Judy maintains that:

1.  A population of fundamental eyes are NOT DYNAMIC.

2. An therefore, the naturel eye will NEVER change
its refractive STATE when  you place a -3 dioper
lens on it.

That is fine for Judy, and her majority-opinion.

But what is the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH of the eye's
behavior??

Here is what will always happen with a population
of natural, dynamic eyes.

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

Judy asks you to "trow out" this science -- since
she chooses to ignore it.

I suggest that engineers and scientists can not
"trow out" facts, where Judy does not "like" the
implications of science.

I like Judy.  It is just that I think her
judgment of science is biased.

Enjoy,

Otis

I think that a person who is very serious
about clearing his Snellen -- from
20/70 to normal -- should have his
on personal Snellen.

Here is the best one that I could find.


http://www.i-see.org/block_letter_eye_chart.pdf

Just print it out, and post it -- at 20 feet.

To make certain that it is accurate (relative
to your printer) measure the 20/60 line.

The characters should be 1 inch high.

Success favors the prepared mind.

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Judy,

Subject: Your majority-opinion and "failed"
assumptions you are making.

I always enjoy hearing your majority-opinion -- even
as I have no choice but to disagree with it on
a scientific level.

Your judgment of the question and answer
is profoundly biased.

The purpose of testing a population of
fundamental an NATURAL eyes -- is NOT
to find a "error" at all.

It is to determine if they are dynamic systems,
and that their refractive STATE follows
an applied -3 diopter lens.

Your preceptions and judgment are wrong.

And the facts are accurate and correct.

All the more reason to have un-biased engineers
(who UNDERSTAND DYNAMIC CONTROL SYSTEM) making
the required measurements.  THEN they will
believe the results.

Enjoy,

Otis




--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Here is where the some CRITICAL words become
> > very important:
> >
> > 1.  "Cure".
> >
> > 2.  "Perfect"
> >
> > 3. "Permanent"
> >
> > 4.  "Doctor"
> >
> >
> > Remember this, if you place a -3 diopter lens
> > on a population of fundamental eyes -- they
> > are always going to change their refractive
> > STATE by -2 diopter in less than six months.
>
> The word "always" is also critical.  Here is a published study in
> which many people wore minus lenses, some for years, some greater
> than -3 and the minus did not cause -2.00D myopia in six months.
>
> PMID: 10326961
> PMID: 2771338
>
> Judy
>

Dear Judy,

Subject: Making objective measurements -- by
INTERESTED engineers.

Given the equipment (retinascope) and INTEREST,
I see no problem teaching an engineer how
to make these measurements.

Further, I would have no problem (with a trial-lens
kit, and minus/plus lenses in 1/4 diotpers steps)
teaching them how to measure their refractive
STATE.

I would think that once the basice measurements
WERE UNDERSTOOD -- their accuracy would
improve greatly.

Since no PRESCRIPTION would be derived from
these measurements -- I see NO PROBLEM
having interested engineers making them,
on themselves, and were necessary -- on
each other.

Why do you ask. Do you have a problem with
engineer-scientists making these measurements?

And if so, please describe in detail WHY
YOU WOULD OBJECT.

I (and others) would be VERY INTERESTED
IN YOUR ANSWERS.

Thanks in advance,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > The best way to explain a measurement -- is
> > to teach (and show) the person how
> > to make the measurement himself.
>
> Are you suggesting that people do retinoscopy on themselves?
> How could they do that?
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
> >
> The best way to explain a measurement -- is
> to teach (and show) the person how
> to make the measurement himself.

Are you suggesting that people do retinoscopy on themselves?
How could they do that?

Judy

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> Here is where the some CRITICAL words become
> very important:
>
> 1.  "Cure".
>
> 2.  "Perfect"
>
> 3. "Permanent"
>
> 4.  "Doctor"
>
>
> Remember this, if you place a -3 diopter lens
> on a population of fundamental eyes -- they
> are always going to change their refractive
> STATE by -2 diopter in less than six months.

The word "always" is also critical.  Here is a published study in
which many people wore minus lenses, some for years, some greater
than -3 and the minus did not cause -2.00D myopia in six months.

PMID: 10326961
PMID: 2771338

Judy

The fundamental eye has refractive STATES.

These STATES can be measured as positive, EXACTLY zero, or
negative.  Those are the facts.  The 'overlay'
of misconecption is to call ALL THESE NATURAL
REFRACTIVE STATES 'ERRORS' OR OTHER THINGS
THAT MISREPRESENT THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DYNAMIC
EYE.

But here is some more "measurement OPINION" for
your interest.

Otis

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


Subject:  More information from Retinula OD.


Ret>  Here goes Otis with his misinformation again!

If you are a 20/70 myope, then minus lenses will restore your
distance
acuity,  Its hard to predict, but assuming no astigmatism, I would
guess
about -1.5D should be close to providing clear 20/20 distance vision.
Of course there might some astigmatism also playing into the senario
but Otis likes to make things simple so we are pretending the patient
is a simple myope.

Most accomplished refractionists prefer a streak retinoscope for the
exam.  A retinoscope is held about 16" from the eyes while the
patient
is looking at a distance target using a working distance of optical
infinity or about 20 ft.  The minimum lens strength that is necessary
to give the patient clear 20/20 vision is determined as the spectacle
prescription.  As Otis likes to imply, patients are not overcorrected
(i.e. given excess minus lens power) to obtain clear BVA.  Giving
excessive power minus lenses is harmful in that it can gives patient
eyestrain, and makes it less comfortable than using the exact
emmetropic state.

Retinula (From sci.med.vision)

Mike Tyner commentary:

Doug> How does one perform static retinoscopy using a direct
retinoscope?


"Direct" and "indirect" don't apply to retinoscopes. Ophthalmoscopes
yes.


Doug> Do  dilate the eyes w/ atropine, darken the lights, take the
retinoscope,  stand 20' away, and try to neutralize the cat's-eye
reflex w/ the  phoropter?


You could stand at 20 feet but it'd be unworkable. Better to stand at
67 cm
and use a +1.50 lens over the patient's eye as your "zero,"
simulating
infinity (1/1.50=0.67).

Three advantages - you can reach the patient, you can see the reflex
better,
and using +1.50 over both eyes "fogs" the vision in a way that
encourages
the patient to relax accommodation.


If your arms are short, you could test at 50 cm and use a
+2.00 "fogging"
lens to simulate optical infinity.


You could dilate, and that's helpful sometimes, but I'm usually more
interested in the patient's "habitual" refractive state. Artificially
eliminating accommodation with atropine gives an "objective" result
but you
don't walk around every day with atropine in your eyes. You don't buy
size
34 pants just because you can suck in your 38 belly and squeeze into
them in
the dressing room.


I work at 67 cm. If it takes +2.50 to neutralize the reflex, I know
this is
a +1.00 hyperope. If the reflex neutralizes at -1.00, it's a -2.50
myope.



Doug> Which is better, direct or indirect, sreak or spot?


There is no direct/indirect afaik.

Most retinoscopes these days are streak. IMO it's easier to determine
axis
with a streak. because the streak reflex "twists" better, indicating
axis.
But vertical/horizontal differences appear readily in the moving
light,
whether it's spot or streak, and some old optometrists will be buried
with
their spot scopes; for me it's a Copeland streak.


Early ret was done with a gas flame behind the patient's head.
The "scope"
was a flat handheld mirror with an observation hole in the center.
Modern
scopes aren't fundamentally different.


-MT

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

The best way to explain a measurement -- is
to teach (and show) the person how
to make the measurement himself.

Otis

Dear Scientific friend,

Subject: The concept of clarity and accuracy
of a scientific concept.


Yes, when a scientific concept becomes excessively complex, then a
"simplifying" assumption can help clear the air.  For instance,
checking the eye for its dynamic behavior, is easier that claiming
that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the eye's refractive STATE.

Here is a clear statement of the idea.

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


OCCAM'S RAZOR.


Occam's razor (sometimes spelled Ockham's razor) is a principle
attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar
William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any
phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating
those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the
explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in
Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony" or "law of
succinctness"): "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem",
or "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity".

This is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the
simplest solution is the best." In other words, when multiple
competing theories are equal in other respects, the principle
recommends selecting the theory that introduces the fewest
assumptions and postulates the fewest entities. It is in this sense
that Occam's razor is usually understood.

Originally a tenet of the reductionist philosophy of nominalism, it
is more often taken today as a heuristic maxim (rule of thumb) that
advises economy, parsimony, or simplicity, often or especially in
scientific theories.

Dear Prevention minded friends,

I have no problem with you, or anyone else being
checked for a TRUE medical problem -- by anyone.

But I do suggest that preventing a negative refractive
STATE is both reasonable and possible -- but
under CONTROL of the person himself.

Thus I REFUSE to use FALSE and misleading terms
when talking about the dynamic behavior of
the natural eye -- measured in terms of refractive
STATE.

I am an engineer -- not a medical person.  Futher,
I do not make medical statements.  If you
can accept that condition then we
can move forward with true-prevention under
your control.

Here is where the some CRITICAL words become
very important:

1.  "Cure".

2.  "Perfect"

3. "Permanent"

4.  "Doctor"

So make certain about what you are doing, and
what you want in your life.

Remember this, if you place a -3 diopter lens
on a population of fundamental eyes -- they
are always going to change their refractive
STATE by -2 diopter in less than six months.

That brings to fore the whole question of
the SAFETY of wearing a strong minus lens -- in
the first place.

Using EXACT words to described a measurement
is essential in SCIENCE.

