Why a fair-minded prevention discussion if very difficult.

[OtisBrown]

I am honest with others - and seek an honest discussion of prevention.  Tragically, I simply get personal insults when I request a "new understanding" about prevention (at the threshold).
++++
I believe that we should have an open discussion on these issues.  What I get are strong personal insults.  Here are the statements by Optometrist Blue.

Blue OD> Now you are fading back into your standard rant, mixing up animal and human experiments, and defining your own terminologies. 

You are beyond ridiculous Otis.  Why don't you follow-up on your original singapore newsclip youtube link and start reading the scientific research information behind it.  When you do, you will notice that prevention using plus lenses, bifocals, minus lenses, or any of your other stupid notions have NO RELATIONSHIP to the type of prevention they are talking about.  Their preventions scheme is based upon valid scientific findings. 

Your's is based upon one old man's faith that his preconceived theory is right no matter what the scientific data shows.  Why did you even post that link?  It is yet again more proof that what you claim is invalid?  But you don't care about being truthful or valid, you are just RIGHT even though no one else believes you.  Ignorance is bliss.  Dementia makes decision-making easy.

What would Raphaelson or Donder's say?

[OtisBrown]

The more I see of the gross arrogance (and ignorance) the more you must respect your own INTELLIGENCE to understand it.

Here is more proof of this arrogance and destruction of vision.

"Science_Research" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote

Otis> I always measure my refractive STATE, and my Visual Acuity.

+++++

Endless arrogance and ignorance:

Blue OD>See, this only shows your ignorance. You are not qualified to lecture this
newsgroup in "measuring refractive state."
You have never had any training or experience.  If you had, you would know
that you cannot accurately measure sphere, cylinder, axis, accommodation and
binocularity with your little collection of hand-held lenses.
Instead you have convinced yourself that "measuring refraction" is so simple
that you have all the experience necessary to teach others to do it.
You have convinced yourself that myopia is the only problem worth addressing
in this newsgroup.
You have convinced yourself that you know something about anatomical myopia.
You have convinced yourself that all eyes get myopia.
You have convinced yourself that all eyes behave exactly the same when
presented with a stimulus.
All these conclusions are wrong and you have no business lecturing the
public on a topic you know so little about.
Please stop spreading your malignant ignorance.

++++
Hi Mike,
Thanks for your malignant arrogance - you will continue to over-
prescribe kids with a strong minus lens - that indeed will create
STAIR-CASE myopia for that child.
That WILL take their pseudo-myopia, into AXIAL MYOPIA - and that will
end any hope of prevention for that child.
But you are always a "self-appointed" person of 'science" who ignores
THE IMPLICATION OF ALL, SCIENCE - SHOWING THE POSSIBILITY OF
PREVENTION - for the person who "wises up" to the proven SCIENTIFIC
effect of a -3 diopter on all natural, or emmetropic eyes.
I post again - since  you are too stupid to understand what you are
doing.
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf
Have a wonderful day in your office.

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  I always enjoy an "intellectual" discussion about the
natural eye's dynamic behavior - and keep an open mind towards my
medical friends.

Here is why I think some optometrists can have an enjoyable
conversation about this topic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYCo_fzXjjo


The REALITY is this.  This man is talking to a mother - who is in a HURRY to get "home" to watch, "Cheaters".  (Would any intelligent discussion about prevention ( wearing a plus for close work ) be possible?  Her children are "tearing up the equipment" - and this man must honestly "fix" the child with a strong minus.

He has paid $ 200,000 and 4 years of his life - to get in that office.  The ONLY thing he can do - is to impress the mother and child with a strong minus.

Please do not expect anything in this "pressure cooker".  I know that I don't, and can't.  If I am wise, I will have this person check my retina for disease - but I realize that prevention for this person (and the general public) is just totally IMPOSSIBLE.

This is why I have my own "trial lens", and Snellen - at home.  I am obligated to EXCEED the 20/40 line, and have the courage and intelligence to do my own checking. NO ONE can deal with the general public at this time - so don't expect and OD to do it either.

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  Objective measurement - you should be wise about doing it.

Re: No OD in his office - can ever do this FOR YOU.

There is a difference between understanding objective science - and understanding an OD "in his office".  The OD is taught that 1) He must fix everyone with a strong minus lens. 2) There is NO RELATIONSHIP between Visual Acuity and Refractive STATE and 3) No individual has the ability to measure BOTH their visual acuity AND their refractive STATE.  (The presumed idea is that ONLY and OD in his office can do that - and everyone else is to stupid or incompetent to make these simple objective measurements.)

