you are talking about.

Further, people who lurch into vulgar language almost never have much intelligence about science, or abstract analysis of the natural eye as a dynamic system. You DEFINE your self by your language.

Otis



Simon Dean wrote: otisbrownpa.net wrote: Dear Ace,

"All [people] occasionally stumble upon the truth - but most pick themselves up, dust themselves off, and carry on as if nothing had happened."

Winston Churchill

"All great truths begin as blasphemies."

George Bernard Shaw

"The important thing is to not stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing".

Albert Einstein



You f***ing crook, f***ing whore and evil b***ard, trying to leech gain from the brilliance and genius of others. You should be ashamed.

I'd like to know how to prevent escalator myopia for those of us who live in the city.

otisbrownpa.net wrote: Simple Simon,

This thread was adressed to Ace -- and NOT TO YOU.

Then you should have used the SCIENTIFIC method and sent Ace private email...

Further, people who lurch into vulgar language almost never have much intelligence about science, or abstract analysis of the natural eye as a dynamic system.

What exactly is "abstract analysis"? Would that be where you avoid looking at what you're studying? Followed by waving your hands a lot when you draw your conclusion?

-Quick

You folks don't get it.

Clearly, reading all Otis in this thread, it is obvious he has now completed "cracked up", become so completely lost in fantasy he knows not what is in the real world.

He is in desperate need of professional help and not ridicule and torment

or not .......now back to the reality and hand.

-LB

<otisbrownpa.net> wrote

You DEFINE your self by your language.

And you define yourself by failing to explain why human studies contradict you.

-MT