MajSec.txt


Dear Friends,

Subject:  The "battle" of majority/second opinions on prevention.

      It is important to understand that even medical doctors do
not agree even about the SAFETY of the minus lens.

      The result is that one doctor (Ralls) will argue that the
over-prescription of a minus lens is close to "malpractice", while
the ophthalmologist will argue that the minus lens is perfect,
wonderful, and harmless.

      I will post this discussion just to prove how bad this
disagreement is.

      The end result is that these professionals call each other
"names", and exchange insults.

      Here is some of the discussion between a person (Gary) who thinks
Lasik is wonderful, and all medical-doctor critics are WRONG.

      Otis

==========

The initial statement of Lasik problems:

(It then becomes an argument about the danger of a minus
prescription.)


Subject:  BEGIN SEGMENT 2 OF 3


      IS LASIK AN RSD?  YES.  First, it does SCAR (including the
central optical zone). Here's why.  The 95% horizontal cut
through Epi, BM and anterior stroma results in severe 'donut
scarring with a bite taken out' The 'bite' is the small hinge
piece of Bowman's that wasn't cut.  REMEMBER Wherever Bowman's
membrane is penetrated, cut, burned, or destroyed, a PERMANENT AND
IRREVERSIBLE SCAR IS FORMED - It may take a year, 3 years, but you
cannot STOP A SCAR wherever Bowman's is damaged.  NO WAY EVER and
if any eye doctor tells you different he is a liar.


      Patients also develop a scar wound heal response within the
central optical zone area where the 'laser crater' is formed.
This follows what I call the rule of CELL TRAUMA - When adjoining
cells are destroyed or traumatized, they 'pour out' chemical
agents which evoke a cascade of cell growth, migration, die off,
fibroblast migration (slow scar cell formation, and I mean slow,
the cornea is avascular - Look Ma, no blood vessels!), nerve
'stumps',i.e.  where the nerve cells lose their 'connection' with
ajoining nerve cells; it's like an amputated leg, it doesn't grow
back, their 'tentacles' kinda atrophy and recess.  It's a MESS and
takes months, even YEARS to develop.  Anyway, all this generates a
'haze effect' which is still a SCAR -


      What did Gertrude Stein say?  A rose is a rose ....., What
about a haze is a cloud is a scar?  or a wound is a scar is a
wound?


      I'm coining some NEW terms - CRATERHEADS and MOONPIES for PRK
and LASIK patients.  RK patients are called Starbabies because of
the starburst the SCARS make with light sources.  Well, check out
the Slit Lamp and SEMs (scanning electron microscope) photos for
PRK and LASIK in AJO, CORNEA, ASCRS,JRS journals at 3, 6, 12, 24
months at your medschool library.  They look like craters on the
moon.  Bring a Barf Bag.  You can't get them in the JRS, AAO, etc.
association sites.  They're restricted.  They don't want YOU to
see but they're there in the stacks for free!  Break free of the
bullshit, little mushrooms, and get to your medical school library
that has a refractive surgery program. Talk about your funky
mires, photos of scarring and corneal disease after refractive
surgery.  It's hard to believe that you can't see all that
scarring and mutilation with the naked eye but its true.


      LASIK - SCARY THOUGHT FOR THE DAY:  As the surgeon (or is
that butcher?) slashes the cornea he drags tissues debris (air
debris contaminants, dead epithelium and Bowman's Membrane cells,
metal filaments from the microkeratome (advanced cheese slicer),
bacteria and viral cells,curling irons, kitchen sinks, door knobs,
what's your pleasure) into the stroma and imbeds them.  Hard to
flush at the end of the hatchet job although most surgeons try to
flush. He puts the flap back over them, let's them 'bake' for a
few years, voila, STROMA CYSTS, the 'pearls' of refractive
surgery.  And what about those weird iron lines - looks like a
road map to hell.


      Ever seen a picture of a LASIK eye where the cap DIED,turned
black (NECROSIS,YUK) and fell off?  Can you imagine!  But this
makes sense - whenever I have an obtuse skincut, it leaves a cap,
no matter how much care is taken to try and get that 'hinge of
flesh' to rejoin the skin, it still dies, and I clip it off with
some nail clippers.  The same thing happens a lot with LASIK caps
but SLOWLY.  Need I mention going too deep with the Keratome and
entering the CHAMBER, lopsided cuts, patient movements (saccadic
involuntary and accidental freakout), and butcher slips with the
keratome.  That keratome used to create the LASIK cap looks like a
miniature cheese slicer - where can I buy one, I have a party
coming up!  A new definition for 'cut the cheese'!

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

To which a Lasik surgeon, defending the "practice" responds:

Looks like br2...@... needs a refill on his Thorazine Rx.


Gary M.  Kawesch, MD

RK & Laser Eye Institute of California

http://www.2020eyesite.com/

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

      And a second-opinion medical doctor states:

      Looks like Dr.  Kawesch understands psychiatry about as much
as he does ophthalmology.  I wouldn't want him prescribing
anything for me.


Julie Ralls, M.D.  Family Medicine

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

And Dr.  Gary asks for an apology:


      I'm disappointed in you.  Your previous posts smacked of
intelligence.  Nearly ALL of what br2026@aol (or whatever his
anonymous little email address is) posted is complete bullshit,
pardon my French.  Ask any ophthalmologist who knows his stuff.
His pseudo-scientific explanations and analogies are
inappropriate, misleading and for the most part, wrong.

      By the way, I received MANY private e-mail messages from
newsgroup members (lay-people) asking me to post a response on the
newsgroup to the drek br2026 posted, acknowledging the fact that
he or she is spewing forth a massive amount of misinformation. I
refused, simply because I have learned over time that shouting
matches get nowhere, and besides, anything at all I post would be
construed by br2026 the miscreant as self-serving, protecting my
business interests, blah blah blah.  Don't get me wrong,
everyone's entitled to their opinion, but when they start posting
outright false information anonymously, that crosses the line.
Who is this br2026 and what are his or her qualifications other
than breathing?


      Julie, I don't know how long you've been around on
sci.med.vision, but for you to comment I have little understanding
of ophthalmology is complete shit.  Where the hell do you come off
saying this?  YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT ME, MY TRAINING,
EXPERIENCE, HOW I TREAT MY PATIENTS, AND WHAT I DO.  You must have
missed many of the helpful and informative postings I've
contributed THROUGHOUT THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS to this newsgroup.
Many other eye professionals have LEFT the newsgroup out of
frustration with some of the utter garbage posted there.  I have
chosen to stay, at least for now.  I don't shoot my mouth off
about Family Practice, I don't at all profess to be an expert in
that field.  Please do the same about ophthalmology.


      An apology is in order.

Gary M.  Kawesch, MD RK & Laser Eye Institute of California

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

To which Dr.  Julie suggests reasons to sue:

      The profession of ophthalmology owes me an apology for
misdiagnosing and mistreating my functional myopia.  Yet they have
so little insight into the problem, they think I owe them an
apology for questioning their wisdom.

      Whose eyes are these anyway!

      I thank God I read Kaplan's book before my retina detached or
I had any surgery!

      I have reason to sue, not apologize.

      Why am I seeing better?  (per my old records I have dropped
nearly 2 diopters!)

      What are these brilliant and beautiful clear flashes of
vision?

      Until you can explain this, I actually understand more about
ophthalmology than you do.

      This is the treasure you (i.e.  your profession) should have
been seeking to understand!  Instead you wasted time, money and
resources taking us all down this dead end.  You owe the world an
apology.

      It is those behavioral optometry "quacks" who have educated
me and helped me to see.  You guys just helped me stay blind.

      I understand that it is often easier to do something to a
patient than to get a patient to do something for themselves, be
it diet and exercise or a vision therapy program.

      But often the harder road is the better medicine.

      If Br2620 is putting out misinformation, then the appropriate
Rx is good information with extensive references.  The fact that
you chose a brief, flippant response is in itself ominous.

      You set yourself up for ridicule. I enjoy this free forum.
Even Ray.  I don't think I will miss you too much
though...............  MENE, MENE, TEKEL


Julie Ralls, M.D.

Family Medicine

===========

And Dr.  Gary responds with:


      No, Julie, you just don't think period.  You have reason to
sue your ophthalmologist for what Mother Nature dealt you?  Now
you're showing your true-blue American colors.  Why not sue your
pediatrician because you're only 5'1" and not 5'7"?  Sue your
internist for that nasty flu you got last year!  How about suing
your dermatologist because you had acne?  Sue your husband because
your kid came out with brown eyes and not blue.  And while you're
at it, sue your parents for allowing you to become so utterly
stupid.

      You are a disgrace not only to the medical profession, but
humanity in general.  You sound more like a sleazy PI attorney
than a physician (sorry to all you ethical PI attorneys out
there).

Gary M.  Kawesch, MD

RK & Laser Eye Institute of California

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

And Dr.  Ralls responded with an excellent Quiz:

A QUIZ

by

Julie Ralls, M.D.

      ===========

Otis> I think that the quiz is of value for anyone who wishes to
	 AVOID entry into serious myopia.

Otis> I believe that myopia in its "functional" stage (as Julie
	 states) is preventable -- although difficult for most.
	 But once you start wearing that wretched minus all the
	 time, then functional converts to structural, and the
	 "cause" of prevention is lost -- sorry to say.

Otis> I hope that issue defines the interest and motivation for
	 prevention.

See:

www.chinamyopia.org

      for the general concept and doctors who will HELP you with
prevention -- if you will LET THEM.

      Otis

Dear Reader,

Some "false" or assumed words have been applied to the
refractive STATES of the fundamental eye.

If you place a -4 diopter lens on the young natural
eye (say with a STATE of +1 diopter, or 20/20), it
will SLOWLY change by about -2.5 diopters over six
months.

Using the words "structural" or "functionl" is
just misleading.

Otis

+++++++++




From Dr. "L",

Subject:  His definition of the refractive STATES
of the eye.

Re:  His called "structural" (cyclogel) myopia, versus
"functional" myopia.


If you have been following this group for any length of time, you
would know that the optometrists and the visual scientists who post
here are mainly concerned with axial myopia.  This is the myopia that
causes retinal stretching and a greater risk of detachments.  Axial
myopia is also called "true myopia," whereas accommodative myopia is
also termed "pseudomyopia."  The two share the same refractive
results.  Virtually all of the scientific discussions by visual
scientists and myopia researchers is about axial myopia.  Because you
are fixated on emotions, it i logical that you would be more
concerned
with accommodative, or pseudomyopia.