Emjoy,

Otis

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

Subject:  When is it the "practice of medicine"?


Prima facie evidence of practicing medicine without a license
Most alternative health care practitioners have heard the
phrase "practicing medicine without a license", but are unaware of
the practical definition of this phrase and its application in the
legal system. One of the most common methods for prosecuting an
alternative practitioner is to document the manner in which the
practitioner describes her practice to clients, both verbally and in
printed promotional literature.

Physicians have customarily used certain terminology to describe
their profession and its purposes: "consult with
patients", "treatment of disease or illness", "prescribe
remedies", "diagnose illness", "cure illness", "provide
therapy", "administer medicine", "relieve symptoms of illness", as
well as others.

The routine use of these words and phrases when describing or
explaining one's profession and purpose to clients constitutes prima
facie evidence of practicing medicine. And, of course, if one doesn't
have a license to practice medicine, then one may be prosecuted for
practicing medicine without a license.

That not many alternative practitioners know the terrible
significance of these code words has been a carefully kept "club
secret" among state medical societies and prosecuting attorneys,
although an increasing number of alternative practitioners have
discovered this secret.

The defendant in court may not even recognize what is occurring
before his eyes and ears, especially if he or she has used these
terms routinely, unaware of their significance. This prima facie
evidence will be entered into the court transcript, and unless
challenged by the defendant or defense attorney, it is assumed to be
fact.

Prima facie evidence is evidence that can be considered proof of a
violation on the face of it, unless challenged. Many defendants do
not know enough to speak up and present evidence countering the
prosecution's prima facie case. If you describe your professional
purpose using words traditionally reserved to the medical profession,
it will be difficult, but not impossible, for you to argue that you
are not practicing medicine.

You will have to demonstrate that in spite of the words you used,
your intent was not to practice medicine but to help clients improve
their health. The easiest method of protecting your rights is to
avoid at the outset using medical jargon to describe your
professional purpose.

Whether or not to use medical jargon is not mere nit-picking over
words, but a question of intent. For even if you avoid using the
forbidden words, yet by your actions demonstrate that your purpose is
to diagnose and treat illness, you may still be practicing medicine.
How then does one not diagnose medical illnesses and not treat such
illnesses? This is a practical matter that delves into the root of
one's philosophy of herbal practice.

Consider the actions of a typical herbalist in dealing with a client
who asks the herbalist if she can help to cure the client's multiple
sclerosis. If the herbalist patiently explains to the client that she
can make no claims to cure anything, but that she assists people in
building the general health and resistance of the body by providing
nutrients and herbs that stimulate healing, no practice of medicine
has yet occurred.

If she further explains that each individual has unique metabolic
differences, and that what may stimulate healing in one individual
may be ineffective or perhaps even harmful to another, no practice of
medicine has occurred. If she takes the client's pulse, inspects the
tongue, and asks about health history and symptoms, no practice of
medicine has yet occurred.

If she provides an herbal formula, with instructions for preparation,
together with recommendations for including specific foods in the
diet, and explains to the client that certain foods may be better
suited to her body type and constitution than other foods, allowing
the body to function better, no practice of medicine has yet
occurred. Thus far, this situation is no different from that of an
athletic trainer who is recommending particular foods to an athlete
to achieve maximum performance.

Now, to go one step further, suppose the herbalist shows the client a
textbook with the herbal ingredients recommended for the client, and
that this textbook contains information about the physiological
effects of the herbs and lists a set of diseases that the herbs have
been shown to benefit. After all, the client could have obtained this
information on her own at the local library.

Now we are approaching the line, but have not yet crossed it, for the
First Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects the unrestricted flow
of information of this type. However, if the herbalist then says to
the client: "These herbs will help to relieve your multiple
sclerosis," the line has been crossed. The herbalist has just claimed
to be able to cure or relieve the client's specific condition or
illness, and this is entering the domain of medical practice.

Many herbalists err from the outset by saying to their patient, "Yes
I can help to cure your multiple sclerosis, these herbs will do the
job, here's your prescription of herbal medicine. Come back next week
so that we can continue your therapy." Numerous herbalists have been
entrapped and convicted of practicing medicine without a license on
the basis of testimony or tape recordings verifying they have used
such words and phrases to describe their business.

Competent traditional Chinese herbalists are well aware of the
importance of symptoms and signs and the total context in which they
occur; such patterns lead to the choice of correct herbal formulas.
In principle, is this any different from an athletic trainer
recommending to a client who has a tendency toward Stomach Yin
Deficiency (characterized by symptoms of dry mouth and thirst yet
reluctant to drink more than a few sips at a time, nausea, tendency
to feel hot and somewhat fatigued, thready pulse) to drink diluted
pear juice after a summer foot race?

The distinction between treating illness and assisting people to
improve their health is especially evident when the herbalist spends
the time to educate the client about the herbs she is taking and how
to know whether they are appropriate for her based upon her
sensations. Educating clients to maximize their sense of well-being
by monitoring sensations and symptoms to self-regulate food, herb,
and spice intake is quite different mentally and psychologically from
informing clients that the herbs will cure their illnesses.

The practitioner's words and her intent do influence the outcome, as
the following example illustrates. The author knows of many
individuals who have taken large doses of cayenne pepper in capsule
form over a prolonged period, developing signs of agitation, thirst,
irritability, localized inflammation, burning sensation in the GI
tract or urethra, with manifestation of reddish tongue tissue with
fissures (which a traditional Chinese herbalist may recognize as
Deficiency of Yin).

Some of these people may have had a predisposition to developing such
symptoms at the time they began the cayenne "therapy". In almost all
of these cases, the individuals had decided to take the cayenne
capsules because either a health practitioner, a friend, or a book
they read indicated that cayenne would benefit high blood pressure,
candida, arthritis, disease X, etc.

The common sense that these people may have possessed in regulating
their daily diet, such as eating watermelon when thirsty on a hot day
or drinking ginger and cinnamon tea on a cold winter night, flew out
the window when faced with the authoritative claims of Dr. So&So,
Ph.D., professional health food pamphlet writer.

Health is a quality that people sense and perceive in their own
bodies. Medical conditions, such as emphysema, thrombocytopenia
purpura, and moniliasis are abstractions that are proper for a
physician to detect, monitor, and treat, if she can. The TCM
herbalist and her client cannot and should not operate in this realm.
To do so risks loss of common sense as demonstrated by the cayenne
debacle. TCM herbalists are better off legally and ethically when
they educate their clients in listening to their bodies' symptoms so
that they can better self-regulate their own health. Claims of cures
for medical illnesses that are only detectable with microscopes, CT
scans, and blood tests changes the terrain to that of the unseen,
which neither the herbalist nor her client is capable of perceiving
directly. Medical entities should not be the focus of herb choices
for improving the client's health, a quality that one does perceive.

Use of the title "Dr."


Besides the medical phrases "cure illness", "prescribe medicine", and
others, use of the title "Dr." or referring to oneself as a "doctor"
may also be used as prima facie evidence of practicing medicine
without a license, when used in the context of presenting oneself as
a health practitioner.

Even if you have a Ph.D. or O.M.D. degree, it is safer to not refer
to yourself as a doctor. If you do have such a degree, there is
nothing wrong (except where specifically prohibited by state statute)
with letting the public know about your education by using the
specific accredited degree designation after your name, but you
should correct them if they begin addressing you as "Dr." If you do
not correct them as soon as possible, you may be accused of passively
misleading them to believe that you are a licensed physician.

While this debate over use of the title "doctor" may seem mere word
play, the social forces behind the use of this title reveal
distinctly pernicious effects. In 1963, Yale University sociologist
S. Milgram performed a series of experiments to determine why an
individual may override her own common sense and conscience when
faced with an authority figure who commands obedience. [ref.# 1] Such
matters were of great interest consequent to public revelations of
Nazi atrocities during the Nuremberg war criminal trials.

In Milgram's study, the head experimenter commanded volunteer
participants to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to
another person by operating a control panel with clearly marked shock
levels. The dial that controlled shock level was marked with a
maximum level labelled "Danger: Severe Shock". The person being
shocked was in reality an actor, unbeknownst to the people operating
the control panel under the command of the experimenter.

The purpose of the study was to determine how readily people would
obey commands to administer "Severe Shock", in spite of the seemingly
horrible consequences to the actor-victim. The results of the study,
performed on American citizens in the locale of Yale University and
New Haven, Connecticut, revealed that a surprising majority of people
would do so, allowing an authority figure to override their own
conscience. One shocking conclusion from this experiment was that the
same social forces that allow fascist governments to rule are
potentially operative in America.

Another social psychologist, H. Kelman [2], expanded upon Milgram's
work to determine those factors in the social environment that allow
individuals to override their conscience and commit destructive
actions. He determined that these factors include authorization,
which legitimates a destructive action, routinization, which reduces
the destructive action to a standard procedure of mechanical and
administrative routines, and dehumanization, which facilitates the
action by minimizing or suppressing the human and personal qualities
of the targets of the action.

How is this relevant to health care? The same tendency for people in
fascist societies to commit violence against dissenters and
individualists lies at the core of "scientific" methods commonly
applied to health care. A medical procedure or treatment protocol is
legitimated by a series of scientific experiments that "proves" it
has the desired action (not necessarily from the patient's but from
the medical researcher's perspective).

