Dear Don,

I often wondered if I was PERSONALLY responsible for
INDUCING a negative refractive STATE in my eyes.

It is clear from the primate studies that is the
EXACT TRUTH OF THE MATTER.

That makes me responsible -- to understand the
preventive "Raphaeslon's" of this world.

But I am still responsible. Or, indeed the
PARENT is responsible for understanding these
issued.

You can NOT help a person -- until that person
resolves to HELP HIMSELF. And very few people
are competent to ACCEPT THAT RESPONSIBILITY.

+++++++++++


Subject: The scientific second-opinion


Some discussion concerning WHY a M.O. OD can not,
and will not help you with plus-prevention.


1. Optometry REACTS to people -- with a minus lens. (Completely
understandable and reasonable.)


2. The minus lens is EASY to apply. You just sit a person in a
chair, put up a Snellen, and show that a minus lens
"sharpens" the Snellen.


3. There is some check for "medical" issues (like RP and
glaucoma) but the minus is indeed impressive, and if you only
have 10 minutes with a person, and the person EXPECTS the
minus lens -- what else can you do? The minus requires no
discussion, no review, no decision or choice by the person.
Just the obvious fact that the minus "works" -- and that is
it.


++++++++++


I think that is a fair argument FOR THE MINUS. The ODs can
and SHOULD make that argument -- that they are LIMITED by what the
public expects, and indeed what works INSTANTLY -- and that is the
only thing that the public will understand and ACCEPT.


But the larger issue is this -- does the FUNDAMENTAL EYE
change its refractive STATE from a positive value to a negative
value -- when there is a negative change in the eye's average
visual environment?


This is were these ODs go into a profound DENIAL state of all
objective science and facts.


I RESPECT (and expect) a population of fundamental eyes -- to
be dynamic systems. (i.e., control systems)


So I test the entire population of eyes, to find out if the
refractive STATE of these eyes will CHANGE their refractive STATE
when a -3 diopter lens is applied.



From a review of that type of "direct-science", you can pose
the following test, of the OD's "majority-opinion", and call it
the "null" hypothesis -- which is that the fundamental eye is NOT
DYNAMIC (in the above sense) and THEREFORE MUST NOT CHANGE ITS
REFRACTIVE STATE -- WHEN YOU PLACE A -3 DIOPTER LENS ON IT.
Retinula has insisted MANY TIMES that the natural eye is NOT
DYNAMIC, and that there will be NO CHANGE in refractive state of
the -3 diopter test group.


From long review of this type of scientific testing of the
natural eye -- it is virtually certain that the -3 diopter group
will change its refractive STATE by greater-than -2 diopters in
one year.

If you are a scientist -- you should take the results of this
OBJECTIVE, TESTING SERIOUSLY. The only request I have is this --
please use the term refractive STATE, where the test is to
determine IF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE IS DYNAMIC -- OR NOT. Retinula
does not like the IMPLICATIONS of this test -- so he denies the
science of it.


As far as I am concerned -- that resolves the scientific
issues -- and answers the question of "The Printer's Son". There
is a profound difference between dealing with the public (off the
street) where ONLY A MINUS LENS "WORKS", versus dealing with the
scientific issue of determining if the fundamental eye IS, and
PERFORMS as a dynamic system. The descriptive words we use
concerning the SCIENTIFIC experiment are critical. DO not use the
word ORGANIC DEFECT to describe what is characteristic and natural
behavior for the fundamental eye.

Maybe this is too abstract for the M.O. ODs on
sci.med.vision. They obviously do not understand the concept at
all.


Some more commentary:


Bill> Has such behavior been factored into the various
experiments?

Otis> No, the M.O. ODs ignore both the question, and the
scientific testing -- and results. They are only interested
in finding a quick-fix that impresses the public instantly --
and nothing beyond that point.


Bill> The way kids, with or without glasses, are not observed
during a refraction session.


Otis> NO M.O. OD PAYS ANY ATTENTION TO HOW THE KIDS USE THEIR
EYES. I perceive that issue as critical. The NATURAL EYE
will in fact change its refractive STATE to REFLECT its
average visual environment. Because they do not wish to get
involved in that type of SCIENTIFIC REVIEW AND DISCUSSION of
the objective facts -- proving THAI type of typical behavior
for the natural eye. That is why we are having this impasse.
That also explains the need for a second-opinion -- and your
knowledge of it.


Bill> There is more to good visual hygiene than merely telling a
kid to use glasses only for seeing the blackboard.


Otis> You bet there is. But the real issue is this. Who is going
to discipline the kids, to follow the instructions? The ODs
are not going to do it -- it's not their job. The "control"
would be the responsibility of the parents to INSTRUCT the
kids in these preventive methods -- to include the "plus"
when necessary.


Bill> Moreover, is a kid going to remove his/her glasses when
going from reading the blackboard to writing into a notebook.


Otis> Assuming the kid still has 20/40 to 20/50, the real question
is this -- will the kid put on a +2.5 diopter for all reading
-- and WAIT for his Snellen to clear to better than 20/40 --
as parent of a visual hygiene process. Obviously some
engineer-parents have INSISTED their kids do EXACTLY THAT --
and the kids refractive STATE does not go from plus to minus.
i.e., they avoid entry into myopia.;


Bill> If you think so, you do not know kids and have forgotten
your own childhood.


Otis> I certainly remember doing it as kid. But I was told that
"environment" had not connection with the refractive STATE of
the eye. So I kept on doing it.


Otis> Only as an engineer did I find out that it was established
that the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye FOLLOWS that
applied minus lens. So for PREVENTION to develop -- we must
first RESPECT the fact that the fundamental eye is proven to
be dynamic, and that a slight negative refractive state --
can be prevented if a plus is aggressively used at the
critical 20/50 to 20/60 level.


Otis