Let's consider a 2 diopter myope, in which 1 diopter is
accommodative.  Then, let's change his corneal curvature by 2
diopters
with a contact lens, leaving the person emmetropic.  At some point in
time, as the accommodation changes, that person is likely to shift
towards hyperopia and become hyperopic by as much as 1 diopter.  So,
then the patient stops wearing the contact lens and the corneal
curvature steepens once again, changing the refractive error back to
myopia.

My commentary...


> DrL>  Aren't you getting tired of repeating the same BS over and over
> again?
>
> Otis> You don't seem to have any problem telling "stories"
> about a -4 diopter lens having no effect on the
> refractive STATE of the natural eye.  I simply do not
> believe you and your "stories" -- on pure scientific
> grounds.
>
> Changes in refractive error for exotropes treated with overminus
> lenses.
>
> Otis> How much extropia are we talking about?
>
>
> Rutstein RP, Marsh-Tootle W, London R.
> School of Optometry Medical Center, University of Alabama,
> Birmingham.
>
> Otis> Like these majority-opinion ODs are not biased?

That is hardly a scientific objection, Otis!

>
> The refractive changes of pediatric patients who were prescribed
> overminus lenses for exotropia were evaluated. Overminus lenses means
> additional minus power over the lenses required to correct the
> refractive error at distance.
>
> Otis> Were these measured with cyclogel, or with a
> Snellen and a trial-lens kit.  Very important
> for an OBJECTIVE evaluation of results.

I don't think it is too important... it is probably similar to what is
done in the office.

>
>
> Forty exotropic patients, ages 1 to 15
> years, were prescribed overminus lenses (-0.50 D to -3.75 D) for a
> period of 9 to 86 months.
>
> Otis> How was the value of over-prescription determined.
> Values of -0.5 to -3.75 diopters IS NOT A CONSISTENT
> SCIENTIFIC TEST.  Why not over-prescribed ALL OF
> THEM BY -4 DIOPTERS.  This is a hodge-podge of
> minus lenses -- WITH NO CONSISTECY.

Not to mention the range in ages... 1 to 15! I don't think you can draw
any meaningful conclusions simply by looking at the "averages" among
these very diverse 40 patients.



> A small but significant correlation was
> found between the initial refractive error and the mean annual change
> toward myopia.

In other words, those who were initially given a stronger prescription
progressed more rapidly. Take two previously uncorrected patients, "A"
with a -1.0D refraction and "B" with a -2.0D refraction. "A" gets a
-1.0D lens and progresses a little, "B" gets a -2.0D lens and progresses
a lot. What caused the B's rapid progression, the initial refraction, or
the prescribed lens?


> The mean
> annual changes in refractive error for hyperopes (-0.13 +/- 0.44 D, N
> = 15), emmetropes (-0.26 +/- 0.37 D, N = 17), and myopes (-0.75 +/-
> 0.77 D, N = 18) were similar to values reported in the literature for
> nonexotropic children.

I disagree; a mean annual progression of -0.75 D per year for a myope is
quite high. Most studies show a progression of -0.40 D to -0.50 D per
year for children wearing minus lenses.

Now why didn't the non-myopes progress so much? Perhaps because with or
without their glasses they didn't have "myopic" viewing habits. Minus
lenses may amplify the effects of myopic viewing habits, but not have so
much effect if these habits are not present in the first place.

>
> Otis>  Again, no numerical value is given for "extropia",
> and for that matter, "esotropia".

Right. It may indeed be that amount or type of accomodative exotropia
may have an effect on how the minus lens effects the eye.

It's interesting that the same doctors who cry foul regarding
generalizations from "bifocal" experments on esophores have no problem
confirming their beliefs with "overminus" experiments on exotropes.

--Alex

Dear Second-opinion friends,

Subject:  The DIFFERENCE between HOW STUDIES ARE CONDUCTED!!

For me, the scientific study of the dynamic behavior
of the fundamental eye is convincing.  It is repeatable,
and you have CONTROL over the applied -3 diopter lens.

Further, with the proper equipment, you could make
ALL THE MEASUREMENTS YOURSELF.  That way, you could
not doubt your own ability, nor the result of
your own experiment to determing if the eye
is dynamic (i.e., will change its refractive STATE
by -2 diopters in six months, when a -3 diopter lens
is worn 16/7.

Is there "argument" about these issues.  Of course there
is.

The majority-opinion people are going to post
"their" studies (and insist the pure scientific
studies be totally ignored), and then
conclude that "everyone else is WRONG".

Respecting the above SCIENTIFIC study, we can
then CONFIRM that a plus lens could have the
desired PREVENTIVE effect -- if used correctly,
and BEFORE any minus lens is applied.

The Oakley-Young study showed (consistent with the above)
that the straight-minus went DOWN at a rate of -1/2
diotper per year (over four years), and
the "plus" DID NOT GO DOWN.

So, what is happening here is that DrL, who
WANTS TO BELIEVE THAT THE NATURAL EYE IS
NOT DYNAMIC, will post his own PREFERRED studies.

I personally think he is very biased about these issues,
but that must be your judgment.

Here is DrL "studies":

=========

DrL>  Aren't you getting tired of repeating the same BS over and over
again?

Otis> You don't seem to have any problem telling "stories"
about a -4 diopter lens having no effect on the
refractive STATE of the natural eye.  I simply do not
believe you and your "stories" -- on pure scientific
grounds.

Changes in refractive error for exotropes treated with overminus
lenses.

Otis> How much extropia are we talking about?


Rutstein RP, Marsh-Tootle W, London R.
School of Optometry Medical Center, University of Alabama,
Birmingham.

Otis> Like these majority-opinion ODs are not biased?

The refractive changes of pediatric patients who were prescribed
overminus lenses for exotropia were evaluated. Overminus lenses means
additional minus power over the lenses required to correct the
refractive error at distance.

Otis> Were these measured with cyclogel, or with a
Snellen and a trial-lens kit.  Very important
for an OBJECTIVE evaluation of results.


Forty exotropic patients, ages 1 to 15
years, were prescribed overminus lenses (-0.50 D to -3.75 D) for a
period of 9 to 86 months.

Otis> How was the value of over-prescription determined.
Values of -0.5 to -3.75 diopters IS NOT A CONSISTENT
SCIENTIFIC TEST.  Why not over-prescribed ALL OF
THEM BY -4 DIOPTERS.  This is a hodge-podge of
minus lenses -- WITH NO CONSISTECY.


A small but significant correlation was
found between the initial refractive error and the mean annual change
toward myopia.

Otis> Young's study showed a very strong result of a
"plus" on the refractive STATE of the eye.  The
result was HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT.  Could be that
Young was much better at conducting preventive
studies -- than these people?  In any event
these studies PROFOUNDLY CONFLICT.  We
have a right to say "second-opinion", since
it is a matter of JUDGMENT to decide which
is more strongly supported in pure-science.


Other factors such as age when treatment was given,
duration of therapy, amount of overminus, and the amount of the
exodeviation had little effect on the rate of myopic change.

Otis>  A judgment of these majority-opinion ODs.  I respect
that -- but I would take it with a grain of salt.  i.e.,
the excellent study of Oakely-Young directly and
profoundly CONTRADICTS this result.


The mean
annual changes in refractive error for hyperopes (-0.13 +/- 0.44 D, N
= 15), emmetropes (-0.26 +/- 0.37 D, N = 17), and myopes (-0.75 +/-
0.77 D, N = 18) were similar to values reported in the literature for
nonexotropic children.

Otis>  Again, no numerical value is given for "extropia",
and for that matter, "esotropia".

Otis>  But again, this is a matter of judgment, as
to WHICH of these two contradictory studies you
are going to BELIEVE.

Otis> And that is a matter of OPINION.  And the
fact of this disagrement about whether the
natural eye tests-out as dynamic or not-dynamic
will remain open.

Otis> You have every 'right' to your believe-system,
that a -4 diopter lens has no effect on the
refractive STATE of the fundamental eye.

Otis> I happen to know the results of this type
of pure-scientific test -- and they do not
support your belief-system AT ALL.   But that
is indeed the "issue".

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject:  ODs telling anectdotal "stories".

These OD like to complain when some one tells them
of successful prevention (by a number of means).

And "anectdotal" story is hear-say.  Or it may be
reported to you -- but you have absolutly no
SCIENTIFIC means to check what is being said.

Here Dr L, tells us that a -4 diopter lens has
NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATE OF THE NATURAL EYE.  He reports
his "belief system", that
a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE
STATE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE.

I happen to believe in measurement I CAN MAKE
MYSELF, i.e., the REPEATABLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT
TO DETERMINE IF THE EYE IS DYNAMIC.  I do not
think that Dr L's "story" is science at all.
But here is his story:



DrL> Although I did observe this to happen once
with one of my patients who was over-corrected by about 4 diopters
for a period of about one year. She did not suffer any permanent ill-
effects, and no refractive change.

Otis> This is a "story" that no one can check.  You
either believe it or you don't believe it.

Otis> I believe in scientific checking.  While I can
not check this hear-say story AT ALL, I can check
on the primate eye, with a -3 diopter lens.  This
is more important thatn DrL's stories.  It is
scientific reality.  Even the second-opinion ODs
DO NOT BELIEVE DR L's LITTLE "STORIES".
Other optometrists see this quite
differently. Thus the reason for the second-opinion on this
subject.


Dr> Why don't you conduct such a study, get it published, and we can
all talk about it here on sci.med.vision.

Otis>  I already have.  Instead of paying attention
to the scientific facts concerning the fundamental
eye's dynamic behavior -- you tell us unverified
"stories" that are not scientific at all, and
then expect us to believe your quaint stories.

Otis> If I were to take a bet on the effect of a -4
dioter lens on a population of primate eyes, I would
not bet on your prediction that the eye would
NOT change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters
in less than six months.

Otis> But if you wish to put up some money, on the
results of these experiments ALREADY PERFORMED,
then perhaps we can see if a scientific
experimental test of the natural eye's dynamic
behavior -- IS REPEATABLE.

Just my preventive second-opinion,

Otis

Dear Prevention minded freinds,

Subject:  There is an issue of learning to ask
SCIENTIFIC questions, rather than pure medical
questions.

Here is a discussion of these two points-of-view
for your interest.

Otis




lena102938 <db00q...@...> wrote:

Lena> > If it is so "innocent" and safe to wear -3 for person
With 20/20 And nothing going to happen.
Why we would not conduct that experiment.
  It is save. Vision not going change in 1 year.
Let's  make it. Humanitarian reasons are satisfied .
  It is safe. No risk.


DrL> There is no medical reason for doing so.  One doesn't give drugs
to a  person who has no disease.  Although I did observe this to
happen once with one of my patients who was over-corrected by about 4
diopters for  a period of about one year.  She did not suffer any
permanent ill-effects, and no refractive change.  However, it did
cause some
headaches and disturbances in her near vision.