The scientific literature provides the initial authorization,
whereupon clinicians (and, now, insurance companies) develop standard
procedures that transform the new treatment method into a routine
procedure. Next, the medical conception of the human body as a bag of
chemicals, cells, tissues, and organs dehumanizes the patient in the
mind of well-trained and indoctrinated physicians to the point that
the patient's symptoms, feelings, and perceptions are commonly
ignored as being irrelevant to the protocol.

Finally, the doctor, who has been ordained by the high priesthood of
the medical societies, pronounces that this treatment procedure is
necessary for the patient. The full weight of this decree will be
felt by a typical member of an authoritarian society, who has been
carefully programmed from birth to obey authority for the
presumed "greater good of society", even if this may require
suppressing one's instinctive awareness, common sense, and
conscience. According to Milgram, this description fits the majority
of Americans who participated in his study in 1963. If the problem
cannot be detected by scientific instrumentation, the doctor
dismisses it as being a chimera of the patient's fevered imagination.

Wilhelm Reich, a physician who published a series of books [3] about
the psychological basis of authoritarian control strategies, revealed
that fascist societies (broadly defined, include most "civilized"
nations) gain control over their subjects by inducing them to
suppress bodily instincts (including natural sexual function), which
constitute the first line of defense of any living being against
harm, and by using religious dogma and mysticism to justify and
maintain such suppression.

With a whole population of such semi-conscious people who have
learned to suppress their own natural instincts and body sensations
for fear of ridicule by authority figures, the way has been cleared
for inflicting iatrogenic medical care, an ersatz food supply lacking
nutrients, and a toxic environment that is unpleasant and ultimately
deadly. The inevitable bottled-up emotional outrage that the
population would ordinarily express toward the perpetrators of such
misery is instead channeled into contrived warfare and environmental
destruction of such magnitude as to endanger not only the health but
the lives of a majority of the world's inhabitants.

Alternative health care providers who wish to promote among their
clients a greater responsibility for their lives, should present
themselves as partners in working toward a state of greater health
and self-awareness, rather than as authoritarian experts, or doctors,
who issue decrees. The authoritarian health care provider gains power
by stealing it from clients, robbing them of common sense, and
leading them to mistrust their own sensations and instincts, in many
cases creating a highly profitable, though pathetic, relationship of
continual dependency.

Licensing of non-physician health care providers
During the last several decades, states throughout the U.S. have
added such professions as chiropractic, naturopathy, midwifery,
massage and acupuncture to the roster of licensed professions.

Many practitioners of these professions are under the illusion that
having a state-granted license to engage in one of these professions
automatically grants them the legal authority to prescribe treatments
for diseases within their scope of practice.

In the case of chiropractors, many states restrict their ability to
diagnose and treat to specific illnesses of the musculoskeletal
system.

In many of the other licensed health professions, state licensing
statutes often provide no explicit authority to diagnose or treat any
illness; if this is the case in your state, you should take the same
precautions as unlicensed health practitioners in avoiding the
practice of medicine.

Dr. Roger Wicke

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject: The profound ignorance of the
"public mind".

There is no "help" for these people.

The minus does work instantly -- and is
very impressive in that sense.

Thus the majority-opinion, and people like
layman "Bev" go together.

If you are "thinking" about Bates and/or
Prentice/Raphaelson methods -- consider this
"mentality" posted on sci.med.vision.

Any SERIOUS preventive effort should consider
these issues -- WITH AN OPEN MIND.

Enjoy,

Otis

======

Executive summary by Bev:

                              There are a number of people here
                              with no medical credentials at all and a
                              lot of opinions bordering on religious
                              belief.

The people trying to promote the
Bates Method, "The Plus" lens and pinhole
glasses are examples of this behavior.


    Before acting, do some research.
----------------------------------------


Please do not post comments and discussion under this
subject. PLEASE take your posts to other existing threads
or start one with a new subject line. This notice is posted
weekly on Monday (mostly!).


                           WELCOME TO THE SCI.MED.VISION NEWSGROUP


The purpose of this newsgroup is to discuss issues related to
eye health and vision care from a scientific viewpoint.
Issues for discussion include (but are not limited to): how
the eye works, vision problems and how they may be corrected,
eye health concerns, how they happen and how they may be
remedied, as well as items related to new research and
associated findings.


This group is the place to learn about these issues and
readers are advised that opinions expressed here may come
from eye care professionals (optometrists, ophthalmologists,
opticians, ophthalmic researchers) as well as the general
public.


  From time to time we experience posters who espouse certain
viewpoints that are hoaxes, mythology, disproven theories and
outright scams. If someone is desperately trying to convince
you of something or uses demeaning and abusive language, you
might be correct in assuming that they have an agenda and
their views are not consistent with current science.  If it
sounds too good to be true, it probably is. The people trying
to promote the Bates Method are one such example of this
behavior.


When reading and gathering information, be aware of the
source and use good judgment. Do not base vital health care
decisions on information obtained in this forum without
consulting a practitioner who can clearly understand your
issues and examine the situation first hand, in person.


Please do not reply to posters in an effort to denounce,
ridicule, embarrass or otherwise engage in non-productive
discussion. That's called "feeding the trolls" and wastes
space on hundreds of thousands of newsserver hard drives and
personal computers around the world.  If you are bothered by
the tone or content of a thread, don't read it or learn how
to make the subject or author not appear in the list of
topics. This is called kill-filing or filtering.  For more
information on how to set up filters and kill-files, please
see the documentation for your newsreader application or go
to:


       <http://www.hyphenologist.co.uk/killfile/killfilefaq.htm>


For additional information, the official sci.med.vision FAQ
(last updated in 1997) can be found at:


       <http://www.faqs.org/faqs/vision-faq/>


Thank you for participating in our unmoderated open forum.


Bev

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@...> wrote:
>
> drjudy65 wrote:
> > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@> wrote:
> >>


>  Also, in many
> low cases of myopia the excessive accommodative type, the need for
> distance lenses has been eliminated."
>
> Again, regarding the 22 cases: "Numerous cases of simple
> over-accommodative myopia in which no lenses were prescribed are not
> included in above figures."

Well, I should hope he would not include such cases.  They were
clearly pseudomyopes.

Judy

drjudy65 wrote:
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 27, 2008, at 9:05 AM, drjudy65 wrote:
>>
>>> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Reader,
>>>>
>
>> http://www.i-see.org/plus_therapy/haberfeld.html
>>
>> Martin Haberfeld noted reductions of myopia with his "teleopto"
> plus
>> lenses: The writer in twenty-two cases
>> over eighty-seven case years observed an average decrease in
> myopia of
>> 0.02 diopters per year. ...
>
> Not exactly a clinical trial.  With 22 cases in 87 "case years", I
> get 4 years per case so a total reduction in myopia of 0.08D, an
> amount that is not measurable.

That was an average that did not include the cases that were cured
within the first week. Again:

"After taking these exercises and wearing the teleopto lenses as
directed for one week the eyes are again refracted. The prescription
found at this time is fitted for constant wear. Very frequently this
will be found to be a reduction from the first refraction. Also, in many
low cases of myopia the excessive accommodative type, the need for
distance lenses has been eliminated."

Again, regarding the 22 cases: "Numerous cases of simple
over-accommodative myopia in which no lenses were prescribed are not
included in above figures."

So the average zero progression figure is conservative.

Haberfeld's conclusion is pretty much the same as Otis's claim:

"At the first signs of myopia proper treatment should immediately be
instituted before any serious inroads have occurred as in slight degrees
the visual acuity can still usually be brought to normal without the aid
of spectacles for distant vision."

--Alex

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 27, 2008, at 9:05 AM, drjudy65 wrote:
>
> > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Dear Reader,
> >>

>
> http://www.i-see.org/plus_therapy/haberfeld.html
>
> Martin Haberfeld noted reductions of myopia with his "teleopto"
plus
> lenses: The writer in twenty-two cases
> over eighty-seven case years observed an average decrease in
myopia of
> 0.02 diopters per year. ...

Not exactly a clinical trial.  With 22 cases in 87 "case years", I
get 4 years per case so a total reduction in myopia of 0.08D, an
amount that is not measurable.

Judy

Dear Plus-PREVENTION friends,

It is always good to understand the
majority-opinion, a negative refractive STATE
of the eye CAN NEVER BE PREVENTED.

Here is the conversation between a
"Bates" person and Mike Tyner OD.

Enjoy,

Otis

===========

"Szczepan Bia³ek" <sz.bia...@...> wrote



Sz*> I am here to lern. Lern how to decrease myopia.


MikeOD> I've looked for 20 years. I've never found a reliable method
for reducing
real (anatomical) myopia.

About age 50, tonic accommodation disappears. Still many, many people
with
myopia.


If you could "cure" all the tonic accommodation in younger myopes,
there
would still be many, many myopes.


Tonic accommodation is not real myopia. It's OK to reduce tonic
accommodation. Sometimes the results are dramatic because a few
people show
LOTS of tonic accommodation.


But still tonic accommodation causes only a LITTLE of total myopia.


It is naive to say you're "curing myopia" by removing tonic
accommodation.


Most real myopia happens because the eye grows too long.


We know a way to slow it down, but our FDA has not approved the
treatment.



Sz*> Now I have known how to do it temporary:


Useless to do it temporary.


Sz*> 1. " the lens to return to its "normal" shape when blood sugar
comes down." ,Does it mean that the tonic accomodation decreases
when blood sugar comes down?


No. Osmosis has nothing to do with accommodation.


