Dear Friends,

Subject: My Reasons for advocating plus-preveniton.


You will find that I agree (mostly) with the M.O. ODs --
about dealing with the public, walking in off the street and
expecting an instant quick-fix in 10 minutes.

That is profoundly easy -- and as Dug has said -- he wants
nothing else other than that.

I consider PREVENTION to be difficult -- but possible, under
certain LIMITED conditions.

As you know, I ask the question -- is the eye dynamic -- or
is it not. To find out, I place a -3 diopter lens on a population
of eyes and determine if the refractive STATE of the eye FOLLOWS
the applied minus, and the refractive STATE will go down by -2
diopters in 12 months.

If this did not always develops (from objective, scientific
testing) I would not post here, nor would I have advocated that my
relatives take plus-prevention seriously.

Further, if you say "second-opinion" PREVENTIVE method --
then that would be a start.

I think the person should review these issues, and as Dug has
done REJECT THEM at the -1.25 diopter level. But the parents MUST
UNDERSTAND, that their child's refractive STATE will move down at
a rate of -2 diopter in 4 years -- if the child begins wearing
that wretched minus lens.

So there is no "method" as such. There is a second-opinion
choice or decision -- to be made when the child's refractive
STATE is between zero and -1/2 diopter.

But assuming the parents have gong through this "educational"
process, and understand the proven effect of a -3 diopter lens on
all natural eyes -- and are prepared to insist that their child
BEGIN the use of the plus at the -1/2 to - 3/4 diopter level --
the I truly believe that preventing a negative refractive STATE of
the fundamental eye is possible.

It takes strong resolve to do this. Most people have no
interest in it -- and scant interest in their distant vision -- at
all. If that is the case, then our discussions are moot.

What I do suggest, it that the person read my site, and sort
out the importance of passing the Snellen -- under his own
control.

When I ask a person to read his own Snellen, and he declines
to do it -- then I must conclude that he has no practical interest
in preserving or CLEARING his distant vision. That is not MY
decision -- it is rather the person's decision.

Once the person goes through these issues, and has a very
strong desire to CLEAR his Snellen -- and is not yet wearing that
over-prescribed minus -- then the next step (assuming 20/50 naked
eye) is to work very aggressively with the plus -- to SLOWLY CLEAR
THE 20/40 LINE -- OR BETTER.

But that means VERY STRONG COMMITMENT -- and belief in the
objective facts of the dynamic eye.

But it also suggests a person must have a strong will to do this
work himself (after all medical issues are eliminated).

As you have seen, some YaBB members are able to "wake up" to
this necessity, and have SLOWLY cleared their Snellen to PASS the
DMV level test.

After they have done that -- I doubt that they would ever
wear a minus again -- and would keep up the use of the plus, and
would clear the Snellen, whenever it is necessary.

I would like to see this method offered to parents -- on the
"first time" basis, before their child is put into that first
minus.


But the real "decision" must be in the parents -- if any
change is to take place at all.

Best,

Otis