Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: A conversation with a minus-lens theory
and practice optometrist.

Re: The difference between pure-science and
"clinical" practice.

Judy has some good reasons to explain why she can not offer
"prevention with the plus".

She should also include a statement about "The Printer's
Son" -- as a reason why she can do nothing for prevention.
Then I would agree with her 100 percent.


Best,

Otis

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

From: "drjudy65" <mpace99@...>

Subject: Re: For Otis re: Preventive Plus


Otis> Dear Carly,

Otis> Subject: The OD of the "future".

snip

Otis> I have BEGGED the ODs on sci.med.vision to relent -- and
help by DISCUSSING the preventive method.

Judy> The ODs on sci.med.vision have asked you to provide
repeatable, valid, scientific evidence...

Otis> This depends on your priorities. My First priority is to
establish that the natural eye behaves as a dynamic system
when correctly tested. This is a matter of pure-science.
If a person has a scientific mind, or an "engineering" mind
then he can understand this type of experimental
verification that the natural eye is a dynamic system. If
he does not understand this -- then the potential for
scientific "proof" would end at that point.

Judy> ...in the form of clinical trials showing that there is a
preventive method that works.

Otis> If the person understands the natural of the natural eye's
proven behavior -- and implements the preventive method
himself, then there is no need for a "clinical trial". If
he neglects the use of the plus, and for that reason
develops 20/80 vision -- you will have no choice but to use
a minus lens on that person. Effective prevention (by the
person himself) means that he recognizes the proven fact
that the eye is "dynamic" and applies that concept to
himself by aggressively using the plus at the 20/50 level,
and always "clears" to better-than 20/40. This requires
both intelligence and motivation in the person himself --
and not a "clinical trial" since this preventive process can
obviously NEVER be reduced to "medicine" -- with all due
respect.

Judy> When that evidence is provided, they will be happy to
suggest the method to their patients.

Otis> Of course after they have developed stair-case myopia from
the minus lens it will simply be "too late" for them. I
would HATE to have to be the person to "explain" that issue
to a patient who developed stair-case myopia from an
over-prescribed minus.

Otis> I would hope for a "supportive" optometrists that offers
BOTH methods. But that has happened ONLY with Steve Leung.

Judy> What do you mean by "both" methods? There are many, many
claims of methods. Optometrists would have to present all
the methods, not just a select two.

Otis> There are TWO methods available -- as the "majority opinion"
and the "second opinion". The very-easy method of making a
person's vision very sharp in 15 minutes. This is the
minus-lens box-camera theory and method.

Otis> Obviously, there are quite a few ODs who recognized the
"problem" with the minus lens -- and have sought to change
it. (Very difficult -- if you understand the issue of, "The
Printer's Son". The issue is PREVENTION before the minus
lens is applied. Obviously this consideration REQUIRES a
person who is informed of these issues as either chooses to
use the plus aggressively -- or not.

Judy> Licensed professionals have an obligation to present therapy
with informed consent -- the patient must be informed of the
odds of success, the risks and the benefits and the
alternatives.

Otis> Providing a discussion of these issues is difficult. With
the Internet available the person COULD do his own research
-- and perhaps conclude that the simple minus was "right"
for him. We both agree that this is an "either-or" choice.

Judy> If I were to mention "prevention" or "natural vision
improvement" to patients the conversation would go something
like this:

Judy> "A retired engineer thinks that wearing reading glasses can
prevent or reverse myopia. A real estate developer in New
Zealand thinks that therapy to address self esteem and
childhood problems can do it. A guy selling pinhole glasses
on the internet claims they work. Another guy selling a
headset with plus lenses and prisms says his gizmo works.
Yet another guy selling an ultrasound acupuncture gizmo makes
similar claims. Several companies claim their eye exercise
programs work.

Judy> None of these claims have been tested in clinical trials, so
the odds of success and the risks are not known.

Otis> The effect of the minus was tested in a "clinical" trial.
(Oakley-Young study) This demonstrated that the a
single-minus went "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.
The "plus" stopped going "down". This suggests that if
prevention is desired the use of the plus MUST START BEFORE
THE MINUS IS WORN.

Judy> If you would like to try NVI, google the term, explore about
5 million websites and make your choice.

Otis> I NEVER refer to true-prevention as "natural vision
improvement". If you are avoiding a negative refractive
state -- then you are ending your "near" environment with a
plus. As with the dynamic primate eye -- the refractive
state of the eye will move positive (i.e., eye-chart will
clear) although at a very slow rate.

Judy> If you find one you like, use PubMed to find out if clinical
trials have been done.

Judy> If clinical trials have not been done, then please don't ask
me if your chosen method would be a good one, without a
clinical trial, I can't answer that question."

Otis> Since I suggest you look at scientific proof that the eye is
dynamic (controls its refractive state to its average visual
environment) then I suggest that you work to keep your
eye-chart clear. As Judy says, "...then please don't ask me
if your chosen method would be a good one". I would suggest
that if you wish to keep your distant vision clear -- and
always pass the DMV, then there is no earthly reason why you
should even bother asking Judy any questions.

Judy> ...without a clinical trial, I can't answer that question."

Otis> This clearly separates an accurate understanding of the
dynamic nature of the fundamental eye from Judy who, "Can't
answer that question".

Judy> If you were the patient, what would you think? Would you be
wondering why I was wasting your time bringing the topic up
at all?

Otis> If the "patient" figures out how to clear his distant vision
(by science) then the fact that he does so will keep him
from "wasting Judy's time".

Judy> This is the reason that ODs do not mention prevention and
wait until the patient finds a method and asks about it.

Otis> At the point the "patient" figures out was science tells us
about the natural eye's behavior and applies the scientific
method (plus) to his own eyes -- and clears his eye-chart to
better than 20/40, then he has no need to go to an
optometrist and "ask about it". He has become master of his
own eyes.

Otis

Dr Judy

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


Dear Keith,

I am proud of you and your ability to take prevention seriously.

You gained geatly in scientific knowledge, and you also
kept your distant vision clear (when massive number of
children will lose their vision to that minus lens.)

Here Dr. Judy argues that she should continue over-prescribing
that minus lens until "someone" runs a "clinical" study.

You can plan on hell freezing over before an OD runs
a "clinical" study that trashes the "minus lens method"
of the last 400 years -- or agrees to the
obvious, that an over-prescribed minus
creates stair-case myopia.

The primate studies of the behavior of the natural
eye under scientific "test" conditions prove
that point, if you use the term "refractive state"
to describe what you actually measure -- not
what you conjecture.

Otis