Sz*> 2.  "For good refraction you must relax" . Does it means take a
rest?  If yes, it can allow to take the following conclusions:


No, it means effort or "straining" or even thinking about your eyes
will
tend to stimulate accommodation and create measurement artifact. If
you want
accurate refraction, relax. If you are too young to understand, like
5 or 6,
we use eyedrops to MAKE you relax. Then we know refraction is
accurate, not
spoiled by tonic accommodation. Tonic accommodation is easy to
measure, easy
to explain, easy to treat. No great accomplishment to "fix" tonic
accommodation.


Sz*> Blood sugar go together with the potassium. After effort the
potassium in  the blood is also higher.


Well you might make a case for elevated potassium in the aqueous but
I'm
wondering if you know much about osmosis and the normal range of
blood
electrolytes and solutes. I don't think you could vary K+ or Na+
enough to
get the osmotic pressure of 350 mM/L sugar in the aqueous.
Hyperkalemia
would kill you pretty quick, sodium somewhat longer.


Sz*> So the high tonic accomodation may by caused by high potassium


This is foolish.


Sz*> The only remede may be the John Rollo's diet.


I don't think you will find much connection between diet and tonic
accommodation.


Sz*> Is it quite foolish?


You are not likely to find a reliable method for curing real
(anatomical)
myopia. Tonic accommodation is small potatoes.

-MT

Dear Christopher,

Subject: Excellent write-up.

These were indeed MY THOUGHTS for about
20 years.

But I began to wonder about the mind
of an OD -- what he thought about these
issues.

If he came to the correct conclusion -- what
sort of advice and guidance would
he supply to HIS OWN CHILDREN.

That is how we could start with plus-prevention.

I will add my own commentary in due course.

The analogy of "stress-strain" is common -- and
it seems everyone believes it.

But it is not quite right.

I enjoy these debates.

Sincerely,

Otis

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

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "christopher_haddad"
<christopher_haddad@...> wrote:
>
>      The eye is a dynamic system, which, in accordance to its
> environment, morphs itself "indirectly", which will be discussed
> further later. The eye, when focusing into the distance, 20 feet and
> beyond for those with normal vision, is completely relaxed, that is,
> the cillary muscles that move the lens are exerting no force on the
> lens. As an object that is being focused on is brought closer to the
> eye, the cillary muscles are forced to place more stress on the lens
> in order to maintain proper focus. This is the normal function of
the
> eye, and there should normally be no adverse effect from such usage
of
> the eye.
>
>      However, since the eye is a dynamic system, we must envision it
> as an elastic band. A good quality elastic band is meant to stretch
> when pressure it applied, and when the force is taken away, it is
> expected to return to its original size. However, no matter how good
> the quality of the elastic band, after a particularly hard stretch,
it
> will surely not go back to the exact original size. In the case of
an
> elastic band, this difference is negligible, but if the eye were to
> stretch, even by a tiny amount, the repercussions would be enormous.
>
>      So, when constant stress is applied by the cillary muscles to
the
> lens, which is attached to the eye, a little bit of stretching
occurs
> (a few micrometers) and when you go to sleep, the eye is set back to
> its normal dimensions. This is why after using a computer or
reading a
> book for a whole day, your vision may be slightly fuzzy, but upon
> waking up again, it will have cleared up. These mechanisms of
> regeneration are robust and resilient, and it takes some outside
> influence to truly destroy the eye.
>
>      The normal path most people go down to myopia is very simple.
> They start to read at an early age, and in school they are reading
> textbooks unlike the old, almost completely blackboard dominated
> teaching styles. Over and over again, every single day, the cillary
> muscles are pulling on the lens. The children come home, and no
longer
> watch tv or converse with family members, they go straight to
> hand-held video game devices and computer games. More and more
stress
> on the eye. They go to sleep every night, and the eye regenerates,
but
> just like with the elastic band, it doesn't go back to normal. So
> every day, the child's eye elongates just a tiny tiny bit. But over
> the course of several years, the child's teacher notices that they
are
>  always squinting when looking at the black board. They consult the
> teacher, and unknowing of the road they have just set their child
on,
> the parents go to the optometrist, and the child is given glasses.
>
>      At this point, you are probably wondering, what do glasses have
> to do with this!? What road was the child set on? Well, I tell you
> this. Glasses are not magical devices. To make it very simple,
glasses
> bring everything you are looking at closer to your eye. A normal
> person will be able to see something clearly at 20 feet, and child
who
> is getting his first pair of glasses may only be able to do that at
> 10-15 feet. So the glasses bring everything that is 20 feet away to
> 10-15 feet away. And everything in between is brought up by the same
> ratio. This could only mean one thing, more stress on the eye. Since
> everything is now closer, the cillary muscles pull extra-hard on the
> lens in order to accommodate for everything being so close. There
you
> go, extra-stress on the eye, and then you have what physicists like
to
> call "acceleration". Acceleration of the deformation of the eye,
> acceleration of myopia. The child gets his or her next pair of
> glasses, and everything is brought even closer. If they read a book
at
> 12 inches, it is now at 6 inches away. And every new set of glasses
is
> even more powerful, and brings that book closer, and closer, until
it
> is right at the tip of their nose. Where do you think the child's
> optical infinity is now? 1 foot? 2 feet? Something around there. If
20
> feet is 20/20 vision, what is an optical infinity of 2 feet. 20/200!
> Legal Blindness! There are 16 year olds who are legally blind!
>
>      So let's get to the point of the matter, if there is no
> alternative, then why am I talking? There is nothing more important
> than vision, and if it takes years to get to a bad point of myopia,
it
> is going to take a long time to get back. The best medicine is
> prevention! Now how do you go about preventing myopia. Do you ban
> books and computers and video games and live in the jungle? That
would
> work the fastest, but it is not feasible. What we have to do is make
> sure that the eyes are relaxed. While reading, look into the
distance
> every minute, only for a few seconds...you don't even need to move
> your head, just go out of focus for a few seconds. Sit up straight
> while in school, as to keep the distance between you and the book
to a
> maximum. While using the computer, look out a window every minute.
It
> is important to note that human vision can not deteriorate very far
> without glasses, I should know, I spent a half a year without my
> glasses, and kept doing my normal habits of reading at a close
> distance, using the computer a lot and other things harmful for the
> eyes. I went to the optometrist, and he said my vision was unchanged
> (I could swear he looked disappointed)
>
>      There is another way...the plus lens. In the same way that
> glasses for myopics bring everything closer, plus lenses, reading
> glasses, glasses for hyperopics move everything further away. If its
> further away, our eye is more relaxed while looking at it, and there
> is no stress on the eye. That means the eye won't degrade. SImple
as that.
>
>      Now if you already have myopia, the horizon is a little grim.
> Thanks to science, we have things like LASIK and Ortho-K, which
means
> that for a proportionate amount of money, you can fix your vision,
but
> for those who don't have that kind of money, or don't like the idea
of
> burning tissue off their eyes, it is possible to get better. It all
> depends on how far you have already progressed into myopia. Let's
say
> you are 20/100. That means your optical infinity is at 4 feet. That
> means focusing on something at 4 feet away is a completely relaxed
> state for your eye! All you need to do is keep relaxing your eye
every
> couple minutes when looking at something closer than 4 feet. It will
> take time, a long time, and if at any time you lose will, put on
your
> glasses, go outside, and look at how everything is distorted with
your
> glasses on and imagine how beautiful everything looks with your
> glasses off and with perfect vision. IF you still lose will, then
> remember you don't have a terminal illness, and that as technology
> progresses, there will be a point soon when you will be able to fix
> your eyes for a low cost and with minimal risk.
>
>      If your vision is worse than 20/100, it may be difficult for
you
> to live without your glasses on. You may have to get weaker glasses,
> but if this is not an option, I recommend trying not to wear your
> glasses as much as you can. If you are in a classroom, you don't
need
> them on while reading, if you are using the computer, you can wear
> your old glasses, no one is looking! Use your normal glasses while
> driving, because you are looking into the distance anyway, so it
can't
> be too bad for your eyes. Take comfort in knowing that if you are at
> over 20/100, just keeping your glasses off will be sufficient for
the
> first stretch. When you get to 20/100, you have the choice of using
> the plus lens or simply keeping doing what you're doing. Plus lens
> will be faster, but I must say, I used the plus lens, and I started
to
> get ghosting...that is...double vision. I still don't know if that
was
> my astigmatism showing through because of my myopia was clearing up,
> but I don't want to take a risk. I'm sure Mr. Brown can clear this
up.
>
>      Now the first thing people say in fighting against the whole
> essay I've written right here is genetics. Why do only some people
in
> my class have glasses? We all read the same stuff, we all play
> gameboy, or Nintendo DS and we all read. Genetics does have a huge
> role, but not in the generally believed way. Genetics determines the
> ABILITY for somebody to become nearsighted. It determines with what
> force the cillary muscles push on the lens, how hard the eye tries
to
> regenerate during sleep, the overall elasticity, et cetera. Only
when
> a child is myopic even before he goes to school or very early in
> school is it a genetic disorder, in which they are forced to get
> myopia. It cannot be fixed by this method. Otherwise, genetics are
> just saying if it is possible to get myopia. If your genes say that
> you will not get myopia, then rejoice, you can read at 2 inches,
play
> computer, do whatever you want, and the chances of getting myopia
are
> very slim.
>
>      The eye is dynamic. Leave it alone, and it will regenerate,
just
> like skin tissue, bone tissue, muscle tissue. It will repair itself.
> It is, after all, God's handiwork, and the only thing that can mess
it
> up are man-made things. It's most important not to lose hope or
faith.
> Just remember that there was a time when glasses were not even an
> alternative, and people with myopia were as good as blind...but back
> then, very few got it, because there was not as much close-up stuff.
> At least you have glasses, when you need to see something far away.
By
> the way, all this counts for contact lenses.
>
> Christopher
>

The eye is a dynamic system, which, in accordance to its
environment, morphs itself "indirectly", which will be discussed
further later. The eye, when focusing into the distance, 20 feet and
beyond for those with normal vision, is completely relaxed, that is,
the cillary muscles that move the lens are exerting no force on the
lens. As an object that is being focused on is brought closer to the
eye, the cillary muscles are forced to place more stress on the lens
in order to maintain proper focus. This is the normal function of the
eye, and there should normally be no adverse effect from such usage of
the eye.

