Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Rehabilitation / Objective science, not medical B. S.
« Last post by OtisBrown on January 16, 2018, 08:03:08 AM »
Dear "Getting Stronger" friends,
I always wish to be presented with objective scientific facts.  Then I will make a judgment about the dynamic behavior of all fundamental eyes.  No more medical interpretation and distortions.  Just provide me with the objective facts concerning the proven behavior of all fundamental eyes!  When you learn to look at science that way -- you can learn from the facts.

If the question is about Todd being successful, you will find the proof for threshold prevention -- in this type of scientific data. 
My statement is that an intelligently worn "plus" (at 20/50) is like living, "out doors", once you get the idea from the experiment and this science.

Certainly wearing a preventive plus - they way that Todd did it - will never become, "popular".  But even that becomes and educated, scientific choice.


What are the ACTUAL FACTS - THE ACTUAL SCIENCE?  Here is a short video - explaining the statistics, of wearing the plus when at 20/40, (self measured -1.0 diopters).

For those of you who like pure science, theory and logic, this is the science of prevention, for those who are close to reading the 20/40 line, or self-measured -1 diopter. 
Do not fight or argue with anyone "medical", you are wasted their time.

Let this be my deep respect for Dr. Raphaelson, and Dr. Prentice, who said that the, "general public" would be totally hostile to all prevention (at 20/40), and the no recovery would be possible - if a medical person were, "involved".
Do not ask for any recovery beyond about 20/40.
Dear Friends,
I know how difficult it is to accept the necessity - to do what Todd did - wear the plus to get a refractive change, in a positive direction - under his control.  For me, prevention means I accept long-term plus wearing - as a requirement on me.  I also accept that I must monitor my own Snellen, to make certain I always pass the required DMV line - and better.

There are medical people who say, "... show us the science " that proves all fundamental eyes are dynamic.
Here is the peer reviewed study - that shows how sensitive all natural eyes are to their accommodation systems.

You build science - on facts, not on medical opinions.
Rehabilitation / Why no MD will ever help you at 20/50, and -1.0 diopters.
« Last post by OtisBrown on December 26, 2017, 03:04:44 PM »
Todd was both very smart - and very motivated, when at 20/50.  (About -1.5 diopters).
Did he go to a medical person and BEG HIM FOR HELP.  Or was he smart enough to know the scientific truth - in this video.

They treat every one the same.  Have a hard time reading the 20/50 line?  You are considered both too stupid, and to low motivated to take any "preventive step", under your wise educated, persistence.

Yes, I use two lenses, for reading.  D1 is for reading at 24 inches.  (About a +2.25)
My D2 - is about 16 inches.  I use about a +3.25 for that distance.

Some people are very lucky, when they pass the 20/40 line - on their home Snellen.  Do you check?  Where are you?

I do not ask a person to do something - that I would not do.  But I limit my support for truly motivated people, who are still able to read the 20/50 line, although slightly blurry.

This i not in medical, just hold up a minus lens, impress the person and send him on his way.

Science - has to be more than doing that.

Equally - and being fair - ask why everyone fails - when they are at 20/50.
The major reason - is that they do not, "trust" the concept of prevention.  The next reason - the refuse to set up a Snellen - and read it objectively, as described in this video.

Then they will say, " Otis, you are trying to make money off me".  Fair enough. 
But my reasons, was to help my sister's three children, always AVOID GETTING DEEPER THAN 20/40.  (Always pass the DMV, and self-measure their own refraction - if they wished.

They took the PROVEN, -1/2 diopter per year, that your refraction "goes down" for each year in school, very seriously. 
That mean that the started, or re-started wearing the plus, when they personally saw their visual acuity "going down" towards 20/40.  This is absolutely not medicine, and the eye is not, "medically defective", in that range.

That is what you must understand - if you wish to avoid entry into myopia.

This is what Brian Severson did, when he asked for help to get back to 20/20 (as a pilot).

I just provided objective science, and said that no OD would ever help him, "get back out of it".

But he did not, "argue with me".  He did not, "complain" about wearing the plus, for being, "in fear" of wearing of plus, or that the plus (for prevention) would, "hurt his eyes" in some way.

That is in fact, what STOPS all ODs and MDs from saying anything at all.

That is a matter of, "your fear" that you must understand. 

But what is the plus about?  It is about the natural eye being highly responsive to, "near" habits of children.

Correctly understood, and the "plus" is like living out doors, most of the time.

But that is the concept people hate.  I hate the idea that I must wear a plus (always) for prevention, when I am still passing the 20/50 to 20/60 line.

