Author Topic: Author: Brian Severson and his book.  (Read 6467 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« on: January 08, 2014, 10:13:15 AM »
Subject:  At this time, Brian Severson is in Montana.

Mr. Carter took over the name, "Vision Freedom" and is conducting the site.

The plus can be effective for threshold prevention - for those who can teach themselves how to use it.  The plus is not effective much beyond about 20/60 on your Snellen.

However, some people have been able to get out of -3 diopters of myopia.  It is a matter of your judgment and wisdom - as to what you choose to do.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 06:06:50 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2014, 06:50:02 PM »
Statement about the site: Vision Freedom.

 When I was a kid ages ago, there was an old Bates book in our house. I tried the exercises
 a lot but it didn't work. Now that I think back, I probably never understood how to do them.
 Anyway, I never did wear glasses in my life, except to drive. One day I was driving to Spokane
 at night, with glasses, in the rain, and I pulled off the road to read a map - and I was shocked
 because I couldn't see a thing. That's what glasses do. I couldn't see the map which was right in my hands.

 Somewhere around 1993 I borrowed the Severson book from someone I knew, and I did the exercises, which is basically trying to focus on one letter on a page, while pushing the page just slightly away until it's blurry, then back to where it's nice and clear. I did that for about two hours, along with some other of my own eye exercises, and I could feel my eye muscles working.
 The next day I drove downtown, and couldnot believe my eyes - I could see street signs without glasses. I couldn't do that ever before.

 Brian Severson in my opinion is the best. But I read a bit about him - he had some problems with his neighbours, and I don't think he did much wrong, and I think it went to court, and they locked him away for a long time. I think it was one of the greatest injustices in history. Why?
 I always wonder - why? His system worked. And he got a totally bad deal in life.

This site is being conducted by a Mr. Carter.

http://www.visionfreedom.com/

This site has been up since July 2003.  In that time, approximately 5,500 people have purchased the report below. I have received much feedback; almost all of it is positive. Of course, I haven't heard from everyone. So I don't know how many have done what is necessary and how many others have dropped their copy in the stack labeled "things to do". But, at last count, I have heard from over 1100 people that have indicated that they have either eliminated their dependency on corrective lenses or have almost reached that goal. That's about one out of five.

 Best Regards,
 William C. Carter

The Vision Freedom was established with back in 1996 by Brian Severson.  William C. Carter is now in control of this site.
Enjoy,


« Last Edit: May 07, 2015, 08:38:06 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2014, 02:07:39 PM »
So there's no way to get Brian Severson's book anymore? I can't find a used copy for sale online anywhere. I am just very curious what he had to say.

Offline Todd Becker

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 442
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2014, 03:21:25 PM »
I have an original copy of Brian Severson's pamphlet-sized book, "Vision Freedom: The Proven Method to Restore Your Vision", Revision 24, published in 1996.  The pamphlet is copyrighted by Severson.  If I could contact Severson or his estate, I would  seek permission to scan it and put it online.

Notably, his book is dedicated to Otis S. Brown and Dr. Merrill Allen, and also acknowledges Dr. Kenneth Oakley, Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Sterling Colgate and others.  Perhaps Otis can comment.

Todd

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2014, 04:25:23 PM »
Subject: I owe a debt to Brian - because of his fortitude to argue FOR plus-prevention.

Todd's discovery of his book, and wise use of the plus, restored Todd's vision to normal - by his own checking.

I will see if I can get in contact with Brian Severson - to see if I can get his permission to place Mr. Severson's book on-line.

Best,

Otis


I have an original copy of Brian Severson's pamphlet-sized book, "Vision Freedom: The Proven Method to Restore Your Vision", Revision 24, published in 1996.  The pamphlet is copyrighted by Severson.  If I could contact Severson or his estate, I would  seek permission to scan it and put it online.

Notably, his book is dedicated to Otis S. Brown and Dr. Merrill Allen, and also acknowledges Dr. Kenneth Oakley, Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Sterling Colgate and others.  Perhaps Otis can comment.

Todd

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2014, 04:58:23 PM »
thanks todd and otis!

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2014, 10:33:57 AM »
Subject: The standard -1/3 diopter per year - for the normal eye.

Item: Why prevention requires a positive refractive state - when entering a four year college.

Item: They (Dr. Hayden) suggested you be denied entry, with 20/20 vision and emmetropia.  He felt that
you must have a refractive STATE of +1 diopters - if you were to have any hope of 20/20 at graduation - four years
later.

While "convoluted" - here is his logic.  I agree with him.  You need "positive status" - if you are going to
get though a 4 year college - with 20/20.

This is Dr. Hayden recommendation for effective prevention of nearsightedness (1941) - for incoming Midshipmen.

(Very important to understand this issue. There was good reason and logic behind it.)