DrL> Why don't you conduct such a study, get it published, and we can
all  talk about it here on sci.med.vision.

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

Dear Dr L,


Subject:  Your office point-of-view, versus a scientific point-of-
view.


Re:  Learning to ask the RIGHT questions in science.


If I wish to know if the natural eye is dynamic (in a scientific
sense) then I am going to OBJECTIVELY test that natural
eye (or populations of natural eyes) by doing a very basis
scientific experiment.


The goal of this experiment is NOT to find the cause of
"defect" (your OFFICE point-of-view), but just to satisfy
the scientific question to determine if the refractive STATE
of the natural eye FOLLOWS an applied -3 diopter lens.


If you place a -3 diopter lens on the normal young eye, the
accommodation
system will change by -3 diopters (average).  [normal, refractive
STATE of zero, 20/20 vision.]


[A distance of 13 inches is an accommodation change of -3 diopters.]


So the only issue here is to determine if the fundamental eye
is a DYNAMIC system, with respect to an AVERAGE change
of -3 diopters in one eye.


Since this specific question does not involve "defect" of any
sort at all, it can be regarded as a true scientific question.


So the only judgment, is this:  Is the natural eye dynamic
(i.e., will it change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters in
less than six months -- or will it not.)


Your office point-of-view (and bias) has nothing to do
with EITHER the scientific question -- nor the scientific
answer.


Others can judge the nature of science an scientific
questions of this nature.


More commentary:


DrL> There is no medical reason for doing so.


Otis>  Your office "rationale" for ignoring both scientific
questions and scientific answers.  But your approach
still comes out to denying questions of fundamental
science.  But let us call this your "opinion", and
accept that your office point-of-view is different
than a scientific point-of-view.  Let us just say
that we see science DIFFERENTLY.  That does
not make me "wrong" any more that it makes
you "wrong".


One doesn't give drugs to a
person who has no disease.


Otis> True, but SCIENTIFIC questions about the dynamic
behavior of the natural eye have NOTHING to do with
either drugs or disease.  But your office point-of-view
insists that refractive STATES are a "disease".


Although I did observe this to happen once
with one of my patients who was over-corrected by about 4 diopters
for
a period of about one year.  She did not suffer any permanent ill-
effects, and no refractive change.


Otis>  Your judgement.  Other optometrists see this quite
differently.  Thus the reason for the second-opinion on this
subject.


However, it did cause some
headaches and disturbances in her near vision.


Why don't you conduct such a study, get it published, and we can all
talk about it here on sci.med.vision.


Otis> I suggest this is a science forum, and the
experiment I described above IS a scientific experiment
for SCIENTISTS.  Others can determine their
engineering and scientific interests in establishing
the fundamental eye as a dynamic system -- in
terms of measured refractive STATE.


Enjoy,


Otis


  "Dr. Leukoma"

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Lena,
>
> Subject: I agree with your statements here.
>
> I call RESPECT for the parent and child -- the
> SECOND-OPINION.

Yes, I know I agree I just exchange the words
becouse they treat adults also like that.
>
> If a parent brings a child in, who "failed" the
> school test of 20/20 -- and the OD checks
> the child's Snellen, and confirms
> 20/50.  THEN, a second-opinion discussion
> should follow.

And if even "child's Snellen,  confirms
20/50."
It is does not mean at all the cases that the child sees 20/50
Probably child sees better than 20/50.
Child just can be  under pressure and worried.
One of the way of cheking  vision , I think, it is asking questions (
when just walking , playing)
about distance objects like "what does that sign say ?"
when child even does not know that somebody tries to check his/her vision.

>
> What?  Not enough time in the 10 minute
> exam for that type of intellectual respect?


>
> Then the majority-opinion has an obligation
> to send the parent to www.myopiafree.com
> for a scientific review, and further,
> send the child to a second-opinion OD
> like Steve Leung at:
>
> www.chinamyopia.org
>
> This would FORCE responsibility on the
> parent and child to make this PREVENTIVE
> choice.  Not easy?
>
>

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject: A bi-focal study is NOT a plus-prevention study.

The bi-focal use was started about 1949.  Success was
claimed for such use, but verification is impossible
in an office.

But the "standard" use of the plus (with the minus)
ALLOWED Dr. Young to formalize this method.  When a
"high plus" was used (admittedly with the minus) this
combination stopped the eye's "down" rate of -1/2
diopters per year.

What this suggests is that even better results could
be obtained -- if the "plus" were started with
NO MINUS LENS.

This would require some understanding on the parent's
part, since the process would have to be started
while the child's Snellen was REASONABLE, i.e.,
20/50 or so.

This WOULD require an educated parent and child to
"work" correctly.

But if an over-prescribed minus is used "on top",
and it can be -2 diopters with the child at
20/50, and a small "chip" of a plus in the
lower segment, then, yes, the bifocal will
have no effect.  The majority-opinion ODs
run EXCLUSIVELY THIS TYPE OF STUDY -- and then
they claim they "fail".

Here is an example of this approach:

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

From Dr. L:

Let's get a few things straight.  First of all, I am NOT a
professional myopia researcher.  I am a clinician.  I do occasionally
publish, but in a highly specialized field that has nothing to do
with myopia.

However, I do see lots of myopes in my practice, and some of them are
children.  At the initial onset, depending on the magnitude of the
myopia and the age of diagnosis, I will either prescribe or not
prescribe minus lenses after having a discussion with the parents.
Therefore, the definition of borderline, or threshold is that
approximately 50% of those children are randomly assigned glasses,
and the others are simply left to follow-up.  It's true that there is
no control group and the groups are not matched for age or sex or any
other variables.  I have not published this information, but it may
be worthwhile to look at and analyze for the purposes of publication.

The thing is that more and more research indicates that the results
of prescribing minus lenses for myopia outweighs not prescribing them
for the typical myope.  Of course, there is that small subset of
myopes who do benefit from bifocals.

Dr. Leukoma (Majority-opinion OD)

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

DrL>  The thing is that more and more research indicates that the
results of prescribing minus lenses for myopia outweighs not
prescribing them for the typical myope.

Otis> I do not argue for NEGLECT.  I argue that a child
at 20/50 should be provided with the scientific FACTS
about the effect of a -3 diopter lens on the
natural eye's refractive STATE.  (i.e., it will
CHANGE by -2 diopters in six months, following that
lens as a NATURAL PROCESS.

Otis> Respect for this SCIENCE might help the parents
understand the necessity of using a strong plus at
the 20/50 level.  Clearly this is a "empowering"
argument and review.

Otis> It is at this point the problem could be
PREVENTED.

Otis> A bifocal is not the answer.  But wise
use of the plus (while the eye has reasonable
visual-acuity) would be wise at that point.

Best,

Otis

Dear Lena,

Subject: I agree with your statements here.

I call RESPECT for the parent and child -- the
SECOND-OPINION.

If a parent brings a child in, who "failed" the
school test of 20/20 -- and the OD checks
the child's Snellen, and confirms
20/50.  THEN, a second-opinion discussion
should follow.

What?  Not enough time in the 10 minute
exam for that type of intellectual respect?

Then the majority-opinion has an obligation
to send the parent to www.myopiafree.com
for a scientific review, and further,
send the child to a second-opinion OD
like Steve Leung at:

www.chinamyopia.org

This would FORCE responsibility on the
parent and child to make this PREVENTIVE
choice.  Not easy?

A "wrong" choice or decision can lead
to PERMANENT myopia -- and that DOES
last a life time.  This is a to-important
decision to be ignored for a 10 minute
routine to impress the child with a strong
minus.  Life and science are MORE THAN THAT.

But that is impossible with these majority-opinion
"attitudes".

I establised my site EXACTLY to help the OD, the
parents and perhaps the child to understand
the necessity of plus-prevention.

Best,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "stovbur_e" <stovbur_e@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> Exchange parents for Patients.
> Sounds familiar.

> Subject:  HOW DOCTORS SEE PATIENTS
> Patients are stupid
>
> Patients do not know and do not want to know anything about
> science. Therefore Patients should be discouraged from thinking for
> themselves. If they do ask questions about vision, they should be
> given answers which will fit their level of ignorance and
> disinterest.
>
> Patients must be trained through the media to obey the
> suggestions of authority figures. Patients must be discouraged from
> attempting to influence their own poor vision in any way by
> telling them that such efforts would be useless or harmful. Patients
> should be constantly advised to wear glasses and
> sunglasses all the time by whatever means possible.
>
> Patients must not be asked for their opinion about the own
> condition as they are not trained to detect or recognize problems.
> Involving the Patients in their own diagnosis could lead to wasting
> time and delay necessary medical intervention.
>
> Patients must be told that they will fall behind in
> live  and be miserable in the many situations if steps are not
taken for
> early detection and treatment with surgery or glasses
>
> Lena
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++
> >
> > From:  Janet Goodrich, 1996
> >
> >
> > Subject:  HOW DOCTORS SEE PARENTS
> >
> > Parents are stupid
> >
> >         Parents do not know and do not want to know anything
about
> > science. Therefore parents should be discouraged from thinking
for
> > themselves. If they do ask questions about vision, they should be
> > given answers which will fit their level of ignorance and
> > disinterest.
> >
> > Parents must be trained in school and through the media to obey
the
> > suggestions of authority figures. Parents must be discouraged
from
> > attempting to influence their child's poor vision in any way by
> > telling them that such efforts would be useless or harmful.
Parents
> > should be constantly advised to make their children wear glasses
and
> > sunglasses all the time by whatever means possible.
> >
> >         Parents must not be asked for their opinion about the
child's
> > condition as they are not trained to detect or recognize
problems.
> > Involving the parent in the child's diagnosis could lead to
wasting
> > time and delay necessary medical intervention.
> >
> >         Parents must be told that their child will fall behind in
> > school and be miserable in the classroom if steps are not taken
for
> > early detection and treatment with surgery or glasses. Everyone
> > rightfully regrets it if a child falls behind her peers in
academic
> > achievement.
> >
> >         Parents will only act to the benefit of their child
through
> > fear."
> >
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
Exchange parents for Patients.
Sounds familiar.
Subject:  HOW DOCTORS SEE PATIENTS
Patients are stupid

Patients do not know and do not want to know anything about
science. Therefore Patients should be discouraged from thinking for
themselves. If they do ask questions about vision, they should be
given answers which will fit their level of ignorance and
disinterest.

