Dear Second-opinion friends,

Subject: Six Hundred kids clear their vision from 20/70 to 20/40
(pass all legal VA requirements) with the plus.

The purpose of myopia-free is to help you evaluate the
second-opinion, and supply the scientific reasons
why plus-prevention will work.

I OBJECT to the over-prescription of the minus lens, because
of the "response" as stated by Dr. Bates. The issue is how to
avoid this undesired effect.

Dr. Bates said it this way -- and I totally agree with Bates
that the refractive STATE will "follow" the applied minus lens. I
am certain that the people who over-prescribe the minus lens do
not INTEND that this happen -- but it does.

This is verified in pure science by the refractive STATE of
the primate eye "following" the applied minus (as a dynamic
system). **

The names below have been changed to avoid harassment. Here
is the discussion for your interest and discussion.

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

Dear Dr. xxxx,

Subject: Helping 7 year-old clear vision her vision from 20/60.

Reference: Second-opinion on www.chinamyopia.org

Thanks for helping our friend.

I know that "prevention" depends completely on the parent and
child -- that they be persist in the use of the plus.

At least this man knows exactly his child's Snellen -- at
20/60.

If the child "clears" to 20/40 or better in three to four
months -- then I count that a profound success.

But the real issue is "persistence" in using the plus.

And no one can put that into the person.

And that truly is the issue.

Thanks for helping this child.

Best,

Otis

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

Dear Otis,

It is my pleasure to help our friend. Thank you for sending
him over.

What I did basically was to give him confidence by showing
him some of the success stories of the people (more than six
hundred so far, in Malaysia, Singapore, Taiwan and United States)
that I have helped, from 20/200 to 20/40, from 20/120 to 20/30,
from 20/80 to 20/20, from 20/60 to 20/20, most of which in just a
few weeks, some of which in about three months.

After seeing these successful cases, I think he will be
persistence in using the plus on his daughter as he owes it to his
daughter to take good care of her so that she could clear her
vision to 20/20.

I'm glad that they came and I'm glad to help his child.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

xxxx

__________________________________


** Subject: Bates's statement about a strong minus lens used on
20/70 vision, and the resulting 20/200 vision created
by that minus lens -- worn all the time.


After people once begin to wear glasses their strength, in
most cases, has to be steadily increased in order to maintain the
degree of visual acuity secured by the aid of the first pair.

Persons with presbyopia who put on glasses because they
cannot read fine print too often find that after they have worn
them for a time they cannot, without their aid, read the larger
print that was perfectly plain to them before.

A person with myopia of 20/70 who puts on glasses giving him
a vision of 20/20 may find that in a week's time his unaided
vision has declined to 20/200 -- and we have the testimony of Dr.
Sidler-Huguenin, of Zurich, [1] that of the thousands of myopes
treated by him the majority grew steadily worse, in spite of all
the skill he could apply to the fitting of glasses for them.

When people break their glasses and go without them for a
week or two, they frequently observe that their sight has
improved. As a matter of fact the sight always improves, to a
greater or less degree, when glasses are discarded, although the
fact may not always be noted.

That the human eye resents glasses is a fact which no one
would attempt to deny. Every oculist knows that patients have to
"get used" to them, and that sometimes they never succeed in doing
so. Patients with high degrees of myopia and hypermetropia have
great difficulty in accustoming themselves to the full correction,
and often are never able to do so.

The strong concave glasses required by myopes of high degree
make all objects seem much smaller than they really are, while
convex glasses enlarge them. - These are unpleasantnesses that
cannot be overcome.


[1] Archiv. f. Augenh., vol. lxxix, 1915, translated in Arch.
Ophth., vol. xlv, No. 6, 1916