      However, since the eye is a dynamic system, we must envision it
as an elastic band. A good quality elastic band is meant to stretch
when pressure it applied, and when the force is taken away, it is
expected to return to its original size. However, no matter how good
the quality of the elastic band, after a particularly hard stretch, it
will surely not go back to the exact original size. In the case of an
elastic band, this difference is negligible, but if the eye were to
stretch, even by a tiny amount, the repercussions would be enormous.

      So, when constant stress is applied by the cillary muscles to the
lens, which is attached to the eye, a little bit of stretching occurs
(a few micrometers) and when you go to sleep, the eye is set back to
its normal dimensions. This is why after using a computer or reading a
book for a whole day, your vision may be slightly fuzzy, but upon
waking up again, it will have cleared up. These mechanisms of
regeneration are robust and resilient, and it takes some outside
influence to truly destroy the eye.

      The normal path most people go down to myopia is very simple.
They start to read at an early age, and in school they are reading
textbooks unlike the old, almost completely blackboard dominated
teaching styles. Over and over again, every single day, the cillary
muscles are pulling on the lens. The children come home, and no longer
watch tv or converse with family members, they go straight to
hand-held video game devices and computer games. More and more stress
on the eye. They go to sleep every night, and the eye regenerates, but
just like with the elastic band, it doesn't go back to normal. So
every day, the child's eye elongates just a tiny tiny bit. But over
the course of several years, the child's teacher notices that they are
  always squinting when looking at the black board. They consult the
teacher, and unknowing of the road they have just set their child on,
the parents go to the optometrist, and the child is given glasses.

      At this point, you are probably wondering, what do glasses have
to do with this!? What road was the child set on? Well, I tell you
this. Glasses are not magical devices. To make it very simple, glasses
bring everything you are looking at closer to your eye. A normal
person will be able to see something clearly at 20 feet, and child who
is getting his first pair of glasses may only be able to do that at
10-15 feet. So the glasses bring everything that is 20 feet away to
10-15 feet away. And everything in between is brought up by the same
ratio. This could only mean one thing, more stress on the eye. Since
everything is now closer, the cillary muscles pull extra-hard on the
lens in order to accommodate for everything being so close. There you
go, extra-stress on the eye, and then you have what physicists like to
call "acceleration". Acceleration of the deformation of the eye,
acceleration of myopia. The child gets his or her next pair of
glasses, and everything is brought even closer. If they read a book at
12 inches, it is now at 6 inches away. And every new set of glasses is
even more powerful, and brings that book closer, and closer, until it
is right at the tip of their nose. Where do you think the child's
optical infinity is now? 1 foot? 2 feet? Something around there. If 20
feet is 20/20 vision, what is an optical infinity of 2 feet. 20/200!
Legal Blindness! There are 16 year olds who are legally blind!

      So let's get to the point of the matter, if there is no
alternative, then why am I talking? There is nothing more important
than vision, and if it takes years to get to a bad point of myopia, it
is going to take a long time to get back. The best medicine is
prevention! Now how do you go about preventing myopia. Do you ban
books and computers and video games and live in the jungle? That would
work the fastest, but it is not feasible. What we have to do is make
sure that the eyes are relaxed. While reading, look into the distance
every minute, only for a few seconds...you don't even need to move
your head, just go out of focus for a few seconds. Sit up straight
while in school, as to keep the distance between you and the book to a
maximum. While using the computer, look out a window every minute. It
is important to note that human vision can not deteriorate very far
without glasses, I should know, I spent a half a year without my
glasses, and kept doing my normal habits of reading at a close
distance, using the computer a lot and other things harmful for the
eyes. I went to the optometrist, and he said my vision was unchanged
(I could swear he looked disappointed)

      There is another way...the plus lens. In the same way that
glasses for myopics bring everything closer, plus lenses, reading
glasses, glasses for hyperopics move everything further away. If its
further away, our eye is more relaxed while looking at it, and there
is no stress on the eye. That means the eye won't degrade. SImple as that.

      Now if you already have myopia, the horizon is a little grim.
Thanks to science, we have things like LASIK and Ortho-K, which means
that for a proportionate amount of money, you can fix your vision, but
for those who don't have that kind of money, or don't like the idea of
burning tissue off their eyes, it is possible to get better. It all
depends on how far you have already progressed into myopia. Let's say
you are 20/100. That means your optical infinity is at 4 feet. That
means focusing on something at 4 feet away is a completely relaxed
state for your eye! All you need to do is keep relaxing your eye every
couple minutes when looking at something closer than 4 feet. It will
take time, a long time, and if at any time you lose will, put on your
glasses, go outside, and look at how everything is distorted with your
glasses on and imagine how beautiful everything looks with your
glasses off and with perfect vision. IF you still lose will, then
remember you don't have a terminal illness, and that as technology
progresses, there will be a point soon when you will be able to fix
your eyes for a low cost and with minimal risk.

      If your vision is worse than 20/100, it may be difficult for you
to live without your glasses on. You may have to get weaker glasses,
but if this is not an option, I recommend trying not to wear your
glasses as much as you can. If you are in a classroom, you don't need
them on while reading, if you are using the computer, you can wear
your old glasses, no one is looking! Use your normal glasses while
driving, because you are looking into the distance anyway, so it can't
be too bad for your eyes. Take comfort in knowing that if you are at
over 20/100, just keeping your glasses off will be sufficient for the
first stretch. When you get to 20/100, you have the choice of using
the plus lens or simply keeping doing what you're doing. Plus lens
will be faster, but I must say, I used the plus lens, and I started to
get ghosting...that is...double vision. I still don't know if that was
my astigmatism showing through because of my myopia was clearing up,
but I don't want to take a risk. I'm sure Mr. Brown can clear this up.

      Now the first thing people say in fighting against the whole
essay I've written right here is genetics. Why do only some people in
my class have glasses? We all read the same stuff, we all play
gameboy, or Nintendo DS and we all read. Genetics does have a huge
role, but not in the generally believed way. Genetics determines the
ABILITY for somebody to become nearsighted. It determines with what
force the cillary muscles push on the lens, how hard the eye tries to
regenerate during sleep, the overall elasticity, et cetera. Only when
a child is myopic even before he goes to school or very early in
school is it a genetic disorder, in which they are forced to get
myopia. It cannot be fixed by this method. Otherwise, genetics are
just saying if it is possible to get myopia. If your genes say that
you will not get myopia, then rejoice, you can read at 2 inches, play
computer, do whatever you want, and the chances of getting myopia are
very slim.

      The eye is dynamic. Leave it alone, and it will regenerate, just
like skin tissue, bone tissue, muscle tissue. It will repair itself.
It is, after all, God's handiwork, and the only thing that can mess it
up are man-made things. It's most important not to lose hope or faith.
Just remember that there was a time when glasses were not even an
alternative, and people with myopia were as good as blind...but back
then, very few got it, because there was not as much close-up stuff.
At least you have glasses, when you need to see something far away. By
the way, all this counts for contact lenses.

Christopher

Dear Alex,

Subject: Running a SCIENCE "controlled" study.

Let me revise your statement here:


Alex>  It's been almost 13 years since that post. We still have yet
to see a
single randomized cotrolled clinical trial that would test the effects
of prescribing a minus lens for myopia.


Otis> Change that to a SCIENTIFIC study, where each person
is cognizant of WHAT HE IS DOING, and WHY HE IS DOING IT,
and you could get good results in about one year.

Otis>  In STATISTICS:  Highly SIGNIFICANT.  But
I would expect each engineer to understand the
analysis and statistics of HIS OWN STUDY.

Otis>  Fred Deakins did it?  Why not other
equally motivated pilots?

Otis> People who have "enlightened self-interst"
(like Colgate, like Deakins) can accomplish
results that the "man in the street" can
never accomplish.

Otis> This would NOT be a medical study at all -- however,
and therefore NOT  a "blind" study.


Otis

--Alex

Dear Alex,

Subject:  Enlightened self-interest.

Re: Don't need a guinea pig.  We need a scientist-engineer
who understands the meaning of science, and
can judge scientific experiments.

I would suggest if the "kids" you propose were OLDER
and could accept the intellectual challenge of it -- could
organize themselves into an effective SCIENTIFIC
study.

People act, no for your welfare, not for my welfare,
not for "science", and not for Judy's welfare.

Like Fred Deakins -- they only act for their
OWN PERSONAL BENIFIT.

I like your write-up.  But success would depend
on preception of the person himself.

Otis

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

From i-see:

Are minus lenses bad for you? (was Re: Is Lasik Bad for You?)


Otis>>> It is interesting that they will investigate the
"bad effect" of Lasik, but will never
investigate the bad-effect of a minus lens.


Neil> Out of curiosity ... have you ever proposed any sort of a
randomized controlled clinical trial be done?
If so, could you outline what you proposed and to whom you proposed
it?

Neil> What sort of response(s) did you get to your proposal(s), if
any?