Patients must be trained through the media to obey the
suggestions of authority figures. Patients must be discouraged from
attempting to influence their own poor vision in any way by
telling them that such efforts would be useless or harmful. Patients
should be constantly advised to wear glasses and
sunglasses all the time by whatever means possible.

Patients must not be asked for their opinion about the own
condition as they are not trained to detect or recognize problems.
Involving the Patients in their own diagnosis could lead to wasting
time and delay necessary medical intervention.

Patients must be told that they will fall behind in
live  and be miserable in the many situations if steps are not taken for
early detection and treatment with surgery or glasses

Lena
>
> ++++++++++++++++
>
> From:  Janet Goodrich, 1996
>
>
> Subject:  HOW DOCTORS SEE PARENTS
>
> Parents are stupid
>
>         Parents do not know and do not want to know anything about
> science. Therefore parents should be discouraged from thinking for
> themselves. If they do ask questions about vision, they should be
> given answers which will fit their level of ignorance and
> disinterest.
>
> Parents must be trained in school and through the media to obey the
> suggestions of authority figures. Parents must be discouraged from
> attempting to influence their child's poor vision in any way by
> telling them that such efforts would be useless or harmful. Parents
> should be constantly advised to make their children wear glasses and
> sunglasses all the time by whatever means possible.
>
>         Parents must not be asked for their opinion about the child's
> condition as they are not trained to detect or recognize problems.
> Involving the parent in the child's diagnosis could lead to wasting
> time and delay necessary medical intervention.
>
>         Parents must be told that their child will fall behind in
> school and be miserable in the classroom if steps are not taken for
> early detection and treatment with surgery or glasses. Everyone
> rightfully regrets it if a child falls behind her peers in academic
> achievement.
>
>         Parents will only act to the benefit of their child through
> fear."
>

Dear Reader,

"Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every
man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of
tolerance in the entire population."

Albert Einstein

I have no problem with a majority-opinion OD having
a "belief" that he is "perfect" in his office.

I have a problem when he attempts to OUTLAW preception
of scientific facts and truth -- THAT HAVE NOTHING
TO DO WITH THE CONDUCT OF HIS BUSINESS IN HIS OFFICE.

When he attempts to deny all scientific fact and truth -- and
INSISTS I ALSO IGNORE THEM ON HIS "Advice" -- THEN THER
IS A PROBALEM OF HIS CREDIBILITY.

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



Dear Dr. L,


You already REJECT all scientific truth you do not
like.  I call that intense bias.

If you do not want to believe in objective science, then
that it too bad.

When I ask if the fundamental eye is dynamic -- I am
NOT asking a MEDICAL question.

I am asking a question that RESPECTS the eye
as a dynamic system -- IN THE FIRST PLACE.

You tell everyone they MUST IGNORE ALL
SCIENCE -- when you DO NOT LIKE THE IMPLICATIONS
OF IT.

I think you are intellectually blind toward objective
facts, about what the natural eye will do
when you place a -3 diopter lens on it.

But discussion and review of this specific topic
is not medical in nature -- nor are the conclusions
you reach by asking these second-opinion
questions.

This truly does depend on the scientific perspective
of the observer.

But you are never going to understand that issue
in science.

Second-opinion best to you,

Otis

========

On Aug 26, 9:42 pm, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@...> wrote:



- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

> On Aug 26, 8:29 pm, "otisbr...@..." <otisbr...@...> wrote:

Otis> Yes, DrL, and when you tell me
that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on
the refractive STATE of the eye -- like
I should believe YOU, when you tell
me to IGNORE all scientific facts -- when
YOU dislike the results of objective SCIENCE.


Otis> If I have a choice of accepting your DENIAL scientific
  facts -- as is your habit for the "convenience" of your
practice -- or believeing the second-opinion ODs that
call the minus "poision glasses for children", then
yes, I am going to base my judgment about
the dynamic behavior of the natural eye as
a dynamic system, and not your "office fibs"
about scientific facts and scientific truth.


Otis> > It is obvious that second-opinion ODs do not
believe in your "fibs" about that minus lens either.
See:

www.chinamyopia.org

Otis> > But he is closer to "hard" scientific truth -- than
you will ever be.


Second-opinion best,

  Otis

===========


> > On Aug 26, 9:12 pm, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@...> wrote:


> > > On Aug 26, 7:52 pm, "otisbr...@..." <otisbr...@...>
wrote:


> > > > Dear Zetsu,

Otis> Subject: People and parents who ask serious second-opinion
questions about PREVENTION -- by Bates and
other methods.

Otis> Re:  So much "poo" to be dismissed out of had -- as
  all scientific data is concerning the dynamic eye
  of the primate.

Otis> This "insight" has to do with Andrew, but it probably
applies to you as well.

> > > > +++++++++++++

From Dr. L:

DrL> > > > I have a little true story.  It's a variation on
the "wrestling with pigs" metaphor.

DrL> > > > When I was in high school, I had a summer job working at a
greenhouse where they grew flowers.  Many things go into the soil
they are planted in, including manure.  One day I arrived for work
and the  foreman led me to the loading dock and pointed to a pile of
barn scrapings in the corner.  It was about 10 feet high.  Then he
pointed to a little machine, and then he handed me a shovel.  My job
was to  shovel the manure through the machine that would shred the
big chunks  into little chunks.  Every time I stuck the shovel into
the pile, it  would release a cloud of steam and ammonia.  And
everytime I dropped  the load into the shredder, bits and pieces
would fly into the air  and land on me.  It didn't matter where I put
the shovel, I got the same  result.  Eventually, I succeeded in
transferring the pile of poo from  one spot to another spot, and I
got dirty in the process.  I'm interested in Andrew's take on why I
was reminded of that  experience just right now.

  Dr. Leukoma

Dear Reader,

I ALWAYS say majority/second opinion doctors.

Why?  Because some will cultivate the intelligence
of the parents about this preventive alternative.

But tratically, majority-opinion ODs tend to
preceive, and treat the parents and their child this way.

Otis

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

From:  Janet Goodrich, 1996


Subject:  HOW DOCTORS SEE PARENTS

Parents are stupid

         Parents do not know and do not want to know anything about
science. Therefore parents should be discouraged from thinking for
themselves. If they do ask questions about vision, they should be
given answers which will fit their level of ignorance and
disinterest.

Parents must be trained in school and through the media to obey the
suggestions of authority figures. Parents must be discouraged from
attempting to influence their child's poor vision in any way by
telling them that such efforts would be useless or harmful. Parents
should be constantly advised to make their children wear glasses and
sunglasses all the time by whatever means possible.

         Parents must not be asked for their opinion about the child's
condition as they are not trained to detect or recognize problems.
Involving the parent in the child's diagnosis could lead to wasting
time and delay necessary medical intervention.

         Parents must be told that their child will fall behind in
school and be miserable in the classroom if steps are not taken for
early detection and treatment with surgery or glasses. Everyone
rightfully regrets it if a child falls behind her peers in academic
achievement.

         Parents will only act to the benefit of their child through
fear."

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Objective scientific truth concerning
the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye.


These are objective facts:

Measure the refractive STATE of the eye with
the standard method (cyclogel).

Measure all the natural eyes, having normal
and positive refractive STATES.

Place a -3 diopter lens on one eye -- and
not the other.

Determine, OBJECTIVELY, it the refractive
STATE of the -3 diopter eye CHANGES by
-2 diopters in six months.

That my friends is an true scientifc experiment
where you determing whether a population
of fundamental eyes are dynamic with respect
to a -3 diopter change in the value of accommodation.
(The accommodation will change by -3 diopers BECAUSE
of that applied -3 diopter lens.)  Therefore
there will be a DIFFERENCE in the AVERAGE VALUE
OF ACCOMMODATION by 3 diopters between the
two eyes.

What is the majority-opinion "appreciation" of
objective scientific truth of this nature???

It is thrown out the window -- because the
results are un-pleasant to contemplate.

And the majority-opinion people who
have such low regard for science and
scientific facts???

Well they call themselves "vision scientists"
and insist that you be a intellectually
blind as they are.

I don't know.  Do you want them making choices
for you -- with out your second-opinion consent??

I know I would rather examine scientific facts
myself -- rather than have some third-party
IGNORE this type of science.

Enjoy the discussion.

Otis

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

"otisbr...@..." <otisbr...@...> wrote:

Otis> Dear Lena,

Otis> But if you ask "deeper" questions about the fundamental eye
  as a sophisticated, and therefore dynamic system -- and
  TEST IT THAT WAY -- which is science -- there method
  is simply a quick-fix that works in five minutes.


Lena> Dear Otis

Lena> I absolutely agree.


Lena> I Think:

Lena> Sophisticated and dynamic system, which was particularly
designed

Lena> To perform the only task:  accept and preprocess the  visual
stimulus.

Lena>  Putting lenses in front of eye we changing both: visual
stimulus, which by itself enough to change that dynamic system, but
also we changing functioning of muscles.

Lena> Result (low degree myopia) we change input to that system,
System does not know that it is lenses,  system does not now that it
operates in artificial environment, system accepts it like it's own
design.

Lena> From now on the "evolution" of the system is  different.

Lena> Instantly we cut off the defense mechanism of the system, that
nature created during millions of years.

Lena

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

LeuOD> Science shows that minus lenses prescribed for myopia in
humans does
not cause myopia.  Science also shows that plus lenses, when
prescribed in the form of bifocals, does not slow the progression of
myopia, except in myopes who also have nearpoint esophoria, and who
comprise a minor subpopulation of myopes.

LeuOD> Science shows that ametropias can be induced experimentally by
lenses
in certain animals in the laboratory, such as chickens and young
primates.  However, these types of experiments are not done in humans
because of humanitarian reasons.  Likewise, optometrists do not
conduct these kinds of experiments on their patients or children for
the very same reasons.

Dr. Leukoma

Dear Friends,


Subject:  The two opinions of the plus-PREVENTION
based on the LIMITED bifocal studies.

Here is the discussion.

The minus of the bifocal can be over-prescribed.

The child can avoid the "chip" of the plus.

No one checks this.

Here is the discusison.

Otis

++++++++++





> On Aug 25, 11:08 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@...>
wrote:> "lena102938" <db00q...@...> wrote

> > > There are articles like that , here only  1 reference:
> > > "CONCLUSIONS. Brief periods of myopic defocus imposed by
positive
> > > lenses prevent myopia caused by daylong wearing of negative
> > > lenses."[1]


> > Assuming that myopes wearing glasses get more myopia than myopes
who don't
> > wear glasses.


> > Ever seen a published comparison?


