Dear Prevention minded friends,


Subject: Francis Young's study demonstrates that a steady
DIFFERENCE (of -1/2 diopter per year) in refractive state
develops between the "plus" group and the single-minus
group.

Otis> * One of the scientists was Dr. Francis Young -- although
not associated with this study. His bifocal study showed
that a combination of under-correction and a strong plus
stopped the eye's movement into myopia, i.e.,, would help
the natural eye maintain clear distant vision if used when
the eye was at the 20/50 to 20/70 level.


Judy> If you look up Young's 1975 study, you will find that myopia
progression was slowed but not stopped.

Otis> Judy has a way of "distorting" the statistics of the study.
The "plus" group showed a "down rate" of 0.025 diopters
(almost zero) and the single-minus showed a "down" rate of
-1/2 diopter per year. REMEMBER -- these were children
with NO MOTIVATION to use the plus properly. What this
suggests is that more forceful use of a stronger plus could
have the result of GRADUAL CLEARING (from 20/50) if the person
understood the intent of the effort, and the plus was
started BEFORE ANY MINUS WAS USED. This result is
confirmed by the people who have this type of
"understanding" of this issue. I would consider that -0.025
diopters per year to have effectively "stopped" -- but the
indication is that a stronger plus must be used -- with the
reading INTENTIONALLY done at the "blur-point". Clearly a
"prevetive" study COULD NOT BE RUN AS A BLIND STUDY --
because of the need to supply precise instructions as to
correct use of the plus.

Judy> In the following 30 years, dozens of similar studies have
been done with thousands of subjects and none have found an
effect as large as that found by Young.

Otis> Clearly the OD opinion is against the plus-for-prevention.
As Francis Young pointed out concerning the "Houston"
study,

Otis> A "small segment" plus was used, i.e., "granny" type of
plus. The result was that the kids (with no understanding
or instructions) looked over the plus -- and ignored it.
The result was of course, that the "plus" has NO EFFECT.
Francis Young used a stronger "high" plus, and the kids
could not evade the "high" plus.

Judy> In science, when a study's results cannot be replicated, the
results are suspect, ie it is likely that there was a
design flaw or some other aberration.

Otis> This is the reason why your run SCIENTIFIC tests of the
natural eye to establish the fact that it is proven to be
dynamic. Unlike these bi-focal studies (where you CAN NOT
CONTROL THE CHILD) the scientific work to determine if a
population of natural primate eyes is dynamic -- is both very
accurate, and the result (proving that the natural primate
eye is dynamic) CAN BE REPLICATED -- AS MANY TIMES AS YOU
LIKE -- PROVIDING YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO DO SO.

Otis> The "design flaw" of the bifocal studies is that they are
BLIND STUDIES, which means that you are PROHIBITED from
"controling" the way the child wears the plus at all. For
that reason alone these bifocal studies are suspect --
because you have NO CONTROL at all as to whether the child
looked through the plus AT ALL.

Otis> AN ENGINEERING-SCIENTIFIC STUDY would develope where the
engineer
was given EXACT INSTRUCTION as to the use of the plus --
UNDER HIS CONTROL. This would be a SCIENTIFIC (NOT
MEDICAL) study.

Best,

Otis

Dr Judy

___________________________

BIFOCAL CONTROL OF MYOPIA

Authors:

Kenneth H. Oakley, MD.
Bend, Oregon

and

Francis A. Young, Ph.D.
Primate Research Center
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington


ABSTRACT

"... Similarly, 226 Caucasian bifocal wearers are matched on
the same criteria against 382 control subjects. "

"... the (plus) Caucasian subjects (was) of -0.02 and -0.03
diopters right and left eyes against -0.53 and -0.52 diopters for
the (single-minus) controls."


CONCLUSION

"...The rates of progression of about -0.50 diopters per year
among the control subjects at the younger age levels are commonly
found among myopes at these age levels and suggest that the
control subjects in this study do not differ from myopic children
who are fitted with a virtually full correction which is worn
constantly.

The annual rate of progression of -0.04 diopters per year
found among the bifocal subjects is uncommonly found among myopes
of these age levels and suggests that the bifocals are having a
controlling and reducing effect upon the rate of progression.

The effectiveness of the bifocal in this study may well
depend upon the very high position of the add fitted to the child.
The bifocal can only have an effect, if it has an effect at all,
if it is used.

The bifocal fitted too low or too small a bifocal or a
bifocal which is not used does not provide a proper test of the
effectiveness of the bifocal. Under reasonably well controlled
conditions the bifocal appears to be effective in controlling the
progression of myopia."

Francis Young


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

DISCUSSION

Judy insists that the plus did not "stop" the "down" rate in
the "plus" group, (because the rate was -0.025 diopter for the
plus group!

She then totally ignores the effect that a strong minus has
on the "single-minus" group. This is indeed "selective"
intellectual blindness to the result of this scientific study of
the natural eye's behavior.

Even in this study a very mild plus (+1.5 diopter) lens was
used as the "plus-add". An this was sufficient to stop the
development of nearsighedness if used BEFORE the minus was
applied.

With NO INSTRUCTION to the child, most children will pull the
work in "closer" who are wearing the plus -- thus partially
reducing the intended effect of the plus.

With instruction, and use of a stronger plus, it is possible
to estimate that a MOTIVATED, INTELLIGENT person could use a +2.5
diopter lens to "clear" from 20/50 to the 20/30 20/25 range --
thus passing all legal visual requirments of the DMV.

This type of scientific study HAS NEVER BEEN CONDUCTED.
Where individuals have "woken up" about these issues, they have
been successful in clearing their distant vision in the manner.

Best,

Otis