Dear Prevention minded freinds,

Subject: The office "fib" clearly stated. Is it true?

Here is the review.

___________________________

Dear Keith,

Some people can be "honest" in a conventional sense, but when
they get in their office, they tell the standard "shop fibs" that
have been obviously handed down from generation to generation.
Since the public is both ignorant and non-motivated they fall
victim to these convenient but disproven statements. A great deal of
this depends on using neutral words to describe the behavior of
the natural eye. A dynamic natural eye can have a positive
refractive status, or a negative refractive status.

The "standard" language (in the shop) refers
to BOTH positive and negative refractive states as "ERRORS". And
this is just the beginning of their misconceptions about the eye's
behavior that is driven into the poor descriptive language
describing the eye's behavior.

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

Subject: Discussion of convenient "office fibs" as the
majority opinion, versus the scientific "dynamic eye" as
the second opinion.


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


Otis> Prevention with the plus is perhaps difficult to
"understand" at first, but it beats "stair-case" myopia
(-1/2 diopter per year) that these kids get into because
they wear an over-prescribed minus lens ALL THE TIME.


From Dr. G. Leukoma -- of the "Majority Opinion"
school of thought.


"Prevention with the plus" is an oxymoron, and should not be
used. You have not proven that plus can prevent anything except a
headache. Myopia tends to be progressive, period. If you don't
treat it, it gets worse. If you do treat it with lenses, it gets
worse. However, if you treat it with atropine, it doesn't get
worse. If you treat it with pirenzepine, it only gets 50% worse.


DrG

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

Reply

Subject: Question on Improving my Eyesight

Dear Dr. G. Leukoma,

Subject: You express your "office" opinion -- not the
objective scientific facts concerning the proven dynamic
behavior of the primate eye.


When you place a minus lens on a population of primate eyes,
the eye's with the minus lens on (say -3 diopters) go "down"
relative to the primate eyes with NO minus lens on them.

The well-done Oakley-Young study showed that a WEAK +1.5
diopter lens had the capability of PREVENTING the development of
nearsighedness (a negative refractive state of the natural primate
eye.) This strongly verifies Stirling Colgate's statement about
his ability to "clear" his distant vision back-to-standard with
the "preventive" plus. This REQUIRES that that a stronger
plus (reading at the blur-point) is required to "clear" and
avoid nearsightedness at the 20/50 level.

This is indeed the "second opinion" but this scientific data
strongly suggests that "prevention" must start BEFORE that minus
lens is applied.

It also suggests that the person himself must make an
"informed decision" about this issue, since in the Oakley-Young
study, the single-minus group went "down" at -1/2 diopter per year
over three years.

These facts obtained in a "blind study" are of course
completely confirmed in the "open" primate studies, making the
results consistent between the natural primate eye and the and
human-primate eye.

Or do you insist that the natural primate eye is dynamic --
as proven by science, where as the human eye is not dynamic, and
profoundly different in its natrual behviorial characteristic?

At the very minimum, this scientific proof supports the
SECOND OPINION. This means that if a person has the "will power"
to use the plus agressevely (before his vision goes below 20/50)
he has a good chance of "clearing" to 20/20.

Our arguments are about the dynamic behavior of the natural
eye -- and not about the "defective" eye.

Best,

Otis