> > -MT


> Mike,


> It depends.
> Research will tell no.
> But what I think, we can compare, only some very large
> groups of wearers with non wearers.
> Comparison should start at time of myopia onset (like -0.5 -1)
> And last like 5-8-10 ? years.
> And in this groups we can compare only dynamics (like when and what
%
> Became -2) and also distribution of degree like at 3,5,7 years.
> And all of it provided- no contacts.
> If contacts it should be one more group.
> Only groups should be large enough ( like 1000) to eliminate
> fluctuations like
> fever, and progressive genetics myopia and so on .


> It is impossible.
> L


I could probably do that with my own records, since I have practiced
in the same location for more than 20 years.  I have had ample
opportunities to observe young children develop into myopia.  I have
divided them into treated groups and untreated groups at the initial
onset.  Both seem to develop myopia at the same rate.

There are one or two groups of myopes for whom I will prescribe a
bifocal, consistent with the results of the COMET study and others.

Dr. Leukoma OD

Dear Reader,

There are two methods of measureing the refractive STATE
of the eye.

The preferred one, is to look at your Snellen, (say 20/60),
and determine the strength of the minus you must
use to just-clear the 20/20 line.

The other method is to freeze the eye with a drug.
This produces a "dead" eye, and the validity of
the measurement is in doubt.

But further, there are risks with this method
of measurement as described below by Alex Eulenberg.

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

Subject:  Risks of cyclogyl (cyclopentolate) cycloplegia


On Aug 24, 2007, at 9:50 PM, eyebawlz wrote:

Neil> It simplifies down to this (as I've said for years):

Neil> Have an optometrist do a "thorough" cycloplegic exam on you.
Tell him or her that you want them to use a strong cycloplegic agent,
like Cyclogyl, and tell him or her why (you're trying to eliminate
any and all tonic accommodation that you might have).

Neil> Cyclogyl might leave your eyes a little dilated for a day or
two following the exam, particularly if you're light-eyed, but ....

Alex>  ...but wait there's more! (Cyclogyl is a brand name for
cyclopentolate)...

Alex> Central Anticholinergic Syndrome Induced By Cyclopentolate Eye
Drops
In A 4 Year Old Child

http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijeicm/
vol10n1/cas.xml

<<Central anticholinergic syndrome (CAS) is a clinical entity which
shows central and peripheral effects produced by over dosage or
abnormal reaction to clinical dosage of anticholinergic drugs.
Anxiety, delirium, disorientation, hallucinations, seizures,
tachycardia, hyperpyrexia, mydriasis, vasodilatation, gastric and
urinary retention can be observed during CAS.>>

Cyclopentolate associated with two cases of grand mal seizure

http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/citation/87/6/634

Acute glaucoma induced by "cyclogyl".


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?
Db=pubmed&Cmd=retrieve&uid=13985501

Alex> Acute psychotic reaction caused by topical cyclopentolate use
for
cycloplegic refraction before refractive surgery: case report and
review of the literature.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?
Db=pubmed&Cmd=retrieve&uid=12781295

--Alex

MikeSoet.txt

Dear Mike,

Subject:  No "perfect" way to scientific knowledge.

      Wildsoet presents two concepts (fortunately).

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

      The accurate scientific model is that blue-tint model.

      The natural eye will change its refractive STATE in both
directions dependent on its AVERAGE value of accommodation.

      This is simplified -- but very accurate on a scientific
level.

      What that blue-tint model implies is that you can, by getting
rid of you "near" environment with a plus (the accommodation
system goes to zero, or close to it), your refractive STATE will
SLOWLY move in a positive direction.

      We could get into this subject of "representation" of the
natural eye -- and probably will eventually.  But because the eye
"tests-out" this way, it means that you can be successful in
clearing both your Snellen, and get your refractive STATE to move
positive.

      To truly understand this issue of "representation".  I would
have you read the book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions",
by Thomas Kuhn.  (And other books like it.) But that can come
later.

      So the real issue is this:

      Do we accept that blue-tint model as accurate -- representing
the behavior of your natural eyes -- or not.

      With all fairness, there is a great deal of bullshit in
medicine.  There is a tendency to use medical jargo that is not
clear and can only confuse these issues.

      There is an honest failure to understand the eye as
"dynamic", and a preference to "see" refractive STATES as ERRORS
-- and the like.

      Thus they PRESUME that an eye with a refractive STATE is
too-long, too-short, and they MUST find out why it is too-long or
too-short.

      The failure is that they have jumped to a wrong conclusion --
in the first place.

      Thus they are ATTEMPTING, or SPECULATING that some small
ELEMENT in the eye has FAILED.

      But that is because the LEAPED to their conclusion -- with no
concept of the natural eye's dynamic behavior in the first place.

      With the above understood -- let me respond:

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

Mike> Otis,

Mike> I would like to know if I interpreted these facts right from
       the berkley study.  Can you explain this in "simpler terms"

Mike> The berkley study says

Mike> "The effect of a minus lens on the eye is Choroidal thinning
       and increased scleral growth."

Otis> The effect of a minus lens on the eye, is that the natural
       eye will change its refractive STATE in the direction of the
       applied minus lens -- confirming the dynamic character and
       behavior of the fundamental eye. What they are doing is
       SPECULATING as to why this happens.  The important thing to
       understand is this:  If you place a -3 diopter lens on the
       eye it is ALWAYS going to change by -2 diopters in six
       months.  (Average).  It is important to keep focused on that
       issue, and not be distracted by this SPECULATION as to WHY
       this always happens.

Mike> "The effect of a plus lens on the eye is Choroidal
       thickening and decreased scleral growth"

Otis> Again, keep focused on the blue-tint model.  The refractive
       STATE of the fundamental eye moves positive (shorten -- if
       you like) when you place a +3 diopter lens on it.  I would
       emphasize that this rate is faster for the young, and much
       slower as you get older. But the point is this -- it does
       happen.  Thus you have been SUCCESSFUL in SLOWLY getting
       your refractive STATE to move in a positive direction by 2
       diopters in 2 years -- because the fundamental eye is
       RESPONSIVE to your average value of accommodation.  (Which
       you CONTROL yourself.  Again, they are speculating as to WHY
       this always happens.  The real issue was to CONFIRM that the
       is the characteristic behavior of the fundamental eye -- as
       a function of science.  But even more important -- that you
       CONFIRMED this positive change was possible for your OWN
       EYES.  It is that blue-tint dynamic-eye concept that
       supports your own success with the plus. Further
       pure-scientific tests confirm that the natural eye will move
       DOWN at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year, and because of your
       efforts, you CONFIRMED that the natural eye will move
       "positive" by +1 diopter per year.  That is a major
       scientific success, and is completely consistent with
       SCIENCE as this blue-tint model shows.

Mike> My interpretation is the minus lens thins out the tissue
       behind the retina and thickens the lens.

Otis> Obviously SOMETHING must change -- but remember we are
       talking about a 1 or 2 percent change -- so small that no
       one could measure it.  Thus the ENTIRE EYE must change its
       refractive POWER by 60 diopters to 61 diopters to move
       negative, and from 61 diopters to 60 diopters to clear your
       Snellen.

Otis> The blue-tint model simply confirms that the fundamental eye
       always has this capability.  I know that everyone will "see"
       this differently, but that is the way I see it.

Otis> The important point is that you understand this issue -- so
       that you continue with your plus, and further clear your
       Snellen under YOUR CONTROL, and that you understand that it
       is technically possible to do so.  Science does not PREVENT
       you from being successful.

Mike> The plus lens thickens the tissue behind the retina and
       thins out the lens.

Mike> Am I right?

Otis> I would not quite say it that way.  I would say that the
       entire eye MUST change its power from 61 diopters to 60
       diopters in order to clear your Snellen. Attempting to find
       out what SPECIFICALLY changed is premature at this point.
       But in this case, it could NOT be the tissue behind the
       retina.  It would be the tissue that is in the SIDE of the
       eye, to CONTROL the eyes total refractive POWER (length if
       you wish).

Mike> Also they mentioned that a debate was going on

Mike> "There also is on-going debate as to whether compensation is
       truly bi- directional"

Otis> The blue-tint show this conclusively.  There should be no
       "debate" about it.  You PERSONALLY showed that your eyes are
       bi-directional, by getting your refractive STATE to change
       in a positive direction. That is true bi-directional PROOF.
       But it is confirming proof for YOU.  No one else will listen
       to it, or care for that matter.

Mike> Does this mean that instead of your eye just being able to
       get longer (structural myopia) it can actually get taller
       (structural hyperopia).  And that these can cancel each
       other out?

Otis> I would say "shorter" (structure hyperopia), being
       consistent with positive and negative refractive STATE
       changes.

Otis> What I would say is this.  Your (our) eyes SLOWLY move in a
       negative direction when you:

1.  Place them in a long-term "near" environment -- as a natural
       process. Say refractive STATE change (and the blue-tint
       model) get "longer".

2.  End the long-term "near" environment with strong consistent
       use of the plus (accommodation kept at zero diopters) and
       the natural eye will change its refractive STATE in a
       positive direction (and the blue-ting model) get "shorter".

3.  Thus you have CONFIRMED both of these issues for yourself.

a.  Long-term near -- your refractive state moved NEGATIVE

b.  Long-term far (with plus lens) your refractive STATE moved
       POSITIVE thus confirming that

c.  Your refractive STATE is bi-directional -- and under YOUR
       CONTROL -- if you continue this process.

Otis> There are no "perfect" answers here, but we can reduce them
       to only two:

1.  The blue-tint model is correct (in which case you will be
       successful), and

2.  The blue-tint is false, in which case you can not be
       successful in clearing your Snellen from 20/200 to 20/30,
       and your refractive STATE by +2 diopters.

Otis> As always -- something to think about.

Otis> Enjoy this.  It is the journey of life that is most
       interesting.  And this is now a scientific journey for you
       -- with your long-term visual welfare the only concern.

Otis

Thanks

Mike

Vis_Clar.txt


Dear Mike,


Subject:  Refractive STATE change -- by YOUR judgment.

Re:  Up from four years of wearing a minus lens.

      You are in a far better position to judge this -- than anyone
else.

      As you refractive STATE moves SLOWLY positive, you will see:

      20/30 will move towards 20/25

      20/40 (IVAC) will move towards 20/30

      20/70 will move towards 20/50.

      Plus prevention is personal and judgmental.

      Some more commentary:

----- Original Message -----

Mike> Otis

Mike> One thing that I have noticed is that when I use my trial
       lens kit and correct my vision for 20/20 my naked eye vision
       goes up.

Otis> That is interesting to me.  As a control system the eye
       "locks" on 20/20 for a short period of time.  As you
       refractive STATE moves positive, I think you will see the
       eye "retain" this for longer periods of time.

