Vision Clearing Proof -- as requested

otisbrown@pa.net · medicine forum Guru Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 1447

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: ODs request that the person prove
to himself the prevention is effective with plus.

Re: As some point it is necessary that a
person verify that he can personally clear
his vision from a SLIGHT negative values.

The Houston primate studies demonstrate that
the refractive state of the young eye can
change in BOTH directions -- albeit very slowly.

To confirm this, Mike ran his own test.
He had personally decided to quit "cold turkey"
BEFORE he contacted me. He said he had
a prescription for -2.75 diopters, at that point.

I stated that he must clear his vision to pass
the legal standard -- or he would have no
choice but to wear a minus lens.

His vision was checked for MEDICAL problems -- and
he had none. He was never informed that he
had "pseudo myopia", so he MIGHT have had
regular myopia.

You asked for proof that a highly motivated
person could clear his vision (change of
refractive state), and this is current progress.

I have changed "Mike's" name to avoid all
the hoopla that exists on sci.med.vision
about accurately understanding the dynamice
behavior of the natural eye.

This work was supported by Steve Leung OD.
The OD acknowledged that the plus was
harmless -- and judged that it could have
not effect -- since the refractive states
of all eyes are "genetic" and therefore
vision clearing would be impossible.

Please enjoy our pleasant scientific
discussions about the preventive second
opinion.

________________________________

Dear Mike,

Subjects: Your accurate eye-chart reports.

Re: If you had your own trial-lens kit you
could supply refractive state measurements
as your vision clears.

I am certain of the basic facts concerning the fundamental eye's
behavior.

But translating the science and objective facts (primate
eyes) into a program of effective prevention has proven to be
almost impossible.

Only when you personally "work" the issue is success
possible.

I am very pleased you that "caught" your vision at the -2.75
diopter level. Any deeper than that and I would think it would
have been impossible to get out of it. But you never know.

At least you know that there are optometrists who put their
own children in a plus at 20/25 or so -- to avoid stair-case
myopia. That is a major "sea-change" in attitude by
"second-opinion" optometrists.

Very few people, however, have your insights and motivation to
do this work correctly. As I told Jon, I know of only about 20
people who have completely understood this type of effort and the
necessity of it.

Your information on eye-chart variability is valuable to
myself, Keith Benson, Jon and Don Rehem. You have an excellent
"scientific" mind to do this work.

More commentary:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Otis

Subject: Update on vision clearing from -2.75 diopters.

Dear Mike,

Mike> Nice to talk to you again.

Mike> Within the past weeks I have made a few discoveries:

Mike> 1) Just being outside isn't enough.

Otis> I suspected this was true -- but I am pleased about your
observation of this fact.

Mike> I have been on summer vacation for about 2 weeks now. I
have made it a point to be outside as much as possible. I
play baseball as much as possible. Yet I still saw vision
regress from 20/30 to as worse as 20/70. I thought I would
see improvement but the facts say otherwise. They have
have proven that it is ESSENTIAL to wear a plus indoors.

Otis> Again, thanks. You were at -2.75 diopters, and I think this
"variability" is part of the reason you see this variation
of 20/30 to 20/70. Truly, prevention with the plus is
difficult -- and takes a first-rate mind to ovecome these
difficulties.

Mike> 2) Wearing a plus at certain times of the day seems to have
more of an effect then at other times.

Mike> I was watching television with my plus. It was right before
I went to bed. I turned off the lights and shut off my TV
and THEN I took off my plus. I woke up the next day with
20/25 vision compared with the 20/50 to 20/40 range I
usually get. 20/30 was the best waking vision I ever had
up until this point.

Otis> Again -- a very valuable insight. My nephew Keith, said
something similar. I will post this on our
"conversational" site for those who are following your
work.

Mike> I thought about this for a while. And conducted an
experiment. The next day I didn't wear a plus that
evening. I woke up to 20/40.

Mike> My thoughts on this are:

Mike> The tensing or relaxing of the lens WHILE sleeping is
directly related to the tensing or relaxing of the lens
BEFORE sleeping.

Otis> I obviously agree. But I would state that after reading
through the plus -- your eye is focused on "infinity" and
stays that way for the 8 hours you spend sleeping. You
wake up with your eye's set close to "infinity".

Mike> I think that because the last image I saw was through a
plus, the effect of a plus was put on my eyes for however
many hours I slept (did not recieve another image on my
retina). In other words it was like I had been wearing a
plus in excess of 8 hours.

Otis> Agreed!

Otis> Keep up the good work. John has now passed all the military
requirements for vision. When you reach consistent 20/20
(as Jon has), you can be relatively certain of passing all
FAA requirements. If you had a trial-lens kit, you could
determine your refactive status also. If close to zero you
would almost certainly pass the cycloplegic (paralyzed eye)
test.

Otis> The persistance required for this work is truly great -- and
depends completely on your personal and scientific
judgment.

Best, Otis

Thanks Mike

Neil Brooks · medicine forum Guru Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 1148

What is all this? I can tell you what it's *not*:

Proof, according to the commonly understood scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

It looks like all you provided is a bunch of anecdotal evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence

Note that anecdotal evidence is defined as:

"unreliable evidence that has not been empirically tested, and which
is used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or
statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may
not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing."

So . . . BZZZZZZT.

Sorry, Otis. The judges say that your answer failed to meet the
prescribed criteria.

Thank you for playing, though. We have some lovely parting gifts for
you back stage.

A Lieberman · medicine forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 30 Apr 2005 Posts: 194

On 6 Jun 2005 19:28:26 -0700, otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

Google