The report documented the fact that "Normal eyes" (refractive state 0.0 diopters) on entry, became myopic
during four years at the academy.  The estimated "down rate" was -1 diopter in four years.  (At West Point, the rate
was established at -1.5 diopters in four years.)

Once this fact was established by this study, Dr. Hayden, recommend that having a 20/20 and a refractive state
of +1 diopter must be required - for entry into the Naval Academy.

CONCLUSIONS

It is considered that during the past three years, the Naval Academy has
definitely proved the necessity of midshipmen having a hyperopic reserve of at
least 1 D. at the time of admission to the Naval Academy, and of their
meeting the present visual requirements if the visual standards
of the line of the Navy are to be maintained.

Results following the requirement that refraction under the influence of a
cycloplegic be made a part of the physical examination for admission,
with rejection of those showing any evidence of myopia under the induced
cycloplegia, have shown that an unduly high percentage of candidates
are not eliminated and that the development of myopia among midshipmen
has been considerable reduced.  It is anticipated that the percentage
of candidates rejected to date under the present visual standard will be
somewhat reduced as the visual requirements become more widely known
and understood.

It is desired to invite, especially the attention of ophthalmologists to
the importance of this subject.  They can save many patients much time,
worry and money by understanding the visual requirements of the Naval Academy
and by advising candidates coming to them for
preliminary ocular refraction definitely as to their visual prospects, so
far as a naval career is concerned.

Any candidate having less than 0.5 Diopters of hypermetropia at the time
of a preliminary should be informed that, while visually qualified - at that time -he has
a border-line condition which may progress to a low degree of myopia
by the time he takes his physical examination for admission to the Naval
Academy, and may therefore be rejected.

Any candidate having from 0.5 to 1.0 Diopters of hypermetropia at the time of a preliminary
ocular refraction should be informed that, while he should pass the physical
examination for entrance to the Naval Academy, he stands no better
than an even chance visually of obtaining a commission in the  line of
the Navy on graduation.

+++++

This is why Severson's wearing of a plus was important and critical.  This is why
knowledge of HOW to measure your refractive STATE is important.
This suggests that "emmetropia" is not normal, and that the normal value
should be set at +1.0 diopters.

If you enter a four year college with emmetropia - you can expect to become
-1.5 diopters when you graduate from college.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 06:09:49 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2014, 06:06:53 PM »
this is why i do not like the definition of emmetropia as 20/20 = 0D. A person can have a significant amount of "myopia" and read the 20/20. Also snellens are inconsistent and some people squint and read the 20/20 and others can "focus" and read  the 20/20 which just obfusticates things

Also the problem is that many people are prescribed -6D (for max visual acuity) and they only need a -5D to see 20/20 clearly and they "assume" that they made a -1D progress when they put on the weaker lens a few months later.

I would have to agree with tthe ODs definition of refractive STATE (the lens to max visual acuity according to edge of blur).

so if a person is +0.5D, he can see NO BLUR with a +0.5D and read the 20/20 with  probably a +1.5D.

so yes a "positive refractive state" (according to max visual acuity) is "normal" vision.

This should be the standardized definiton of refractive state BUT a child should NEVER a lens the corrects his vision to infinity.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2014, 09:22:06 PM »
Hi Sam,

Subject: The word, "emmetropia" has endless meanings.

Item: It is "elastic" - because they describe eye with a positive status as being "normal" and therefore "emmetropic".  Some define "emmetropia" to mean refractive states, 0.0 diopters +/- 1 diopter.  Others mean exactly 0.0 diopters. This is why I refuse to use this almost meaningless word.  I just report what I measure, and refuse to use false words.

But, if you measure your own refractive state, and I need a standard to objectively report my vision to you, I use the following definition.

I define 20/20, or normal, to be the reading of 1/2 the letters correctly on the 20/20 line.  Thus, if you have 20/13 vision, you can read the 20/20 line though about a +1/2 to +3/4 diopter lens.  (Is that emmetropia, or is it hyperopia.  I will not argue about it.)

In the above Dr. Hayden report - he describes this as "hyperopic reserve".  Further, he then states that, for all practical purposes, and "emmetropic eye" is NOT A NORMAL EYE.

He also used the poison, atropine, to measure the refraction of the eye.  (This produced errors, but that became the standard, required for entry at the US Naval Academy.)  You can add that to the complexity of this simple issue of measuring your refractive state -  yourself.

The critical issue is this. He insisted that men with a refractive state of +1/2 diopter, and 20/20 be automatically REJECTED, because of the certainty that they would become myopic during their 4 years at the Academy.

That is why I posted his remarks.  He was totally correct.  If you have 20/20 and emmetropia - you will not get out of a four year college - with 20/20.

this is why i do not like the definition of emmetropia as 20/20 = 0D. A person can have a significant amount of "myopia" and read the 20/20. Also snellens are inconsistent and some people squint and read the 20/20 and others can "focus" and read  the 20/20 which just obfusticates things

Also the problem is that many people are prescribed -6D (for max visual acuity) and they only need a -5D to see 20/20 clearly and they "assume" that they made a -1D progress when they put on the weaker lens a few months later.