Mike> I often test my naked eye vision first and then see how much
       minus power I need to get me to 20/20.  Then after I take
       the minus off my naked eye vision is usually 2 or 3 lines
       sharper.

Otis> Excellent!

Mike> I attribute this to my eyes getting a glimpse of what
       perfect vision is.  Because I don't wear a minus my visual
       system may have stopped trying to focus perfectly.  I have
       not worn a minus for about 3 and a half years.

Otis> Good!  I have no "objection" to the minus.  Use when
       absolutely necessary, and for "experiments" but most of the
       time -- NOT.

Mike> Now for the exciting news.  On my eyechart that I hang on
       the window I read 20/20 through a -.5 diopter.  Not only did
       I read it.  It was clear.

Otis> Good!  This is why I use the term refractive STATE --
       because it must be an AVERAGE of what you see on these
       Snellens.  As your refractive STATE moves positive, the
       Snellen will clear SLOWLY if you keep up the plus use.

Mike> A -1 is still needed for 20/20 on a wall eyechart.

Otis> I am glad you do all these measurements. It shows true
       interest and your responsible actions.

Mike> My thought on structural myopia is that I probably do have
       some.

Mike> Because I wore a minus for about 4 years religiously I think
       it would be a safe bet to say that I do have some.

Otis> I did not quite realize this.  Four years!!!  The fact that
       you were able to "clear" to 20/30 it truly amazing TO ME.
       As you know, I will not claim vision-clearing BEYOND WHAT I
       THINK IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE.  You are showing the I am very
       conservative in my "claim".

Mike> However that is not END OF STORY.  I am 18 presently and I
       heard that you are not fully developed until about age 30.

Otis> Correct. And now, the amount of change you are looking for
       is about 1 percent of 60 diopters.

Mike> That means that by the time I stop growing, mainly when my
       eyes stop, I can say I did it right for 26 out of 30 years.

Otis> Yes you did.  And I did it "wrong" from age 5 to 15 -- sorry
       to say.  You are learning from MY MISTAKES.  But that is
       what true learning is all about.

Mike> So I believe that there is still plenty of hope for a
       complete reversal.

Otis> Yes, going from 20/200 to 20/30 (daylight) -- THAT IS
       IMPRESSIVE.

Mike> Also another thing that I have on my side is that with a
       minus I have tested better than 20/20.  That means that even
       if I have around a -.5 diopter of structural unreversable
       myopia I can still read 20/20.

Otis> I place my standard at 20/40 or better -- a universal standard.
       That for me is the real "make or break" goal.  But the real
       success was for you to get out of 20/200 vision. I would say
you
       are 85 percent there -- but the plus must be a "habit"
       through the school years -- as per the Oakley-Young study.

Otis> It is always great for me to see a person who is successful
       at this work.

Sincerely,

Otis

Dear Second-opinion friends,

Subject:  Personal attacks on me by Neil D. Brooks.

I have the judgment that prevention (of a negative
refractive STATE is a reasonable CHOICE at the
threshold.)  A certina Neil D. Brooks HATES
THIS COMPETENT SECOND-OPINION -- and attacks
me endlessly for expressing a scientific
judgment that the fundamental eye tests-out
as dynamic.

My opinion, or JUDGMENT about plus-prevention
is almost identical to Professor Ted Grosvenor,
the plus-prevention MUST BE STARTED before
that first minus lens -- to be truly effective.
I see NO DIFFERENCE between HIS judgment of
the objective facts concerning plus-prevnetion,
and my judgment.

Here is a judgment of Neil Brooks by RT -- for
your interest.

Otis

++++++++++

In article <1187882586.072110.57...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
  Neil Brooks <neil0...@...> wrote:


Neil> No.  Actually, that isn't at ALL true (your odious analogy
aside).  I  have NEVER claimed that it is Otis's FAULT that I respond
to him ...  or that it is his FAULT HOW I respond to him.


You have, but you don't see it. You paint yourself as a white knight
out
to save the world from the terrible Otis. You make comments about how
he
should speak, what he should or shouldn't say, that if he simply
answered your questions to your satisfaction you'd leave him alone.
You
insult him using demeaning language. Isn't he making you do it
because
he's not answering your questions? Isn't he making you do it because
he
refuses to listen to you and stop saying what he wants to say? Don't
you
continually flog him because he REFUSES to do what YOU want him to do
and say? How DARE he continue to post his usual crap after you and
others tell him to stop and demand he answer your questions.

If only he were more humble, if only he would post studies, if only
he
would (fill in here) you wouldn't have to stalk him, respond to every
one of his posts, and save the poor gullible masses from his
rantings...
Just think how much more time you'd have if he'd just stop posting
his
dangerous misinformation. You could relax knowing the world was safe.


But you still don't see it. Maybe some day you will. Right now you
turn
discussions back against who's addressing you rather than dealing
with
what the person is trying to say to you. (take a nap, if it makes you
feel better...) etc. Your answers are very telling, because they are
clearly modes that make YOU feel better. But really, who doesn't feel
better after taking a nap?


And before anyone jumps in and accuses me of supporting theories of
Otis
or Andrew, or spammers, let me assure you that this is NOT AT ALL
what
this post is about, so please read it carefully. I've had my own
frustrating exchanges with Otis... It's not about me feeling better
as
in superior (which some people imply) except that maybe Neil might
ultimately feel better when he recognizes he's stalking Otis and that
would make me feel better. And I'm not saying Neil can't post either.
But if he posts something on this NG like "I miss the halcyon days
when
I used to approach Otis with such reasoned arguments, compassion,
sincerity, and sagacity" or if he posts his website URL then I also
have
every right to respond.


Now I walk away from this discussion because I've procrastinated
enough
over the past couple of days and I really must get my work done
before
the deadline. Good luck everyone.

~RT  (From: Sci.med.vision)

+++++++++++

You can find the second-opinion (POISON glasses
for children, and Ted's remarks in my book
posted on i-see.  OSB

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Why isn't everybody myopic?
Everybody will if we will go like now. Without Prevention.



>
> Once an eye is no longer able to accommodate (age 45ish),

  Myth created
By industry. Eye able to accommodate till 60.( in most of the  population)
Industry prescribes progressives even for Myopes, to stop accommodation.
In that nice way even if some will make a Lasik , they still need glasses.
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>      Here PClar CLAIMS that the natural eye does not go DOWN at a
> rate of -1/2 diopter per year in the school years.
>      He offers no proof for his statement.

So all high school students (12 years of school) should graduate as
about -6D myopes?  Have you got any proof of that?

> It is that our natural eyes RESPOND to our AVERAGE
> value of accommodation.  But this is technical-science, so he
> can't even understand the science behind it.  The natural eye (in
> 12 years in school), moves negative at a rate of -1/2 diopter per
> year.

So, if all eyes respond to average average value of accommodation
how do you explain:

The existence of hyperopes.  They accommodate all waking hours while
viewing at all distances and yet they do not reduce their hyperopia.

Why do myopes stop progressing, most by early 20s? They are still
accommodating.

Why isn't everybody myopic?

Once an eye is no longer able to accommodate (age 45ish), why don't
the eyes change back to emmetropia which is the average value of no
accommation?


Judy

StairCase.txt

Dear Friends,

Subject:  No such thing as stair-case myopia (i.e., refractive
        STATE goes down -1/2 diopter per year), for the control
        group -- with no protective plus).

Re:  The habit and motive for over-prescribing the minus.
      (Perfectly safe?  I wonder?  But it sure is impressive.)

SCIENCE:  The Oakley-Young study -- the single minus, goes DOWN at
        a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.  The plus group -- did not
        go DOWN over a period of four years.

      At some point you have an epiphany, where you realize that
these majority-opinion ODs NEVER LOOK AT ANY SCIENCE OF FACTS --
IF THEY DISLIKE THE IMPLICATION OF THOSE SELF-SAME FACTS.

      When you realize this -- you lose all "trust" you might have
had in their judgment or statement they are making to the effect
that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATE OF
THE EYE.

      Here PClar CLAIMS that the natural eye does not go DOWN at a
rate of -1/2 diopter per year in the school years.

      He offers no proof for his statement.

      But that is why I call his judgment the "majority-opinion".

      Make your mind up accordingly.

      Otis

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

Otis> Dear Mike OD,

Otis> In general a person is not myopic (your "negative
        refraction") when they read 20/20 with no minus lens on.

PClar> wow.  heavy concept.

PClar> but of course there is a difference between a blurry 20/20
        and a sharp 20/20.

PClar> and if someone can barely see 20/20 without glasses and
        then comes and complains of difficulties driving at night,
        and if then a slight minus correction is found to be the
        problem and is given to be worn only when needed, it can be
        quite satisfying to them AND quite harmless.

      [Ignore the fact that a child with 20/60 is put into a -11
diopter lens and told to "...wear it all the time".  At least
PClar should be CONSISTENT in this.  OSB]

PClar> there is no such thing as staircase myopia so using slight
        minus to sharpen a slightly blurred image is without risk.

      [While totally ignoring the fact that the natural eye will
change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters (in six months) when
you place a -3 diopter lens on it.  Sure, I understand that AFTER
a child INDUCES a refractive STATE of -1 diopter -- THEN a -1
diopter is very impressive.  But PClar totally ignores the fact
that the natural eye "adapts" its refractive STATE to changes in
its AVERAGE value of accommodation.  He PRETENDS that this dynamic
behavior DOES NOT EXIT.  He does it for the CONVENIENCE of his
practice -- and certainly not based on scientific facts -- AT ALL.
Any "deeper" discussion would involve the necessary judgment of
the parent about the issue of plus-prevention. And that WOULD
require a parent how is PREPARED to institute preventive measures
with his child -- when the child still has 20/25 to 20/30 vision.
I grant you this would be a difficult choice for the parent and
child to make. But that is the real issue we are discussing.
OSB]

      [The issue was NOT the minus lens -- that PClar refuses to
understand.  It is that our natural eyes RESPOND to our AVERAGE
value of accommodation.  But this is technical-science, so he
can't even understand the science behind it.  The natural eye (in
12 years in school), moves negative at a rate of -1/2 diopter per
year.  After 3 years, the eye is at -1.5 diopters or 20/60.  This
natural eye "adaptiveness".  At that point as strong minus is
prescribed.  It is at that point, the person COULD clear his
Snellen.  But the fact of stair-case myopia MUST BE UNDERSTOOD BY
THE PERSON HIMSELF.  OSB]

PClar> is this the line of argumentation you seek?

Otis> Tragically, PClar has not a "clue" about the fundamental
        scientific issue of this nature.

Otis> He seems determine to "defend the practice", and for that
        reason can never help anyone with prevention.