Alex>  Way back in 1995 I suggested that we test the effects of the
minus
lens on low myopia. Here is what I proposed, and the typical response
to the idea.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/msg/db89c8ebcaf2f406

> From: Alex Eulenberg

> Subject: Alex's myopia experiment

> Date: Nov 20, 1995
> organization: Indiana University
> newsgroups: sci.med.vision

> Alex:
>
> >>>What we do need
> >>>is some hard data on what happens to kids with LOW MYOPIA, ON
> AVERAGE
> >>>when they are given glasses, as opposed to let alone.
>
> John Warren, OD <war...@...> wrote:
>
> >As stated previously, such studies might prove you right, or wrong.
> >The problem is finding someone who sees their child as a lab animal
> >and is willing to withhold accepted treatment "in the name of
> >science." Design and implement a study if you really feel that you
> >have a valid hypothesis.
>
> Design I can do. Implement is another thing. For that I would need
the
> help of an OD or Ophthalmologist.
>
> All you'd have to do is each time there comes to your office a 9
> to 14-year-old with a 1.0 diopters of myopia, and 20/40 vision, but
> who
> is doing fine in school, and who does not think they need glasses,
and
> whose parents do not care one way or another whether the child gets
> glasses, flip a coin and do one of two things:
>
> 1) Tell them that their vision is poor now, but that if they are to
> get
> glasses at such a young age, there is a possibility that their
vision
> will get worse than it would without the glasses. Tell them that
this
> puts them at higher risk for retinal detachment. Tell them to sit
> closer
> to the chalkboard if it's hard to read, and use a pair of +1.00 D
> reading glasses for all close work, especially late night studing
and
> written tests during school. Give them an eye chart so that they can
> monitor their own vision. Tell them to spend more time outside, and
> less
> time watching TV or playing video games. See them in a year.
>
> 2) Tell them that they need glasses. Tell them that by wearing the
> glasses they will be keeping their eyes healthy, and tell them to
wear
> the glasses as much as possible, including when reading. Tell them
> that
> if they feel any discomfort, this is only a sign of adjustment and
> their
> vision is not getting worse. Tell them that they may think their
> vision
> is getting worse, but this is just an illusion. See them in a year.
>
> Since such children are below the driving age, and their vision is
> 20/40, you cannot argue that they need glasses for driving. Since
they
> are doing well in school, you cannot argue that they need glasses to
> read the chalkboard. Since such children do not particularly want to
> or
> feel the need to wear glasses, they will not consider themselves
> "guinea
> pigs". I know quite a few people who as children would have been
more
> than willing to have had "accepted treatment[sic]" withheld from
> them --
> that is, to go for a year continuing to not wear glasses -- if they
> had
> been presented with the arguments for and against minus glasses for
> low
> myopia. Probably far more than would ever willingly wear bifocals.
And
> bifocal experiments are legion.

It's been almost 13 years since that post. We still have yet to see a
single randomized cotrolled clinical trial that would test the effects
of prescribing a minus lens for myopia.

--Alex

On Apr 27, 2008, at 9:05 AM, drjudy65 wrote:

> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Reader,
>>
> I insist that the person be checking his Snellen, and
>> when it starts to go below 20/40 (if a child) he begin
>> very CONSISTENT use of a proper-strength plus for ALL
>> CLOSE WORK.
>>
>> This is not easy, but that process has been showen
>> to be effective by the person himself -- IF HE
>> HAS THE MOTIVATION FOR IT.
>
> Could you please provide reference for human clinical trials wherein
> myopia has been reversed by use of plus at near?

http://www.i-see.org/plus_therapy/haberfeld.html

Martin Haberfeld noted reductions of myopia with his "teleopto" plus
lenses:

"Tele for distance, opto for eye, because the wearer of these lenses
has his eyes in almost the same state as if he were looking at
distance when applied to close work. .... Teleopto lenses are to be
worn when doing any close work. .... The writer in twenty-two cases
over eighty-seven case years observed an average decrease in myopia of
0.02 diopters per year. ... At the first signs of myopia proper
treatment should immediately be instituted before any serious inroads
have occurred as in slight degrees the visual acuity can still usually
be brought to normal without the aid of spectacles for distant vision."

--Alex

Dear Judy,

A always enjoy hearing your majority-opinion that:

1.  The fundamental eye is NOT DYNAMIC, and
therefore

2.  A -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the
refractive STATE of the eye, and therefore

3.  Placing a -10 diopter lens on a
young child with 20/50 vision is, "...perfectly
safe".

I happen to disagree with you on your
"perfectly safe" statement -- as the
second opinion.


Judy> As I have repeatedly told you, that is not an accurate
statement.

Otis> You have repeatedly told my that:

1.  The fundamental eye is NOT DYNAMIC, and
that

2.  A -3 diotper lens has NO EFFECT on the
refractive STATE of the eye.

Both of us KNOW what will happen  if you
do that.

You can repeatedly make false statement about
the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye -- if
you wish.

But I ask you -- why should I ever believe you???

Second-opinion best,

Otis






--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I can not know how a population of naatural
> > eyes will behave -- until I test them
> > objectively.
> >
> > Since I can NEVER test the natural human-primate
> > eye (effectively) I must test a population
> > of monkey-eyes to determine if THEY ARE DYNAMIC.
>
> So if you don't know how a particular human's eyes behave, why did
> you imply that Norman's eyes become -30 due to his having been
> prescribed -10D lenses as a child when his unaided acuity was 20/50?
>
>
> > So, from our previous discussions you thought
> > it was OK to put a -10 diopter lens on
> > a child with FUNCTIONAL 20/50 vision.
> >
> > You did not even "wince" as anyone doing that.
> >
> >  So know, I do know "know" what will happen
> > to that poor 4 year-old child, who was
> > put into an over-prescribed -10 diopter lens -- and
> > told to "...WEAR IT ALL THE TIME".
>
> You are forgetting to mention that she was first seen when -5D, did
> not wear minus and became -10D during the year when not wearing
> minus.  I don't see how any logical person would say that a minus
> lens caused that increase in myopia.
>
> > As always, I enjoy hearing your majority-opinion that:
> >
> > 1.  The natural eye is not dynamc, and
> >
> > 2.  A strong -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT
> > on the refractive STATE of all natural eyes.
> >
> > 3.  I think that is an accurate statement
> > of your belief-system.
>
> As I have repeatedly told you, that is not an accurate statement.
>

Dear Judy,

Subject:  SCIENCE NEVER requires a "clinical trial".

Re:  Since the refractive behavior of the NATURAL
AND FUNDAMENTAL EYE -- IS A MATTER OF WISE
PERSONAL JUDGMENT.

Re: The SCIENTIFIC study would not be a "blind" study -- but
is would have both a test group and a control group.
But because the engineers would have to have precise
INSTRUCTIONS in the use of the plus -- the study
COULD NEVER BE BLIND.  That would be the
FIRST issue that would have to be resolved.

This truly DOES depend on BOTH THE PERSON'S
EDUCATION AND TO A FAR GREATER EXTENT -- ON
HIS MOTIVATION.

We talked about this before.  It is a matter
of whether the person can make his own
measurements, and institute a wise PREVENTIVE
effort -- under his control.

To that end, I would teach him how to measure
his refractive STATE, as well as an exhaustive
review of fundamental scientific principles.

Further, I would expect him to "take control" of
this engineering-scientific (NOT MEDICAL) effort,
and to be responsble to judge the results under
his "COLLECTIVE" control

You, my dear, would not be in control of this
effort.

There would be no "fight" for "control".  That
would truly be a waste of everyone's time.

As always, I enjoy hearing your majority opinion
that placing a -10 diopter lens on a child
with 20/50 FUNCTIONAL vision -- causes no
"problems".

You "attitude" on that point honestly makes
me "wonder" about you and your training.

Second-opinion best,

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Reader,
> >
>  I insist that the person be checking his Snellen, and
> > when it starts to go below 20/40 (if a child) he begin
> > very CONSISTENT use of a proper-strength plus for ALL
> > CLOSE WORK.
> >
> > This is not easy, but that process has been showen
> > to be effective by the person himself -- IF HE
> > HAS THE MOTIVATION FOR IT.
>
> Could you please provide reference for human clinical trials
wherein
> myopia has been reversed by use of plus at near?
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> I can not know how a population of naatural
> eyes will behave -- until I test them
> objectively.
>
> Since I can NEVER test the natural human-primate
> eye (effectively) I must test a population
> of monkey-eyes to determine if THEY ARE DYNAMIC.

So if you don't know how a particular human's eyes behave, why did
you imply that Norman's eyes become -30 due to his having been
prescribed -10D lenses as a child when his unaided acuity was 20/50?


> So, from our previous discussions you thought
> it was OK to put a -10 diopter lens on
> a child with FUNCTIONAL 20/50 vision.
>
> You did not even "wince" as anyone doing that.
>
>  So know, I do know "know" what will happen
> to that poor 4 year-old child, who was
> put into an over-prescribed -10 diopter lens -- and
> told to "...WEAR IT ALL THE TIME".

You are forgetting to mention that she was first seen when -5D, did
not wear minus and became -10D during the year when not wearing
minus.  I don't see how any logical person would say that a minus
lens caused that increase in myopia.

> As always, I enjoy hearing your majority-opinion that:
>
> 1.  The natural eye is not dynamc, and
>
> 2.  A strong -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT
> on the refractive STATE of all natural eyes.
>
> 3.  I think that is an accurate statement
> of your belief-system.