I would have to agree with tthe ODs definition of refractive STATE (the lens to max visual acuity according to edge of blur).

so if a person is +0.5D, he can see NO BLUR with a +0.5D and read the 20/20 with  probably a +1.5D.

so yes a "positive refractive state" (according to max visual acuity) is "normal" vision.

This should be the standardized definiton of refractive state BUT a child should NEVER a lens the corrects his vision to infinity.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 09:26:56 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2014, 09:48:01 PM »
hi otis,

yes i agree its pointless to argue about a "refractive state". But it is always confusing when someone reports his vision as -1D. Is -1D to 20/10 or 20/20?

But for purposes of the forum, i do like your testing compared to 20/20 since its easier to guage progress, but it should not be confused with "0.0" or emmetropia (which is poorly defined anyway).

But i would like to acknowledge that there MAY BE some placebo improvements because people realized they can see 20/20+ with weaker glasses (because the OD overprescribed in the first place).

but in my view
anything above 20/20 is "normal vision"
20/20 through a +0.5D is very good vision
20/20 THROUGH a +1D (and edge of blur at infinity) is "not myopic" and 0.0D,

« Last Edit: March 03, 2014, 09:52:10 PM by CapitalPrince »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2014, 05:42:46 PM »
Hi Sam and Todd,
 
It is tragic – that the few people who advocate prevention (such as Todd and Dr. Alex) are totally ignored.
 
I believe that best probability of success would exist for a person at 20/40 – to needed to get to 20/20 in about nine months.

Like all of you - I like to examine the statistics about my future refraction in a four year college.
 
Here is a statement about that type of study - that might be conducted at West Point.
 
+++++
 
Synopsis:
 
"Myopia at West Point:  Past and Present", By Maj. Robert T. Gmelin, MSC, USA
 
From, "Military Medicine, 141 ( 8 ), 542 - 3, Aug '76
 
(Excerpts)
 
... In today's volunteer Army, one out of every three enlisted men and women and two out of every three West Point graduates wear spectacles or contact lenses for the correction of myopia.
 
...The subject of progressive myopia among the cadets remained dormant (1946) and no further investigations were made at the USMA for few years.  Renewed interest in the subject of
myopia was generated by the study of Maj. McKinney, MC on the Cadet class of 1956.  In his un-published report, "A Study of Refractive Trends at West Point", Maj. McKinney concluded:
 
1)  Pseudo-myopia during periods of stress associated with studying may result in blurred vision in cadets with little hyperopic reserve;
 
2)  The average increase in myopia was -1.37 diopters (the range being -1.12 diopters through -1.62 diopters); **
 
3)  39 percent of the graduating cadets of 1956 has less than 20/20 vision at graduation; and
 
4) Recommendation that the vision standards remain unchanged -- that hyperopia over +2.0 diopters and myopia over -1.5 diopters should be cause for entrance disqualification.
 
(...A study was conducted with a "preventive lens" and a drug.  But because the drug had adverse effects, the entire study was cancelled.)
 
Presently, there is no myopia study being conducted at West Point.  This may be due in part to short tours of duty at USMA, (24 months), shortages among Medical Department optometric and ophthalmologic
personnel, and greatly increased demands for vision care by dependents and retired personnel in the Greater New York City area.
 
Still, the facilities as USMA remain the ideal for an in-depth study of myopia progression, control, and/or prevention though the controlled environment and regimentation of cadet life.
 
SUMMARY
 
After a century of investigation, it has been established that the cadets of the United States Military Academy become progressively myopic (or less hyperopic) during their four years of education.
 
Still to be accomplished, however, is an in-depth study of myopic progression and prevention among these USMA Cadets.

+++++

**  What these statistics show, is that no own recovered from 20/30 or -3/4 diopter.  They just got 1.3 diopters more myopic.  Even today, that information IS NOT volunteered to any person entering the Academy.  Yet we know that highly motivated people (at -3/4 diopters) who can make the long-term commitment to wearing a plus - get to "positive status" - if they have the intelligence and MOTIVATION to do it correctly.


« Last Edit: March 05, 2014, 05:46:31 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline HansK

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: Author: Brian Severson and his book.
« Reply #11 on: May 07, 2015, 08:30:44 PM »
I have an original copy of Brian Severson's pamphlet-sized book, "Vision Freedom: The Proven Method to Restore Your Vision", Revision 24, published in 1996.  The pamphlet is copyrighted by Severson.  If I could contact Severson or his estate, I would  seek permission to scan it and put it online.

Notably, his book is dedicated to Otis S. Brown and Dr. Merrill Allen, and also acknowledges Dr. Kenneth Oakley, Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Sterling Colgate and others.  Perhaps Otis can comment.

Todd

Push