Engineers MAKE THE MEASUREMENTS - as OBJECTIVE SCIENCE.

[OtisBrown]

Dear Friends,

There were SINCERE, DEDICATED ODS - who described the EFFECT of a minus on the totally natural eye as "...poison glasses for children".
It was my long-term search and DESIRE to prove this OD correct.  In pure science (to the extent that is possible), long-term near, and a strong minus lens HAVE THE SAME EFFECT.

I totally give up on the extreme arrogance of these "majority opinion" ODs who INSIST THAT ENGINEERS CAN'T MAKE ACCURATE MEASUREMENT OF THEIR REFRACTIVE STATE.

I objectively verify my visual acuity (20/20) at least every few days, and my REFRACTIVE STATE (+1.0  +/- 0.25 DIOPTERS) ONCE A WEEK.  I am very accurate in doing this - and I think any dedicated engineer could do it also. 

In fact, if you want to BELIEVE your own results - you MUST make these measurements.  Here is a statement by Alex - that I totally support:

Subject:  Dr. Alex Frauenfeld is providing leadership on this topic.

http://frauenfeldclinic.com/frauenfeld-mini-series-test-your-eyesight/

A formal scientific study - would require that each person make his
own measurement of his refractive STATE - as described by Alex.

My videos on measurement (no-cost Snellen), and $4.00 minus lenses - show how you could personally do it.

The ODs (posted next) insist that ENGINEERS can't do it.  I insist that I have no choice but to NOT TRUST THEM, and do it myself.

[OtisBrown]

Otis> This issue of OBJECTIVE SCIENCE - depends on WHO EXACTLY defines SCIENCE ITSELF.

Otis> I think these ODs are a group of educated hacks, who spent $200,000 and four years of their life - learning to do what I MEASURE MYSELF IN ABOUT TWENTY MINUTES - AND DO A FAR BETTER JOB AT IT.

Otis>  In the future - you should decide who YOU are going to "trust".

++++

Otis> A formal scientific study - would require that each person make his  own measurement of his refractive STATE

Tyner OD> You can't do "formal science" by making your own measurements, Otis. It's
absurd.

Otis> - as described by Alex.

Tyner> Which journal published your friend's comparison between treated and
untreated groups?  Which textbook says that plus lenses prevent myopia? Harper? Weber? Kanski &
Bowling? Hoyt & Taylor? Wills Eye Manual?  You need to sit down with each of these authors and explain the error of
their ways.

Otis> This is pure arrogance.  This is EXACTLY WHY a plus-preventive study - will NEVER BE CONDUCTED BY AN OD. 

1) There is no money in it for them
2) It is truly difficult - and depends NOT on an OD - but on yoursefl.
3) It requires strong personal insights as to why YOU MUST DO IT YOURSELF.

I give Todd great credit - for doing it exactly that way.

[OtisBrown]

The REAL REASON why Mike Tyners insists that Engineers, "Can not make accurate scientific measurements of their OWN refractive STATE"?

That is because THEY CAN DO IT - and have done it, correctly and successfully.  Here it the reason:

Every time Tyner does it with Phoropter, Trial-lens, Snellen, he charges $250 for the "exam" and $150 for glasses. He has every reason to NEVER TEACH A ENGINEER HOW TO MAKE HIS OWN MEASUREMENTS.  Yes, I "understand" Tyner's reasoning - and it truly is not honest.

This would be like I should NOT BE PERMITTED to "weigh myself" - WHEN I AM CONDUCTING  A PERSONAL DIET TO LOSE WEIGHT!!
I don't pay a doctor $250 - when I can and must weigh myself.

This is why I totally support Dr. Alex Frauenfeld.  He is HONEST ABOUT MEASUREMENTS!!  Do this with no "fear".  If you obtain "results" you will measure them.  If not -you will know that also.  That is ALL THAT I EXPECT OF A PERSON WHO IS ATTEMPTING TO HELP ME AVOID ENTRY INTO "NEGATIVE STATUS" and if possible, slowly clear my Snellen to exceed the DMV requirement.

That is explicitly the reason I do not TRUST Mike Tyner's motive to hide "measurement accuracy".  He had no interest in *MY* long-term visual welfare.  I must be smart enough to do it myself - there is no other way.

[OtisBrown]

What I OBJECT TO is the extreme arrogance of Mike Tyner.  I have shown how, with a basic Snellen chart, you check your visual acuity (totally necessary).  Then I show how to use a simple "check minus lens" to determine if you retina is excellent.  (i.e., you read the 20/40 line.  You then hold up a -1.0 Diopter and verify that the lens "clears" the 20/20 line for  you.  That is  your refractive STATE.  As you wear the plus for all  close work, you refractive STATE changes in a positive direction.  Very slowly, the 20/20 line will clear - if you have the persistence for it.

I believe in keeping measurements AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE - so you understand them, and can make them and trust them.  I would NEVER go to an OD, unless I tested my visual acuity at home - first.

Here is an "office refraction".  I almost fell asleep watching it - it is excessively complicated - and simply not necessary.  Because of the complexity of the Phoropter - it is VERY EASY TO GET IS "WRONG" - and the patent never FINDS OUT - UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5UbaUm_T00

Yes ODs are "sincere" up to a point.  But to think you must RELY ON THEM - is tragic - in my opinion.