Take care,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> OverPres.txt
>
> Subject:  Understanding required visual-acuity.
>
> Re:  The PUBLISHED DMV tests, reading 3/4 inch letters
>      at 20 feet -- both eyes open.
>
> Re:  Prescribing with cycloplegia is called an "art".
>
>      I do not support "under-prescription".  I suggest that if you
> are going to avoid ENTRY into serious myopia, it is essential
> that:
>
> 1.  You read your own Snellen.

   READ yuor OWN Snellen !

It is very very impotant, I think.

Relax, read. Check.
Because in OD office no time for relaxation, it is mad rush
and  light conditions, how to tell that ...not completely satisfactory.

Lena

OverPres.txt

Subject:  Understanding required visual-acuity.

Re:  The PUBLISHED DMV tests, reading 3/4 inch letters
      at 20 feet -- both eyes open.

Re:  Prescribing with cycloplegia is called an "art".

      I do not support "under-prescription".  I suggest that if you
are going to avoid ENTRY into serious myopia, it is essential
that:

1.  You read your own Snellen.

2.  Understand how to measure your own refractive STATE (with a
     few minus lens of the correct power.  This is easily
     understood by a student of high school physics.  $20 worth
     of minus lenses will support your verification.)

3.  If you are reading 20/60, then you must get a minus lens to
     clear the DMV test.

4.  The associated refractive STATE would be about -1.25 diopters
     (which you confirm yourself by MEASUREING IT.)

5.  It is not intended that you STAY at 20/60, but that you work
     with a strong plus (for near) and slowly clear both the
     Snellen and your refractive STATE towards zero -- as Dr.
     Colgate did it.

6.  Thus, in this situation, keep that minus on the dash of your
     car -- and never wear it -- except for driving the car.

7.  A person with a "wall" Snellen of 20/60 (due to poor
     illumination) can check his Snellen in daylight -- and
     confirm 20/30.  Under THAT confirmed situation, the person
     can play sports, golf, tennis, baseball, with no minus lens
     on at all.

      Just my second-opinion.

      Here is a discussion of these issues Bette Alex Eulenberg and
David Granet.

      Interesting, here, is how David describes Alex's work as "not
science", and then describes "prescribing" as an "art".

      Well that means that successful vision-clearing is as much an
art as it is a science -- same a "prescribing" is an art.

      Otis

      +++++++++

From sci.med.vision

Subject:  "Are your glasses too strong?"

by Alex Eulenberg

Jun 15 1995

Alex> It seems that even the staunchest defenders of orthodox
        eyecare are agreed that in cases of myopia, one should use
        as weak a prescription as possible.  For example, orthodox
        ophthalmologist David B.  Granet says:


Granet> We very carefully teach our residents not to
        over-prescribe. Besides careful refracting techniques
        (many taught to me by a PhD in Optometry and Optics) we use
        cycloplegia.


Alex> "Cycloplegia" -- paralyzing the focusing muscles with
        eyedrops -- is supposed to eliminate the "functional"
        component of myopia, that is, that amount of
        nearsightedness due to the fact that your ciliary muscle is
        cramped.  What I've heard is that paralyzing the ciliary
        muscle generally reduces myopia temporarily by a quarter of
        a diopter.  But what if you have one or two diopters of
        purely functional myopia?  You get glasses anyway, even
        though your myopia may be completely functional.  And when
        the cycloplegia wears off, you'll be seeing worse though
        the glasses than you did at the eye exam.

Alex> Why are eye doctors so sure that cycloplegia brings the
        patient's eyes to the state of best distance vision?  And
        what good is it if the eye doesn't stay that way?  I for
        one, after throwing away my glasses and learning to relax
        my eyes with the Bates method, have been tested WITHOUT
        cycloplegia as having a half a diopter less myopia than
        when I, a glasses-wearer, was tested several years earlier
        WITH cycloplegia.  I sure wish my eye doctor could have
        told me how to relax my eyes instead of having me do the
        reverse:  tightening them up and worsening my myopia by
        looking all the time through glasses which don't give my
        eyes a chance to focus into the distance.


Alex> It seems that any way you look at it, cycloplegia cannot
        guarantee a good prescription:  the glasses you get will
        not let you see perfectly clearly, yet they may still cause
        you to over-contract your focusing muscles when they're
        contracted enough as it is!

--Alex

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

David B.  Granet

Jun 18 1995

(Alex Eulenberg) wrote:

Alex> "Cycloplegia" -- paralyzing the focusing muscles with
        eyedrops -- is supposed to eliminate the "functional"
        component of myopia, that is, that amount of
        nearsightedness due to the fact that your ciliary muscle is
        cramped.  What I've heard is that paralyzing the ciliary
        muscle generally reduces myopia temporarily by a quarter of
        a diopter.

Granet> What you've "heard" is wrong.  Maybe you should be
        educated in a field before pontificating on it. "Hearing"
        stuff is not enough when you are suggesting courses of
        actions for people.

Alex> Why are eye doctors so sure that cycloplegia brings the
        patient's eyes to the state of best distance vision?

Granet> Maybe because we study what we do ?

Alex> It seems that any way you look at it, cycloplegia cannot
        guarantee a good prescription:  the glasses you get will
        not let you see perfectly clearly, yet they may still cause
        you to over-contract your focusing muscles when they're
        contracted enough as it is!


Granet> It seems you continue to be wrong.  Prescribing glasses is
        an art. Done correctly cycloplegia aids in that art.  A
        good prescription takes into account the persons lifestyle
        and symptoms (or lack thereof). Of course you know that
        because in your training you, Ooops your approach to these
        discussions actually caught me off guard again in thinking
        you were trained in this field - in any way.  Now I
        remember why you are so off base...

David

David B.  Granet, M.D.
Director
Pediatric Ophthalmology & Ocular Motility Services
University of California, San Diego

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>      What it incredible to me is the fact that some
> majority-opinion optometrists see 'NO PROBLEM" in putting a 3
> years old child (with 20/60 visual acuity) into a -11 diopter
> lens.
>
>      That just blows me away!
>
       It is my belief that a second-opinion OD would not allow his
> child with 20/60 vision to be put into a -11 diopter lens.  But
> that is why they call it the "second-opinion".

I wish you would stop using that case as an example. Just a day or
two ago I pointed out the features of the case that you have
neglected to mention: high astigmatism, variable acuity, bilateral
amblyopia, a very rare congenital malformation of the eye.  And the
case history you neglected: corrective lenses were not provided in
the first year with a resultant doubling of myopia, no improvement
in corrected acuity and ongoing amblyopia; followed by correction
with lenses which resulted in stablization of refraction,
improvement in corrected acuity and elimination of amblyopia.

In this case, had your "second opinion" prevailed, the child would
have a permanent vision impairment and would not qualify for a
drivers license even with correction.

See message #980 for details

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Myopiafree2/message/980

Judy

PClr_MO.txt


Subject:  Equal time for the majority-opinion.

Re:  The fundamental eye is not dynamic, the plus does not "work".

Otis> I believe in listening to both sides of an argument.  Steve
        Leung presents the concept that nearsightedness can, at
        least, be PREVENTED.  I support his second-opinion concept.
        Here is the majority-opinion statement that it can never be
        PREVENTED -- by anyone, under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.

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

From: PClar (Majority-opinion OD)

PClar> ...  maybe its (the See-Clearly method) free now, but those
        scum-bags were selling that method with a money-back
        guarantee and then they wouldn't stand by their guarantee
        (when the purchaser failed to improve their vision:
        surprise -- it doesn't work!).  that's how the State of
        Iowa got involved, via consumer complaints, and then their
        further investigations into the validity of this method
        also unturned the fact that it has not been proven AT ALL
        and that parts of it have even been clearly proven to be
        invalid.

PClar> just some dirt bags that were trying to make money off of
        people's false hopes that they could be cured.

PClar> Otis and clan don't try to make money, but they do make
        false claims and foster false hopes.  in particular, plus
        lens prevention is a method that has CLEARLY been shown to
        not work.

        [This depends on who has "control" of their distant vision
-- and has the motivation to do it RIGHT.  Remember we are talking
ONLY about PREVENTION -- before that first minus lens is worn. In
fact, while it does take persistence, people, like Stirling
Colgate and others have in fact cleared their 20/70 vision to
normal.  Because they knew what they were doing and took PERSONAL
responsibility do it RIGHT.  OSB]

      ++++++++++


      Dear Second-opinion friends,


      Subject:  Majority opinion on plus-prevention.


      There is a profound blindness towards science and scientific
fact about the effect that a -3 diopter lens has on the natural
eye's refractive state.  All you have to do is run the scientific
experiment yourself to confirm this effect.

      What it incredible to me is the fact that some
majority-opinion optometrists see 'NO PROBLEM" in putting a 3
years old child (with 20/60 visual acuity) into a -11 diopter
lens.

      That just blows me away!

      There are second-opinion optometrists who describe the minus
as, "...poison glasses for children".  That certainly got
MY attention.  It turns out to be true when you
take science seriously.

      It is my belief that a second-opinion OD would not allow his
child with 20/60 vision to be put into a -11 diopter lens.  But
that is why they call it the "second-opinion".

      The purpose is to help you understand the necessity of the
plus (at the threshold), and the reasons and need for prevention.

      Best,

      Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> PercMyop.txt
>
> Subject:  Are these statistics true in an optometrist's office?
>
>      The percentage of Myopes in Hong Kong is about 88 percent by
> high school graduation.

snip

If you are interested in prevalence rates of myopia, there have been
many population based studies of this.  Rates vary with ethnic
origin, with those of Chinese background having quite high rates.
Here are a sampling; for more try searching PubMed, using "myopia
AND prevalence" as the search terms.

Concripts to Israel army (2000 to 2004, over 200,000 in survey, age
16 to 22)
Overall prevalences of mild, moderate, and severe myopia were 18.8%,
8.7%, and 2.4%, respectively

Australian 12 year olds (2300 in survey)
The prevalence of myopia in the children increased with the number
of myopic parents (7.6%, 14.9%, and 43.6% for no, one, or two myopic
parents)

Turkish medical students
Myopia occurred in 32.9% of medical students

Japanese high school students, age 17
Myopia in 66%

Bangladeshi adults
22.1% were myopic

Polish School Children (age 6-18)
13.3% were myopic

British university students (age 19)
Myopia in 50%

Australian adults (age 49 - 94)
Myopia in 15%

Black adults in Barbados
Myopia in 21%

Judy

Dear Second-opinion Friends,

Subject:  The degree of "concern" an OD has for your PREVENTION.

Re:  The real issue is how much concern the person himself has for
	 keeping his Snellen clear through the school years.

