To Fred Deakins, Pilot, USAF

Dear Fred,

Thanks for your commentary. I have posted it on i-see (but removed
you email address).

I "woke up" to the fact that each of us are profoundly "different".

If we were in engineering college, and I attemted to "push" you to
use the plus "correctly", you would have thought -- who is this
"nut", and gone to an OD to the the "real truth".

But when it is "your idea", the situation changes profoundly. That
seems to be the real "sticking point" in this issue.

The tragedy is that these ODs, rather than being reasonable and
looking at the facts (as the second-opinion) have this
knee-jerk response like I am attacking them PERSONALLY. And then
they start "defending" their practice. I think this is a profoundly
destructive idea -- but they are "Gods", and I can not
change them.

As always, enjoy life and flying. I wish I had been "smarter"
about this when I was young, but I post this to my
sister's children -- for THEIR children. Maybe they
will learn from you and I -- on a scientific level.

Best,

Otis
______

Subject: Some remarks from USAF Pilot Fred
Deakins on flight status -- FYI.


Dear Keith,

Subject: The decision to use the plus for true-prevention.

I know that most people are "shocked" if a recommendation is made
to use a plus for prevention. They will RUN to an OD, who will tell
them that the plus is "not necessary".

I learned that the plus must be used (like brushing our teeth), and we
should "accept" it that way. But it will take another 100 years
before
that happens.

Here is some commentary for your interest.

Otie

_______________________


To Fred Deakins,

Subject: To Fred, Question from Judy OD. Interested in
responding?

I am well-aware that the "medical" test for the eye is
excessive. (i.e., when the child has 20/40, he receives a -2.0
diopter lens -- and is told to "...wear it all the time". This is
described in the "trade" as prescribing for "Best Visual Acuity".)

At THIS POINT the child's vision could be cleared to 20/30,
20/25 and even 20/20. But this is truly the "second-opinion" and
will REQUIRE the interest and support of BOTH the parents and the
child to work to keep his vision to that level. It is indeed very
difficult to "inspire" a child to do this, and any OD who has
attempted it, knows full-well the publics' REJECTION of this type
of advocacy.

I am also aware that "night" vision (tonic accommodation, or
"night myopia") sometimes requires a minus lens. (i.e., the "day"
vision will be 20/20, but in deep dusk the eye has "night myopia",
and will required a lens from -1 to -2 diopter to "clear" AT
NIGHT!)

I personally go by a well-illuminated chart at 20 feet -- as
per the ORIGINAL test set up by Dr. Snellen. This is also the
DMV test, and I think all children should be checked to that
standard. Obviously, if a child is at 20/50 under THAT TEST, the
parents and child had better START CONSIDERING THE USE OF THE PLUS
FOR PREVENTION. From the long-term history (Oakley-Young study),
it is clear that this decision is an either-or, now-or-never type
of choice. I also accept the fact that 99.9 percent of the public
lacks either the intelligence or motivation (or both) to
understand this issue with clarity-of-mind that the subject
requires.

Here are some remarks from a Dr. Judy. You can respond if
you wish.

Best,

Otis

_______________________________________________

Posted on I-see with Dr. Judy's remarks.

snip

Otis> Here is Captain Deakins' statement on the subject of
true-prevention with the plus. After running into Robin
Parson and Andrew, he just determined that he was wasting
his time -- and got on with his life with 20/20 vision.

Judy> snip statement -- (Fred's statement about clearing from
20/80 to 20/15 when in engineering college.)

Judy> So what was the date on that statement Otis? "John"
(another air force pilot you have misquoted on I-see) posted
on sci.med.vision last month that Fred told him that he is
NOT at 20/20.

[Private "John" is NOT an air force pilot. He is a private in the
U.S. Army wishing to keep is visual qualification of 20/20.
OSB]

Judy


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

Fred Deakins' Response:

Subject: To Fred, Question from Judy OD. Interested in
responding?

Otis,

Happy to respond, but don't have the e-mail string to reply
directly. It is true that I am no longer at 20/20. I have not
used the plus lens in over 9 years (after I got my pilot slot in
the Air Force). This, in essence, is a test on myself of the
efficacy of using a plus. I wanted to see how long the results
lasted after vigorous use of the lens.

You recall that I originally was prescribed at 20/80, -1.50D
both eyes after graduating college. After 4 months of using a +3D
lens one hour each day, five days per week, for four months, I
tested 20/15 on the USAF flight physical eye test, but measured
-1.25D on the refractive cycloplegic examination. In fact, the
second half of my physical (2 weeks later), the OD wanted to test
me again because he thought I was cheating on the eye test.
Again, I read 20/15 on every one of the 6 eye charts he put before
me.

The logical explanation for these results is that the
refractive state of my eye did not change as a result of using the
plus lens (at least to any measurable degree in that short a time
frame), but that my ability to accommodate enhanced greatly.

Its true that I no longer test 20/20 uncorrected on my annual
flight physical. This trend began last year (year 8) and I tested
20/25. This year's flight physical I tested again at 20/25
without lenses. Because of my cycloplegic retinoscopy, the Air
Force requires me to continue wearing lenses while flying, which I
do. I also wear them at night where it's more difficult for me to
focus due to depth of perception.

Hope that helps.

Dr. Judy...I appreciate the fact that you spend time with
those of us without a sheepskin on the wall...I have a true
respect for the difficulty, dedication, and commitment you had to
endure to become a licensed OD. I see both sides of the
conversations that have ensued between you and Mr. Brown. My
only interest lies in discerning the truth of the matter.
Regardless who is arguing for what, the precise workings of the
eye do not change and are subject to the laws of physiology and
physics, not politics.

Regards,

Fred