They have to pay off a $200,000 student loan - and I sympathize with them.  But if you wish to protect your own distant vision, then you can do it at no cost at all.

[OtisBrown]

Subject: Insulting an OD in his office - is something I WILL NEVER DO.

There is an issue of dealing with an "ignorant person" - who can only understand, "...make it sharp with a minus lens".  Never mind that this is "self-induced" - just make it sharp and I will PAY YOU FOR IT.  While I understand that IN AN OFFICE, it is impossible to do anything else, that FIRST minus lens simply destroys vision.

So why does the OD fail to AT LEAST MENTION THIS PROBLEM TO YOU.  This is what is "...in the mind of an OD in his office".  Every rational thought is "pushed out" - but the need to 1) Look good (prescribe minus lens). and 2) Pay off your student loan of $200,000. 

While we wish to "TRUST" and OD in his office, I simply "give up" in any involvement with an OD at this "level".  The issue of "choosing" the plus for wear (when necessary) must bypass and OD - who is preoccupied with these issues.


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

There are  some issues in you life - where you must make a wise choice - with deep understanding of WHY you  must do this yourself.  This is part of the reason WHY.  I do not insult anyone - I make an attempt to UNDERSTAND WHY "situations" exist.

[OtisBrown]

Medical people "Recognize the problem" - but are powerless to do anything about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHwXMeCj5vk

He states correctly that 1) The parents are not nearsighted but, 2) The kids with nose-on-book become myopic.

Tragically, the REAL responsibility must be placed on the parent-child - if prevention is desired.

Virtually no one with a 'medical title' can do that.

[OtisBrown]

Subject: There has been NO ADVICE in the last 400 years!

Re:  In science - there can be "advancement".  In medicine - I would say never.

Here is a brief comment by Alex.

http://frauenfeldclinic.com/

It is always the negative-lens quick fix - on an ignorant an hostile public.  There is never a suggestion of an alternative.  A great deal that is pure science, suggests that prevention (at least) is possible.  But no one will take it seriously.

[OtisBrown]

Subject: My life-time tribute to an honest, thoughtful OPTOMETRIST - Jake Raphaelson.

It is VERY DIFFICULT, to be taught something "simple", like fixing a child with a minus lens, and then to think that process must be "perfect" and fully JUSTIFIED BY SCIENCE.

If you are sitting in an office, and MUST impress the ignorant public in that manner, a full thoughtful discussion of prevention (at 20/40) is virtually impossible.

So what about the few ODs who INDUCED negative status by their "bad habits" as they grew up.  Don't they EVER think about this subject, when they "go home", and think PRIVATELY that there is SOMETHING PROFOUNDLY WRONG WITH A MINUS LENS - even though NOTHING ELSE WORKS IN AN OFFICE IN A FEW MINUTES.  Are all of us that SHALLOW?  I am afraid that the answer is indeed YES!!

I had the pleasure of meeting this man in Cincinnatti, in 1966.  He had DEDUCED that the fundamental eye IS INDEED DYNAMIC, but did not have the "word" to accurately describe his analysis - CORRECTLY.

I would like us to learn from him, and those few who applied his concept to themselves, and passed the 20/40 line - and eventually much better. It is clear that this is NEVER MEDICAL WORK, and using words that IMPLY that prevention is "medical" are making a tragic mistake in concept.

I only wish we could teach ourselves, before that first minus, to begin wearing the "plus" for all close work, as soon as we verify our Snellen is down-to 20/40.  If we were wise - the process would totally by-pass the optometrist.  But it does take great resolve to do it.  Todd did it, and Peter G. did it (pass the DMV) - and that is true success. Sure they want "better", but in my judgment that is true success.

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  I would not "experiment" with my vision - until I know EXACTLY what I am doing - and why I am doing it.

Here is some thoughtful commentary on the subject for your "learning process".

http://frauenfeldclinic.com/4-reasons-you-should-not-experiment-with-vision-improvement/

I "wear a plus" for prevention.  I personally VERIFY both my refractive STATE - and visual acuity.  I consider this work to be based on science and not on medicine.

In fact a person like Todd did "experiment" with the plus (and other methods) and verified that his vision passes the REQUIRED DMV TEST.  He received NO medical help in this process - he just had the wisdom to do this "experiment" on himself.

That is the real difficulty of prevention (from 20/50).  We are afraid to make that type of commitment.

[OtisBrown]

Science need statistics.

A proper plus-prevention study would work - if each man in the study understands STATISTICS.

Here is the discussion:

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

If an OD or MD CONTROLS the study - they will destroy the study.  If the wise person himself, makes the measurements, the "plus" group would get out of it (from -1.0 diopters).  But it does take great personal fortitude to be part of the "plus group".

[OtisBrown]

Few people understand statistics, and the "null hypothesis".  The "research" hypothesis, IN SCIENCE, is that the eye is dynamic, and will respond to the plus lens (from 20/40).  Here is the discussion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTZ8YKgD0MI

An analysis of the natural eye (at 20/40) shows a very low "P" value.  A "P" value of 0.05 is significant.  A "P" value of 0.01 is HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT. 

The analysis of EXISTING OBJECTIVE DATA, shows "P" values that far exceed "Highly Significant".  But to conduct such a study, would require the ENGINEERS in the study - actually understand these statistics.

I don't want to insult anyone (because I know you have the intelligence to understand it) but a full study would required the person actually be CONNECTED with this type of analysis.