On May 30, 12:01 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Dear Revival,

Subject: Just the scientific facts.

As you know, Bates deplored the over-prescribed minus.

Science now confirms that the eye will change its
refractive STATE when you place a
strong minus on it:


Really? please tell us what the proof is. in humans please.

now that you've resurfaced, please address these observations and
questions. don't run away again, just try them one at a time if it
seems too overwhelming for you.

1. What is your professional training, or professional experience,
that allows you to give

people advise on how to manage their vision and eyecare problems?
What Optometry, Ophthalmology,

or Optics training and/or experience do you have?

2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and
are therefore walking

around with net plus power on their eye 24/7, do not become less
myopic. This is optically the

same as wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't
revert to emmetropia? Why is

it that they oftentimes become even more myopic? Your "theory"
predicts the opposite!

3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do
not become more myopic

(=less hyperopic) over time? They are straining to see, in exactly
the same way that others do

who get very close their reading material. They do it 24/7. It's the
same as wearing glasses

that are overminused. Your theory predicts their refraction should
change, but it doesn't.

Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40.

4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
Physiol Opt. Feb;61(2):85-93,

1984) children who were overminused on purpose did not become myopic
any more than children who

wore their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the
opposite!

5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave
them slightly myopic even

with their glasses on, they continued to develop myopia, and actually
at an accelerate rate

(Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances
rather than inhibits myopia

progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory" predicts
the opposite!

6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study
(Investigative Ophthalmology and

Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858) concluded that using bifocal lenses
on children has no effect

on myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite!

Dear PClark,

Subject: your querulous queries

Although, as a matter of "course," I NEVER "question my OWN
faith," I will entertain a few of YOUR inquiries below.

On May 30, 12:01 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
Dear Revival,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]

Really? please tell us what the proof is. in humans please.

My nephew, Keith.

I convinced his "mother" that he should wear
the plus lens (at the threshold) and NOT wear the wretched
minus.

He is now in his "fifth decade" and has 20/20 uncorrected vision.

He is also an accomplished athlete and personal trainer, all of
which can be "attributed" to avoiding that first minus lens.

now that you've resurfaced, please address these observations and
questions. don't run away again, just try them one at a time if it
seems too overwhelming for you.

I shall do my best.

1. What is your professional training, or professional experience,
that allows you to give
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]

or Optics training and/or experience do you have?

I wrote a book (that I, of necessity, self-published. No
reputable publisher would come within a mile of it) about the
wonders of the plus lens and the evils of the minus lens.

The mere "act" of having WRITTEN that book renders me
highly qualified in this area.

2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and
are therefore walking
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
it that they oftentimes become even more myopic? Your "theory"
predicts the opposite!

They lack the requisite "personal resolve."

My niece is another example of this weak-willed, spineless, character-
lacking sort who just "didn't have" what it "takes."

3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do
not become more myopic
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]

Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40.

See above. They are as feckless as my niece, Joy Benson.

4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom
Physiol Opt. Feb;61(2):85-93,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
wore their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the
opposite!

I can safely assume that this study was flawed.

5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave
them slightly myopic even
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory" predicts
the opposite!

It is safe to assume that this study, too, is flawed.

6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study
(Investigative Ophthalmology and
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]

on myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite!

Do you FAIL to SEE the pattern here? Whenever you encounter
a study whose "conclusions" are at variance with mine, then you
have encountered a flawed study.

As always, enjoy our pleasant conversation about the behavior of
the fundamental natural eye.

Best,

Odis
Escapee

Why is it that 'The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
' Scared of something, Neil?

How is it that you are able to reply so fast, Neil?

Do you sit at your computer, desperately refreshing the page looking for my
reply, so that you can make up some sort of 'witty' comeback?

You truly do have no life, Neil.

A real shame. Go fetch, 'boy.

Ouch. How will I recover? How ... will ... I ... recover?

Like Otis: rather than address the substance of an argument, you need
to attack the person presenting the argument.

Also like Otis: you seem blind

your attacks are equally true of you. Wouldn't that tend to render them less effective?

Why is it that 'The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
' Scared of something, Neil?

Why is it that 'The author of this message requested that it not be archived.
' Scared of something, Neil?

How is it that you are able to reply so fast, Neil?

Do you sit at your computer, desperately refreshing the page looking for my
reply, so that you can make up some sort of 'witty' comeback?

You truly do have no life, Neil.

A real shame. Go fetch, 'boy.

Wow, Neil. Since you are the one with -8 diopters of hyperopia, it'd
probably be a *teeny* bit more accurate to remember that you,
yourself, are blind.

---

considering you don't know the difference between a retinoscope and that
other machine and are here saying you and Otis know best, frankly is
quite concerning

---

That was a question asked by my 12 year old younger brother ;-)

---

It is impossible to get a straight answer out of Otis, you ask him a
question, he goes off on a tangent.

---

Although we are both 'second opinion', my remarks are not that of Otis.

---

But it's true. You guys don't know everything.

---

True. Never said I did.

---

Perhaps if Otis was to change the way he made advice, such as "I'm not a
doctor, and recommend you see your doctor to discuss this".

---

I will add this disclaimer onto my posts if it makes you happy.

---

Of course, "when opthalmology finally sees the truth of this deplorable
sate of affairs"

---

'sate' should have been 'state'. Apologies.

---

I take it that's in relation to the truth that hasn't been seen for 100 years?

--

Not an 'unseen' truth as such. There are more people awakening to the truth
everyday, every second, as we speak. More and more people seeing how easy it
is to cure imperfect sight. So more accurately, I would rephrase this as an
'ignored' truth.

---

I'd love to see what you make out of my situation, having gone from slightly
long sighted to slightly short sighted despite wearing plus lenses (whatever
happened to that preventative medicine eh?).

---

I do not advocate the 'preventive' approach as promoted by Otis. Anyway, that
isn't even how plus prevention works, where the patient starts off myopic,
then uses a plus lens to cure himself.

I do not know how exactly this works
(if it does work), nor do I support such methods.

---

I've been for more tests than you could possibly realise.

---

Congratulations.

---

You don't care do you.

---

What, you want a hug or something?

I wrote a book (that I, of necessity, self-published. No
reputable publisher would come within a mile of it) about the
wonders of the plus lens and the evils of the minus lens.

The mere "act" of having WRITTEN that book renders me
highly qualified in this area.

Wow, Neil. Since you are the one with -8 diopters of hyperopia, it'd probably
be a *teeny* bit more accurate to remember that you, yourself, are blind.