In my opinion, if you are in Junior High School - that is your last chance to stay out of it - and get back to 20/20.

I thank Todd - for his success. You KNOW he is not attempting to, "make money off you", or sell you anything at all.

Enjoy !
Believe it or not - I am not that much of a critic of optometry.  I just do not like their "science" or their, "office arrogance".  But I do accept that the abject ignorance of the public (walking in off the street), will always mean the child will get the strongest minus possible, and will be told to, "wear that strong minus for all close work", and that will, "help your vision get better".  I will let you judge that statement, and the people who make it.  Here is a short video reviewing the experience of Todd Becker and Jake Steiner - for your thoughtful review.  Both are successful, and make very "limited claims".

The public is indeed ignorant.  The public loves the doctor who makes the person's vision extremely sharp, from a strong minus.  Only years later, when you are at minus 7 diopters, to some people, "wake up" to the damage that, "first minus " is certain to do.

Todd specified two distances, "D1 and D2".  Jake talks about, "focus challenge", and other terms like that.
The I see, "D1 and D2" as me wearing a plus lens for 25 inches, and a plus for 15 inches.
But then everyone says, " I do not like doing that".  Or they demand that Todd or Jake, "go to an OD" to be what, "confirmed"??
No - you confirm - by putting up a Snellen and reading it yourself.  ODs are a waste of both money and your time.  They are very expensive.

But there is a good reason why people fail - at 20/50 - entering a four year college.  They refuse to take long-term plus wearing seriously.  For me - that defines the problem.

PREVENTION IT GOING TO BE TOTALLY PERSONAL !  At 20/50, you either, "get the idea", or you fail to understand.  I am not insulting you - but that is the harsh reality that an optometrist faces.  He is NOT GOING TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTARY - EVER.

The eye is normal, is the range of + / - 2 diopters.  The bad theory of optometry, is to call all normal refraction, "defects" or, "errors" so that they can, "prescribe something".  That is why a truly bad theory - is so totally destructive.

I now personally, measure my own refraction, which is now, it in the normal, "positive value" stage.

Eventually, people like Todd and Jake, will convince more people (including their own children) to begin prevention at 20/40 (self measured -1 diopter).

But - equally - hell might freeze over - before true scientific prevention is offered - at 20/40.

You can put be down as a devout believer in science - and the impossibility of helping anyone if you use the word, "cure".

Success report.  (If a low minus, get a Snellen, and get off your ass - and do something on your own. )

People complain about Jake and his claims.  They say, "no OD confirmation".  But, who cares.  Just use your own Snellen, and at least exceed the 20/30 line, at home.  20/20 tends to be the, "Holy Grail".  You do not truly need it.

So yes, some things in life are a compromise.  But I have 20/20, always self checked. Do i complain?

You complain that Todd did not do it!  Or you complain about long-term wearing of a plus, when at 20/40. 

I make no claims about "large minus".  I say, that we would not have, "large minus" people, if they just would have started wearing a plus, before they went, "below" 20/50.

Help yourself.

Yes, I know ODs think they are GODs, and that you are stupid.  Well - I do not think you are stupid.  I think, with training, you will realize that a minus, always causes myopia - in pure science.  But, equally, I do accept that I must, commit, to wearing the plus, before I go below 20/40, in High School.

Read the "medical opinion" by Patrick, about how safe and necessary the minus is for your child! 

Science of all fundamental eyes - but here by be separated from this level of ignorance, in medicine.   Todd - got this correctly.

Yes, I know you do not want to accept, "long term plus wearing", in high school.  Well, when you get down to -3 diopters and 20/200, do not come back to me and complain about your self-created problem.  I gave you an honest scientific choice - and you blew it.
Hey guys -
The medical profession judges you to be, "brain dead". Do you feel that way about yourself?

The issue of prevention (under your control), is a matter of science (if you are close to 20/40), and have the judgment and fortitude to wear the plus for the long-term.

Even I will not make, "great claims" about, "getting out of it", beyond about 20/50.

Long-term plus wearing is science.  Quick fixing is medicine.  Wearing any minus, drives you deep into myopia, deep enough so it is almost impossible to get "back out of it".

Todd was wise, and smart about this, "long term wearing of a plus for all near work".  (when still at 20/60). But any one thinking that this  is a "short term cure", has not understood the problem, both in medicine, and about himself.

Think for yourself.  Look at your own Snellen, for the long term. For myself, I wear a plus, long-term, because I know that I must, and no OD will ever be of any help to me.

Prevention is an education in science. 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10