Dear Second-opinion friends,

Subject: Alex started a prevention site in 1995.

I fully support his preventive and second-opinion
analysis.

I will make some slight clarification on some of
his statements.

Enjoy,

Otis

==================

Alex> I said:


Alex>The fact is that the more minus you are prescribed, the more
nearsighted you will become.


John Warren <IUEYE...@...> replied:


John>I am now convinced that if Alex thinks he sees it, he believes it! I
would like to know just where you have found significant data to back up such a
statement.

[ You will find it here on a scientific level:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

This developed AFTER Alex made his statement. Hint: look
at the "blue tint" model, with an applied -3 dioper lens. OSB]

Alex> Glad you asked!

First, let me amend my statement. There may actually not be a direct
relation between extent of correction and rate of acceleration. The
relation might at times be the reverse: If you are significantly
UNDER-corrected, you will be discouraged from looking into the distance
and end up giving yourself even less (relative) far-point exercise, and thus
accelerate your myopia.

[ In fact Frank Young study shows the full effect of
BOTH a long-term "near" environment made "nearer" by
a -2 diopter lens. See:

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/bifig1.gif

While the plus and never been used at the threshold -- the
indication is that it would succeed. OSB ]

Alex> My main point is that distance lenses (a.k.a. minus lenses, concave
lenses, myopia-correcting lenses) bring about myopia by punishing the
eyes with blur when they try to distance-focus, and training the eyes to
see less far than they would otherwise. Countless experiments with
laboratory animals have shown that if you restrict the visual range of
animals by putting lenses on them, their eyes adapt to the lens. This
physiological process is known as "emmetropization".

[Not exactly. "Emmetropization" is a "distorting" concept.
Just say measured CHANGE OF REFRACTIVE STATE -- and that
will be much more accurate that using "false-conception"
words. OSB ]


Alex> Sorry, there are no optometry journal articles handy clearly pointing out
the connection between myopia progression and minus lens wear, based on
clinical studies. They do not exist, and it is obvious why.


[ Not exactly true. The publication by Oakely-Young
clearly show the effect of a:
1. No minus lens, or
2. Very weak minus on top, and strong PLUS on
bottom.
But studies that affirm this truth -- are ignored,
because they make over-prescription of the
minus look damaging. OSB ]


Ales> If you insist on seeing references to recent journal articles, here are
just a few which give evidence from laboratory animal studies... (there are
more; if you're interested, I can send you a full bibliography)


Schaeffel F, Troilo D, Wallman J, Howland HC. Developing eyes that lack
accomodation grow to compensate for imposed defocus. Vis Neurosci 1990;
4: 177-83


Schaeffel F, Howland HC. Properties of the feedback loops controlling eye
growth and refractive state in the chicken. Vision Res 1991; 31: 717-34


Irving EL, Callender MG, Sivak JG. Inducing myopia, hyperopia, and
astigmatism. Optom Vis Sci 1991; 68:364-8

[ It is good to use a "clarifing" example. The blue-tint
model shows the effect on a PRIMATE EYE -- that is
very close to the human eye in its behavior. OSB ]


And incidentally, the idea that distance lenses cause and exacerbate
nearsightedness is by no means a new idea. Countless physicians have
spoken up against the prescription of distance lenses, based on their own
clinical experience.

[ Yes, but unless the person himself is willing to
"wise up" and use the plus BEFORE the minus -- no
results are obtained. OSB ]


Alex> To name a few who had the resources to publish books, at the risk of
ostracism from the medical and optometric community...


Chalmers Prentice, MD, author of /The Eye in its Relation to Health/ (1905)
Joseph Kennebeck, OD, author of /Why Eyeglasses are Harmful for Children
and Young People/ (1969)
Jacob Raphaelson, OD, author of /Spectacle Hobby/ (1961)


I quote from /Spectacle Hobby/, p. 121 "Optical Poison"


:The bad effects of minus lenses on vision and health have been recognized
:by many optical men in earlier years, in this and other countries. There
:have been many voices raised against the promiscuous use of minus glasses
:at the beginning of the centry, and a few feeble voices were heard up to
:the decade of 1950. In the decade of 1950, the fitting and wearing of
:minus glasses became the rule rather than the exception.
:
:In the last century, in the land of the Tzars (Russia), minus glasses
:were sometimes used to evade military conscription. A few months before
:the appearance for army examination, the conscript went to an optical
:doctor and got a pair of strong minus glasses which he wore steadily
:until prior to the examination. He was then sure that he would be rejected
:on account of his vision. The minus glasses had weakened his eyes and
:made his distant vision very poor.
:
:In the year 1900, when I was attending an optical school in Chicago, one
:of the lecturers told us about the ill effects of minus glasses....
:
:In 1914, when the state of Maryland secured its optometry law, a clause
:was inserted to the effect that optometrists could not prescribe minus
:lenses to children under 15 years of age "escept on an order or advice
:from a physician." In 1938, Neville Schuller, vision specialist of
:Toronto, Canada, stated, "I would like to have a law established
:forbidding the prescribing of minus glasses without extenuating
:circumstances."
:
:Rasmussen, O.D., Kent, England, stated in his book, "Myopia, in more than
:ninety-five percent of cases, begins between five and ten years of age.
:It increases largely because the myopic eye is given distance lenses for
:reading."


:C.P. Rakusen, O.D., Shanghai, China, said, "From my experience in this
:land of myopes (i.e., China) I have formed strong prejudices against the
:evil of weak minus prescription in all ages."
:
:Samuel Druker of Brooklyn, N.Y., in the Optical Journal of March 15,
:1946, wrote "The suspicion began to dawn on my slowly that among the
:causes of progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave lenses
:themselves. From many articles that have appeared in the past on the
:subject of 'Optical Poison', a familiar term a decade ago, many other
:optometrists appear to have the same idea."


Other researchers have presented the evidence against distance lenses:


Donald S. Rehm, author of /The Myopia Myth/
V. Brumer, author of /The Therapeutics of Ocular Refraction/ and /Eye
Strain: Its Cause, Consequences and Treatment/


Again the connection is elementary: excessive nearwork causes loss of
distance vision. Distance lenses turn far work into nearwork, and near work
into excesssively near work. Therefore, distance lenses cause loss of
distance vision.


"If you don't use it, you lose it" is principle that applies to every
muscle in the body. Why should it not apply to the ciliary?


--Alex Eulenberg
--Int'l Soc'y for the Enhancement of Eyesight

======================

Dear Alex,

Thanks for these second-opinion and empowering posts.

Best,

Otis