I beg to differ.  I am not "part of" a mother who is in a hurry to get home to watch "Cheaters".  I am not part of kids who are having fun running around in an office.  When one WISE OD - recommended that a child be taught to wear the plus (when at 20/40), the other ODs told him that, "... the parents WILL NOT STAND FOR IT..."  In the context of an office - with "wild kids" - I totally agree.

But if you are wise and patient with SCIENCE (i.e., natural eye following 1) An applied -3 diopter lens and 2) Eye following a long-term "near" environment (both primate eye and human eye), they you realize that an "office" is no place for a scientific measurement.

My refractive STATE might be negative (by 20/40 to 20/50).  In that case, using the 20/25 line as standard, I would find out (to 1/4 diopter) the minimum minus I required to "just clear" that 20/25 line.  This required strong personal resolve and persistence.  If my refractive STATE is POSITIVE, then I measure it OBJECTIVELY in this manner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7cU-0onSvI

All of this work is indeed free.  It costs me an education.  The eye has a total power of 60 diopters.  One percent accuracy would be 0.6 diotpers.  Half that would be 0.3 diopters.  That is basically " two-sigma accuracy ". 

I have demonstrated that I could get my eyes to change (by objective measurement of my refractive STATE) by +1/2 to +3/4 diopters - but it took about one year to do it.  For a person at -3/4 diopters, and could make the same commitment to long-term plus-wearing, I would expect him to change by that 3/4 diopters, and 1) Pass the 20/40 line, and 2) In due  course begin passing the 20/25 and 20/20 line.  It is not impossible -  but it does take a "strong person" to do it.

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject: My remarks on Todd's success.

I have moved these remarks - to allow others to discuss Todd's issues.


Dear Todd, Peter and Nate,

I always appreciate a man who makes himself successful.  But I must define it - properly.  Success to me is objectively reading the required line on my Snellen -  specifically the 20/50 to 20/40 line - with both eyes open.  That is a personal requirement.  If I can't do that, then I must get a low-power minus, and use it for driving, until I exceed the 20/40 line. Learn to be practical and objective  in your goal in life.  Because I have PROVEN over-prescription (i.e., a person PRESCRIBED a -2 diopter lens - when they personally PASS the DMV - I don't think need to review that issue.) 

Todd>  Print pushing and plus lenses are not a panacea.

Otis> Agreed - but when you know, that in school that your refractive STATE goes more negative at -1/2 diopter per year - that SHOULD be an incentive to START wearing the plus (as a freshman) at a four year college.  I think a person must be expert enough to understand the consequence of neglect - if he is at 20/50 entering a four year college, and states, "... my vision is OK, I reject wearing a plus for near - and do not expect my vision to go down to 20/120, in four years.."

Todd>  Some will get to 20/20, others will find it difficult to improve past a certain point.  However, you have to ask yourself:  Is it worth it to improve at least partially, and to reduce the strength of your prescription, even if you remain dependent on glasses or contacts long term?

Otis> I am a "purist".  If I am at 20/50, and -1.0 diopters, entering a four year college, as an engineer and pilot, I WANT TO BE TOLD THE TRUTH - as I stated it above.  We know that pilots WITH INTENSE, SUSTAINED SELF-MOTIVATION, gradually clear their Snellens to 1) Exceed the 20/40 line - as honestly required by all of us - and like Severson - kept up heavy use of the plus, until his refraction "went postive", i.e., cleared his 20/20 line for him.  You can not expect an OD will have any interest in this work - since it depends so much on personal insight, 'LIFE-TIME-GOAL' and motivation for that reason.

Otis> As far as I am *personally* concerned - I acknowledge my own "faults" as a child, inducing a mild negative status because of a child's "habits" - that no one attempted to "control". But far, far worse, it the habit of an OD in his office to PRETEND that these "habits" have absolutely NO EFFECT on the eye's refractive STATE.  I regret this massively tragic situation.

Otis> For me, who was seriously myopic (because repeated excessive minus lenses I was forced to wear), I don't think that living with "reduced nearsghtedness" is worth it - i.e., still dependent on a minus lens.  I want an 'either-or" choice, when reasonable success is possible, and to accomplished what you achieved, EXCEEDING the 20/40 line, and therefore able to avoid the wearing of a minus for distance.

Otis> In my opinion, my distant vision is worth it - even if I must wear a plus lens through the school years to keep it that way.  But I have about 40 years experience with this issue of  personal responsibility and the need to make this commitment.

Otis> I would invite Peter and Nate to express their judgment on this subject of personal responsibility to protect you distant vision (for life) by wearing a plus for near.