As I have repeatedly told you, that is not an accurate statement.

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Reader,
>
  I insist that the person be checking his Snellen, and
> when it starts to go below 20/40 (if a child) he begin
> very CONSISTENT use of a proper-strength plus for ALL
> CLOSE WORK.
>
> This is not easy, but that process has been showen
> to be effective by the person himself -- IF HE
> HAS THE MOTIVATION FOR IT.

Could you please provide reference for human clinical trials wherein
myopia has been reversed by use of plus at near?

Judy

Dear Reader,

Subject: Klaus Schmid has this commentary on "The Plus".

Please note:  I do not use the term "under-correction".

I insist that the person be checking his Snellen, and
when it starts to go below 20/40 (if a child) he begin
very CONSISTENT use of a proper-strength plus for ALL
CLOSE WORK.

This is not easy, but that process has been showen
to be effective by the person himself -- IF HE
HAS THE MOTIVATION FOR IT.

However, opinions are ALL OVER THE MAP.

Here are some statements by Klaus for your interest.
It takes a person with a very "focused" mind to
make the PREVENTIVE choice.  If successful, i.e.,
clears Snellen to always better than 20/40, he
will never wear a strong minus -- an get
stair-case myopia from it.

Enjoy,

Otis

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

From Dr. Schmid:


3.2.2.8  Permanent Undercorrection instead of Undercorrection for
Near Work only

The effect of permanent undercorrection appears to be still disputed,
as some controversial reports show:

·        Permanent undercorrection might be harmful: Many followers
of the Bates' method propose a permanent undercorrection. A trial,
however, showed that a permanent undercorrection of +0.75 D was
increasing the progression of myopia at children instead of slowing
it down[221].

The authors of this paper mentioned above, however, state explicitly
that their results apply for permanent undercorrection only, and that
previous positive results of progressive reading addition194 are
still valid. Chung et al. wrote221: "Although we have shown that a
general undercorrection of the myopia tends to accelerate the
progression of myopia, it is significant that a full distance
correction for myopia, taken in conjunction with a progressive
reading addition, reduces the progression of myopia (Leung & Brown)."

·        Permanent undercorrection might have no effect: In an
earlier and similarly designed study four groups were examined: full
time wearers of glasses, myopes who switched from distance to full-
time wear, distance wearers, and non-wearers. The result stated by
Ong et al.202: "...that the 3-year refractive shifts are not
significantly different among the four groups."

·        Permanent undercorrection might be helpful: Additionally, to
answer the question whether full correction or undercorrection are
more suitable to reduce the progression of myopia, schoolchildren
were fitted with glasses where one eye was fully corrected for
distance and the other eye was undercorrected by up to 2.00 D
(monovision). As a result, Phillips found[222], [223]: "All children
accommodated to read with the distance corrected (dominant) eye.
Thus, the near corrected eye experienced myopic defocus at all levels
of accommodation. Myopia progression in the near corrected eyes was
significantly slower than in the distance corrected eyes."
and "...suggesting that sustained myopic defocus slows axial
elongation of the human eye."



There is some blur adaptation when people with myopia do not use full
distance correction, as Rosenfield et al. wrote[224]: "A significant
change in letter and grating visual acuity was observed during the
course of the 3-h period of sustained blur..." and "However, no
significant change in refractive error, measured using noncycloplegic
autorefraction, was found. These results demonstrate significant blur
adaptation in subjects with uncorrected myopia, which does not result
from a change in refractive state. We hypothesize that the
improvement in visual resolution results from perceptual adaptation
to the blurred image, which may occur at central sites within the
visual cortex." In other words, people who do not use proper
correction might feel they are improving their myopia, but in fact,
they are not.

As Bowan noted[225], [226], this blur adaptation can be explained by
a so-called anti-aliasing[227] image processing by the brain (see
also section 3.5.6).

Notes:

- On one hand the result that undercorrection increases myopia
matches the results given in section 3.3, where optical blur, which
is a consequence of permanent undercorrection, is shown to be a cause
for myopia as well.

- On the other hand the result that undercorrection reduces myopia
matches the results given in section 3.3, where plus lenses caused
the eyes of animals to shorten, i.e. to become hyperopic.

- Maybe the relation between the time which is spent for near work
and which is spent for distant viewing could explain this conflict:
It may depend simply, whether the eye can spend enough time with
successful focusing (i.e. when it has a sharp image), or whether for
a very long time the eye detects a blur image only.



Permanent overcorrection is increasing myopia without any doubt (see
section 3.3 as well).



Until there is a definite answer to the question about permanent
undercorrection, the conclusion is that it is best for the eye

·        to have permanently a clear focus

·        to avoid excessive accommodation load.

Obviously, bifocals are matching these conditions best, but it
appears to be hard to make use of this concept, as there are some
ophthalmologists, optometrists and opticians, who do not like to
apply this concept, and these bifocals are not so easy to fit
properly.

Therefore a solution without these bifocals is to use glasses with
proper distance correction permanently, but to exchange them for
glasses with a plus addition for longer time near work like reading,
doing homework, making handicrafts, writing tests in school etc.



Very careful determination of the right refraction is therefore an
extremely important issue (see section 1.11).

The onset and the progression of myopia cannot be explained by the
process of accommodation alone; of very high impact is the image
quality as well, therefore attention should be paid to sections 3.3
(The Effects of Image Quality) and 3.4 (Myopia by Accommodation versa
Myopia by Image Quality).

3.2.2.9           Is the Accommodation System Getting too Lazy by the
Plus Glasses?
There could be the argument that in the long term the lack of
accommodative effort is making the accommodative system unable to
work any more, i.e. to accommodate properly for near vision.

Notes:

Counter-arguments are:

·        Many people are doing hardly any near work during their
daily life and they are still able to focus exactly for near if it is
appropriate. Our ancient ancestors did not do nearwork of extremely
long duration like for reading at all. On the other hand, they did
fine handicrafts like embroidery, leather plaiting, flint chipping
etc. – many dark winter days were spent like this.

·        Even if plus glasses are used for extensive near work there
are many occasions in daily life where short term accommodation for
near is taking place without the usage of the plus glasses, which
results in permanent training anyway.

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

Obviously there are "counter-arguments" for everything
we do.

That is why I suggest that the person review the
OBJECTIVE FACTS concerning the dynamic behavior of
the natural eye -- when you place a -3 diopter lens
on it.

The majority-opinion INISISTS that:

1.  The fundamental eye is NOT DYNAMIC, AND THAT
THEREFORE:

2.  A -3 diopter lens MUST HAVE NO EFFECT ON
THE EYE'S REFRACTIVE STATE AND THERFORE:

3.  A minus lens IS PERFECTLY SAFE.

That is so much majority-opinion bias -- and
ignorant of objective scientific facts.


Enjoy,

Otis

By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer
Sat Apr 26, 10:31 AM ET



WASHINGTON - In fury and despair, patients harmed by Lasik eye
surgery told federal health advisers Friday of severe eye pain,
blurred vision and even a son's suicide. The advisers recommended
that the government warn more clearly about the risks of the hugely
popular operations.

ADVERTISEMENT

About 700,000 Americans a year undergo the elective laser surgery.
Like golf star and famed Lasik recipient Tiger Woods, they're hoping
to throw away their glasses, just as the ads say.

And while the vast majority benefit — most see 20-20 or even better —
about one in four people who seeks Lasik is not a good candidate. A
small fraction, perhaps 1 percent or fewer, suffer serious, life-
changing side effects: worse vision, severe dry eye, glare, inability
to drive at night.

"Too many Americans have been harmed by this procedure and it's about
time this message was heard," David Shell of Washington told the Food
and Drug Administration's scientific advisers before their
recommendation that the FDA provide clearer warnings.

Shell held up large photographs that he said depict his blurred
world, showing halos around objects and double vision, since his 1998
Lasik.

"I see multiple moons," he said angrily. "Anybody want to have Lasik
now?"

Colin Dorrian was in law school when dry eye made his contact lenses
so intolerable that he sought Lasik, even though a doctor noted his
pupils were pretty large. Both the dry eye and pupil size should have
disqualified Dorrian, but he received Lasik anyway — and his father
described six years of eye pain and fuzzy vision before the suburban
Philadelphia man killed himself last year.

"As soon as my eyes went bad, I fell into a deeper depression than
I'd ever experienced, and I couldn't get out," Gerard Dorrian read
from his son's suicide note.

Matt Kotsovolos, who worked for the Duke Eye Center when he had a
more sophisticated Lasik procedure in 2006, said doctors classify him
as a success because he now has 20-20 vision. But he said, "For the
last two years I have suffered debilitating and unremitting eye
pain. ... Patients do not want to continue to exist as helpless
victims with no voice."

The sober testimonies illustrated that a decade after Lasik hit the
market, there still are questions about just how often patients
suffer bad outcomes from the $2,000-per-eye procedure.

But one thing is clear, said Dr Jayne Weiss of Detroit's Kresge Eye
Institute, who chairs the FDA advisory panel: "This is a referendum
on the performance of Lasik by some surgeons who should be doing a
better job."

The FDA advisers — a group of mostly glasses-wearing eye doctors —
recommended that the agency make more clear the warnings it already
provides for would-be Lasik patients:

• Add photographs that illustrate what people suffering certain side
effects actually see, such as the glare that can make oncoming
headlights a huge "starburst" of light.

• Clarify how often patients suffer different side effects, such as
dry eye. Some eye surgeons say 31 percent of Lasik patients have some
degree of dry eye before surgery, and it worsens for about 5 percent
afterward. Other studies say 48 percent of Lasik recipients suffer
some degree of dry eye months later.

