Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Objective scientific proof depends on the nature of the
question you learn to ask.

Re: Long ago I learned to RESPECT the fundamental eye as a
highly sophisticated auto-focused camera. The proof for
this fact is to test this thesis against the theory that the eye
is a fixed-focus camera and therefore can not possibly
change its refractive to it average visual environment.


HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT THE EYE IS DYNAMIC?

If I ask the question, "Does a minus lens have an effect on
the eye with a negative refractive status" -- then (in science) it
is sometimes necessary to exagerate the strength of the minus lens
to see the effect.

If you are interested in PROVING the effect on the natural
eye (with refractive states from -0.5 diopters to -1.5 diopters),
and you are using the primate eye, then I would suggest that a -3
diopter lens be used. (There accommodation systems will easily
track this "nearer" environment.)

Thus the one group (in cages) would continue to have the SAME
enviroment, while the group with the -3 diopter lens on
(equivalent to putting a box on their heads -- with the MAXIMUM
distance is at 13 inches) would be correctly tested -- just to
see:

1. If there were change -- or no change in refractive state.

2. If so, how much change in one year (relative to the "test"
group.)

3. We should determine if this type of scientific testing of the
natural eye (with a negative refractive status) can be
repeated again and again with the same result. (i.e., the
need for a REPEATABLE scientific experiment to CONFIRM that
the natural eye changes its refractive state in conformance
to its average visual-environment -- as we will expect from
an auto-focused camera.

(Yes I know, this is a scientific study, and does not EXACTLY
answer your question, but is does suggest that the minus lens is
proven to have an effect on all natural primate eyes.) You will
have do draw your own conclusions -- since this objective test
COULD NEVER BE PERFORMED ON THE NATURAL HUMAN-PRIMATE EYE.

That is the "science" part of it.


_______________

From: "Carly Wong"

Carly> Sorry I misread what you wrote. I thought you were
referring to monkeys with -2.00 myopia to use a -2.00 lens.
I agree with Dr Judy, why would you use an overprescribed
lens?

_______________


Otis> You run the above test to confirm that a minus lens has NO
EFFECT on the eye's refraction -- even if it were
ACCIDENTALLY over-prescribed. This is typically the type of
test the NIH will run to confirm that a drug (like red-dye
#2 is safe). You must increase the "dose" to actually see
the effect. The same principle is used here to verify that
a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of
the natual eye.

Otis> There are other indications that when a young-man with 20/40
vision (passes the DMV) winds up with an over-prescribed
-2.0 diopter minus lens. I would suspect that the same
thing that is proven for the natural primate eye (above)
would occur to HIS refractive state if he wore that -2.0
diopter lens ALL THE TIME. This is the explicit
recommendation of the "majority-opinion" optometrists.

Otis> MyopiaFree is about different opinions and judgment about
this dynamic quality of the fundamental eye -- and seek
scientific proof that the NATRUAL eye behaves in the manner.
This should provoke so honest review of pure science versus
"medical" necessity.

Otis> MyopiaFree is about thinking and analysis -- not the demand
for immediate results produced by a minus lens.

Otis> The average OD has no choice but to use a minus lens in his
office. I do not "argue" about that given situation. Dr.
Raphaelson's statement about, "The Printer's Son" spells
THAT issue out -- exactly.

Best,

Otis