Re:  The Vic Cinc / Bill Stacy discussion.

      I used to wonder if I "induced" a negative refractive STATE
in my natural eyes by my "bad habits", 12 years in school, and the
compounding effect of an over-prescribed minus lens.

      I truly realize how difficult PREVENTION is.

      It will ALWAYS depend on both the intelligence and motivation
of the person concerned with it.

      The OD loves to think you are both incompetent, and must rely
on him TOTALLY.

      I have learned that this is a terrible fallacy.

      In working on vision-clearing, you simply CAN NOT BE UNDER OD
CONTROL.  You should have MEDICAL CHECKS -- yes.  But once
it is clear that you have a negative refractive STATE, and
the MOTIVATION to clear -- then you potentially have the
ability to clear your Snellen (and refractive STATE) as
Dr. Stirling Colgate did it.

      Why is this so?

      The reason is this.  You care about your distant vision --
and the majority-opinion OD simply does not GIVE A DAMN.

      Here is the scenario.

      Just my second-opinion.

      Otis

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

Bill OD and (Vic Cinc) writes:

Vic> when I get answers to my questions I will stop asking them.

BillOD> Promise?  I think anyone who reads these newsgroups should
	 answer these, again if they already had, but with a
	 simple, concise, statement.

BillOD> Here goes mine:

Vic> why don't you know or care what causes a clear flash?

BillOD> Because the 'clear flash' has never been demonstrated,
	 measured, evaluated or even defined in the laboratory of
	 any generally accepted institution or setting.

Vic>why don't you know or care that glasses may aggravate myopia?

BillOD> I know and care that glasses may aggravate myopia *IN THE
	 DEVELOPING YEARS ONLY* and *IN CERTAIN CASES ONLY*.  I
	 deal with this in my practice, but it is only of concern
	 in less than 1% of my practice population, for only a
	 small period of their lives.

Vic> why don't you know or care that myopia is improvable?

BillOD> Because it isn't, to any significant degree, in the vast
	 majority of myopes.  Sure, there may be a few, but only
	 with a great deal of effort and no guarantee of *ANY*
	 improvement other than, perhaps psychological.

BillOD> If we were talking about cancer, or heart disease, I could
	 understand your zeal, Vic, but myopia???  It's not exactly
	 the curse of modern civilization that you try to make it.

BillOD> Ok all you .vision readers, come on, answer Vics 3
	 questions.  My prediction?  Few will read this, fewer
	 still will respond.  Why?  Because THERE ARE MORE
	 IMPORTANT ISSUES to most of us.

Bill


William Stacy, O.D.

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

      Bill is ALMOST correct on these points.  Most people have no
serious interest in protecting their distant vision through the
school years with a plus.  But if you do have this interest, then
you MUST do it yourself.  All Bill has is his standard "office
fibs" that the general public will swallow.

      The purpose of BOTH i-see and myopiafree is to help the
person recognize this sad truth, so that they can clear their
Snellen under their control.

      Otis

MikeAlex.txt

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject:  The value of i-see to people who wish detailed knowledge
           concerning prevention.

      Alex Eulenberg set up i-see.org to further develop the concept
that an alternative must be developed to prevent entry into
myopia.

      I found items of considerable value to me (details of Dr.
Pertness' book, and his success with plus-prevention).

      While each person must develop his OWN CONCEPT of prevention,
and apply it to himself, having a "clearing house" of information
can be of great value to a person looking for a balanced treatment
of the subject.

      Mike was looking for assistance in clearing his vision from
-2.75 diopters.  Here he describes how i-see helped him in his
search for prevention. I have changed his name to protect him.

      Alex asked Mike how he found out about plus-prevention.
Here is the conversation for your interest.


      Otis

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

From Mike:


Alex


Re:  Questions about your vision improvement experience

      Alex, I will be happy to answer your questions.

1.  How did you get the idea that you could improve your vision
     and how did you follow up on it?  How did you decide upon
     the plus lens method?

      I got the "idea" that I could improve my vision by an
infomertial.  It was selling a method that claimed could improve
your vision.  It was being sold for about 250 to 300 dollars.  I
did not buy the product because I thought there was a financial
conflict of interest not to mention I was 14 and just didn't have
the money.  But it did make me think about improving my vision.

      I followed up on it by doing research.  I googled "vision
improvement" and found the bates method.  I decided that I really
had nothing to lose so I tried it.  I thought deeply about it and
analyzed it.  I concluded that it wouldn't work for me because of
pure logic.  It stated that the reason why nearsightness occurs is
because of strain of the cilary muscle.

      It made sense up to that point.  It stated that by doing near
and far focusing you could alleviate the strain and thus get rid
of nearsightness.  I thought of the word "strain." How do you
strain something?  You strain something by overuse.  If you do a
lot of heavy lifting you can strain your back. So what would
cause a straining of the cilary muscle?  Too much use.

      As a result I found it very odd that the "cure" was more use.
Doing excersizes that contracted the cilary muscle.  I then
thought of how you would go about fixing back pain from strain.
First no heavy lifting and second doing stretching.  So I
continued the research.

      I then came to www.i-see.org and read what it had to say.
There was no conflict of interest.  It basically said what I
already thought.

      Relax the cilary muscle and let it stretch out.  I then read
about using reading glasses for the first time and it made sense
so I bought a cheap pair (+3.00) and wore them around the house
because this was during summer vacation and I had no reading
material.

      It mentioned checking your vision yourself with a printed
eyechart.  I did that and I read 20/200.  I then looked on my
contact lens case and it said -2.5 left eye and -2.75 right eye.
These numbers meant nothing to me.

      So I used the method for about 3 months and went back to the
eye doctor.  He then wrote a prescription for -2.00 for both eyes.
This had proven that the plus lens theory was true.  I then felt
safe in contacting people via e-mail concerning the plus.  So I
started talking with otis about my vision.

2.  Have you told your friends about what you're doing?  What do
     they think?

      I told only my best friend because he was nearsighted also.
He then bought a pair of +1.5 and started using the method.  He
gave up in less then a week and gave me the glasses.  I have not
told any other friends.

3.  What does your eye doctor think?  You say your sister has gone
     back for a checkup, but have you done so after your
     improvement?  If so, would it be possible to get a copy of
     your prescription history?

      My eye doctor just said that I was in denial and said that my
vision improved because I squinted (which I didn't).  My mother
says if I am not going to wear my glasses then she is not going to
pay for an eye doctor appointment.  As for a prescription history
I cannot really say much more. I don't know and I probably can't
find out.

Mike

Mik2030.txt

Subject:  Commentary from Mike (Cleaing Snellen from 20/200).

Otis,

      I was testing my vision today and I figured something out.  I
know why I read 20/40 on the IVAC and not at the DMV.

      I have a printed eyechart on a wall in my room.  I tested
myself at 20/70 to 20/60.  Then I had an idea. I stuck the
eyechart on my window at around noon when it was sunny outside.  I
read 20/30 with no squinting.  20/40 was clear as day.

      I read 20/70 one at one moment and just seconds later I read
20/30. So I think my outdoor vision is 20/30 or better.  I did
learn something though.  I think instead of saying I have 20/40
vision it would be better to say I have 20/70 to 20/30 vision. It
makes sense to me now why I can play baseball or golf and see
clearly but I fail eyetests.

      Also in order for me to read 20/20 I need a -1.00 lens.

      I was just thinking of where I am exactly.  When I first came
to myopiafree I read about people who have gone from 20/70 to
20/20 and had a prescription of about -1.  Inside I thought to
myself THIS MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE.  I am at -2.75 and 20/200 maybe
worse. So I squinted to a fuzzy 20/70 to give myself hope.  But
now I think to myself I HAVE ARRIVED AT THE STARTING LINE.  I KNOW
that it is possible from here.

Mike

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

Dear Mike,

Subject:  Vision clearing -- A LEARNING process.

Re:  How and why you teach yourself how to "clear".

      I am very pleased that you check in excellent light -- and
PERSONALLY CONFIRM 20/30 or better in day light.

      Some more "background" here.  The eye does have some
characteristics of a "camera".  One characteristic is so-called
"depth of field".  What this means in practice is that you will
have an "improvement" of about 1 diopter in daylight, i.e., your
visual-acuity will be about 20/30 as you have now confirmed it.

      This means you can play all outdoor sports with no minus lens
on your face.  That was one of my goals FOR YOU!

      When I say "refractive STATE", I intend that:

1.  You establish your Snellen first, and then

2.  You use your home-made trial-lens kit to determine the "minus"
       it takes to clear the 20/20 line (read 1/2 letters
       correctly.)

      So yes, you are TODAY 20/70 to 20/30, and your refractive
STATE would run between -1 diopter to -1/4 diopter.

      In order to continue "clearing" it is essential you
understand what you proved to yourself -- that you can make all
measurements intelligently under YOUR control.

      By continuing to "work" with your plus (all close work), the
refractive STATE of your eyes will SLOWLY move in a positive
direction, and the AVERAGE of your Snellen will SLOWLY clear.

      It is a process that requires patience and judgment.

      But you have definitely proven (for yourself) that you have
cleared your refractive STATE from -2.75 diopters to about -0.75
diopters, or "vision clearing" of about +2 diopters in three
years.

      The fact of the eye going DOWN by -1/2 diopter per year is
very important to understand.  You would not be seeing 20/30 in
daylight if you had worn that -2.75 diopter lens all the time.

      You have not "won" yet, but you understand the elements of
prevention.

      I think a man must "see" the results of his own work -- if he
is to continue WISELY using the plus-prevention method.

      You have now objectively CONFIRMED these results,
and I think, will continue with them.


      Otis

Dear Lena,

Subject:  Office distributions, versus ACCURATE distributions
of the refractive STATE of the natural eye.

Re:  With the natural eye having the potential for
negative and positive refractive STATES.

Here are the distributions of refractive STATES
for children who go through 12 years of school.

It is approximately 88 percent negative, with
an average of -2.1 diopters.  The "sigma",
is provided on the drawing.

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html

Yes, you are correct.  And accurate profile of the
refractive STATES of the natural eye (both - and + )
must be presented in this manner.

Enjoy,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "stovbur_e" <stovbur_e@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > PercMyop.txt
> >
> > Subject:  Are these statistics true in an optometrist's office?
> >
> >      The percentage of Myopes in Hong Kong is about 88 percent by
> > high school graduation.
> >
>
>
> It is only approximate distribution of
> degree of myopia among people who had  distant vision complains,
which
> make them worried, and they visited one particular optometric
location.
> It is not like true or not.
> I pointed in the question - very approximate.
> Mike pointed it is not a statistical sample.
>