• Make more understandable the conditions that should disqualify
someone from Lasik, such as large pupils or severe nearsightedness.

• And spell out that anyone whose nearsightedness is fixed by Lasik
is guaranteed to need reading glasses in middle age, something that
might not be needed if they skip Lasik.

That's a big reason why Weiss, the glasses-wearing ophthalmologist,
won't get Lasik even though she offers it to her patients.

"I can read without my glasses and ... operate without my glasses,
and I love that," she said. "The second aspect is I would not
tolerate any risk for myself. ... Does that mean Lasik is good or not
good? It means Lasik is good but not for everyone."

Lasik is marketed as quick and painless: Doctors cut a flap in the
cornea — the eye's clear covering — aim a laser underneath it and zap
to reshape the cornea for sharper sight.

The FDA agrees with eye surgeons' studies that only about 5 percent
of patients are dissatisfied with Lasik. What's not clear is exactly
how many of those suffer lasting severe problems and how many just
didn't get quite as clear vision as they had expected.

The most meticulous studies come from the military, where far less
than 1 percent of Lasik recipients suffer serious side effects, said
Dr. David Tanzer, the Navy's Medical Corps commander. That research
prompted Lasik to be cleared last year both for Navy aviators and
NASA astronauts.

"The word from the guys that are out there standing in harm's way,
whose lives depend on their ability to see, are asking you to please
not take this away," said Lt. Col. Scott Barnes, a cornea specialist
at Fort Bragg who described Army troops seeking Lasik after losing
their glasses in combat.

No one's actually considering restrictions on Lasik — but the FDA is
pairing with eye surgeons to begin a major study next year to better
understand who has bad outcomes.

"Millions of patients have benefited" from Lasik, said Dr. Peter
McDonnell of Johns Hopkins University, a spokesman for the American
Academy of Ophthalmologists. "No matter how uncommon, when
complications occur, they can be distressing. ... We're dedicated to
doing everything in our power to make the Lasik procedure even better
for all our patients."

Dear Judy,

I always appreciate your failure to connect
scientific analysis and wisdom.  But that
is your majority-opinion at work.

I can not know how a population of naatural
eyes will behave -- until I test them
objectively.

Since I can NEVER test the natural human-primate
eye (effectively) I must test a population
of monkey-eyes to determine if THEY ARE DYNAMIC.

I am going to have to draw a logical conclusion -- that
you ALWAYS SEEK TO DENY.

You can call it "connecting the dots" if you wish.

So I take a population of NATURAL primate eyes
and place a -3 diopter lens on 1/2 their
eyes.  (Let us say the left eye.)

Now, this is a fair and honest test of the
dynamic natural eye.

Either the eye will change its refractive STATE
by -2 diopters (in less than six months) or
it will NOT.  You prefer (or have been
taught by ROTE) that is will not.  (Your
majority-opinion -- fair enough.)

So, from our previous discussions you thought
it was OK to put a -10 diopter lens on
a child with FUNCTIONAL 20/50 vision.

You did not even "wince" as anyone doing that.

That truly convinces me that you do not
know what you are doing.  And wish
to NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING -- OR
THE LONG-TERM CONSEQENCES OF YOUR ILL-CONSIDERED
ACTIONS.

I happen to believe in objective testing
of the form that I described.  I call
is science -- and agree that your "medical
mind" is so frozen that you are never
going to understand even that basic
elements of analysis.

So know, I do know "know" what will happen
to that poor 4 year-old child, who was
put into an over-prescribed -10 diopter lens -- and
told to "...WEAR IT ALL THE TIME".

But intelligent analysis can give you a pretty
good idea as to what her future is going to
be like.

As always, I enjoy hearing your majority-opinion that:

1.  The natural eye is not dynamc, and

2.  A strong -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT
on the refractive STATE of all natural eyes.

3.  I think that is an accurate statement
of your belief-system.

Enjoy,

Otis




--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Subject:  The result of prescribing a -10 diopter
> > lens for FUNCTIONAL 20/50 vision -- at age four.
> >
> > Re:  And telling the mother that the child
> > MUST be taught to wear that -10 diopter all the time.
>
> So you know for a fact that Norman had 20/50 unaided vision when he
> first prescribed glasses and his first glasses were -10?
>
> These very high progressive myopes mostly have single gene
mutations
> and are very rare.  In thirty years of practice I have only seen
two
> myopes over -20.  If your hypothesis about "stair case myopia"and
> that wearing a minus lens causes an increase in myopia were true,
> these very high myopes would be very common.  But they are not.
Draw
> your own conclusions.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Subject:  The result of prescribing a -10 diopter
> lens for FUNCTIONAL 20/50 vision -- at age four.
>
> Re:  And telling the mother that the child
> MUST be taught to wear that -10 diopter all the time.

So you know for a fact that Norman had 20/50 unaided vision when he
first prescribed glasses and his first glasses were -10?

These very high progressive myopes mostly have single gene mutations
and are very rare.  In thirty years of practice I have only seen two
myopes over -20.  If your hypothesis about "stair case myopia"and
that wearing a minus lens causes an increase in myopia were true,
these very high myopes would be very common.  But they are not.  Draw
your own conclusions.

Judy

From the second-opinion book by Dr. K. Schmid.

3.2.2.7  Psychological Problems with Special Glasses for Near Work

This described principle of undercorrection, or bifocal- and plus-
glasses is very often hard to accept by people:

With fully correcting glasses there is immediately good vision for
all distances (at least for young people with full range of
accommodation), which gives the feeling that "everything is o.k. from
now on", and if people don't worry about the future myopia is no
longer an issue. And in general, people don't want to recognize a
problem until there is already some damage.

Using undercorrection, bifocal- and plus-glasses people are faced
permanently with the issue of non-perfect vision. This will be
tolerated only, if people are concerned about the future, but many
people are hardly willing to face problems in general, and still less
to face problems which arise in the future.

Therefore, this therapy may meet with resistance.

[Resistance develops when YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
A person "overcomes" his resistance when he understand the nature of
personal choice -- and does not fall victim to the arrogance of some
one over-prescribing a minus lens.  But there is no doubt that plus-
prevention is difficult for this reason alone.  But please do not
tell me that PREVENTING and negative refractive STATE is impossible.
OSB]

In the best case, people who are at risk to become myopic will use
plus glasses for extensive near work already before becoming myopic
to prevent myopia. I guess, however that people will read my book
(and everything else about myopia) only if the problem is already
there (it's like with everything in life, "damage makes you wise" - a
translation of the German proverb "Aus Schaden wird man klug").

On the other hand, people who are already myopic may have the feeling
that "now, being myopic anyway, it does not matter anyway." This
group, however, should be fully aware that high myopia is not just a
lens-related optical problem, but that it can have very serious
consequences for the general preservation of the eyesight,
potentially leading to blindness (see section 1.7).

There are some ODs who believe it is
IMPOSSIBLE to clear your vision with
various PREVENTIVE methods.

Here is a stament by a person who was at -8 diopters,
and is currently about -4.25 dipoters.

No one can ever "predict" results -- and from
the Oakley-Young study it is certain that
this is difficult work indeed.

Here is the statement:

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

Yesterday I finished Phase 5 of autogenics.  I only have one more
phase left!  I am started to feel the benefits of autogenics very
quickly now and I have also been able to use it anytime (I don't have
to be laying down).  My legs finally got very heavy and now I can
slow down my heartbeat and my breathing and relax my whole body.  It
has been a great tool and I'm really looking forward to the last
phase.  I start today and it lasts for two weeks.  After that I will
have a simple set of phrases to use for relaxation and I can add my
own phrases to help with my eyesight.  I'm going to incorporate ideas
from Bates and Grunwald in developing some self-hypnotic phrases for
helping my vision; we'll see how it works!

This week I have also been taking 25 minute walks almost everyday
without my glasses on.  I still get clear flashes and when I'm
outside my vision sometimes remains clearer for long periods.  On
some of my walks I even forget I'm not wearing my glasses!  I'm
really getting used to how I see without my glasses and am happier
without them than with.

In yesterday's post, I mentioned something at the very end that I
wanted to reiterate.  I am wearing glasses that are OD -5D and OS -
4.25D (these are glasses I purchased in January, not quite the right
fit for both eyes), but I can now see my vision clear to 20/20 when I
wear these glasses.  I'm going to order a new pair that are -5 D in
both eyes, and possibly a pair that are -4.25 in both eyes as well.
When I started I was wearing OD -8D and OS -7.25D!  So even though my
vision with these reduced glasses isn't perfectly sharp all the time
if I practice my good vision habits with my glasses on, my vision
will become very sharp.   I'm excited as I had never before been able
to see such improvement while wearing glasses, only when I wasn't
wearing them.  I still try to go without glasses at all times unless
I need them, but I imagine I wear glasses approximately 8 hours per
day.  Hopefully this means I'm spending the other 8 waking hours
without glasses!

I have been doing some swings, but no palming.  I also shift my
vision whenever I can.  Sometimes I forget but it's becoming more of
a habit.  I can tell much more strongly now when I'm not practicing
my shift, breathe, and blink because my eyes immediately become
painfully dry and if I don't rest them it's unbearable.

I'm working on another graph that I can update more frequently and
post it on its own page so it's easier to track my progress.  I also
plan to diligently plot my Snellen chart reading results for every
day and have two charts; one for bright mid-day daylight conditions
and the other for dim light conditions.