Dear Judy,

What you mean when you say "scientists" -- is other
majority-opinion ODs who have no true interest in
prevention.

I suggest that there is a need for a more "open minded"
approach -- than you have in your mind.

I suggest a review of the proven effect that a
-3 diopter lens ALWAYS has on the refractive
STATE of the natural eye.

i.e., changes its refractive STATE by -2 diopters
in less that six months.

I SUGGEST that this issue be reviewed with the
ENGINEERS (in a four year college) that will
be LEADING this preventive study.

But then you accuse me, reporting scientific
facts ACCURATELY as "optometrist BASHING".

I think that needs to be the FIRST TOPIC
OF DISCUSSION -- before there is any study.

If anything I support personal 'EMPOWERMET' and
intellectual competence to do this work.

That issue will ALWAYS be a function of the person's
intelligence and motivation.

That means that you can not "reduce" science to
an "office" for a magic pill (minus lens0 in
five minutes.

Maybe that is the "goal" of the N.E.I.
They truly should get out of the habit of
representing EXCLUSIVELY and OD or MD in his
office.

The should begin thinking about the welfare of
a person who needs the EDUCATION to avoid entry -- even
though that work is entirely PERSONAL -- as
Dr. Colgate did it.

The cost to Dr. Colgate was about $10 for some plue
lenses, and a strong scientific (or intutive) uunderstanding
of facts and science.  (If you wish scientific induction.)

Second-opinion best,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
wrote:
>
> > Sassy: I would like (one day) to conduct a (low cost or no cost)
> > study with people like you.
> >
> > Judy says she needs "funding". I need no such thing.
>
> I did not say I needed funding. I suggested that scientists could be
> hired to conduct the type of study that would convince FDA, Health
> Canada etc to warn consumers about the dangers of minus lenses.
That
> was the question Sassy asked --- how to make warnings mandatory.
>
> Since you are willing to do a study for free, why haven't you done
so?
>
> > I do not "dislike" Judy. It is just that she is a powerful
position
> > to BLOCK such an effort.
>
> ???? You attribute a lot of power to me.  I have no influence at all
> with vision researchers and have absolutely no ability to prevent
you
> from doing your study.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:

> Sassy: I would like (one day) to conduct a (low cost or no cost)
> study with people like you.
>
> Judy says she needs "funding". I need no such thing.

I did not say I needed funding. I suggested that scientists could be
hired to conduct the type of study that would convince FDA, Health
Canada etc to warn consumers about the dangers of minus lenses.  That
was the question Sassy asked --- how to make warnings mandatory.

Since you are willing to do a study for free, why haven't you done so?

> I do not "dislike" Judy. It is just that she is a powerful position
> to BLOCK such an effort.

???? You attribute a lot of power to me.  I have no influence at all
with vision researchers and have absolutely no ability to prevent you
from doing your study.

Judy

Otis,

Judy's comments are not surprising. Luckily like you said though,
this is a scientific and engineering pursuit. A majority-opinion OD
would never conduct such a study.

Sassy

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

Sassy: I would like (one day) to conduct a (low cost or no cost)
study with people like you. The only requirement would be that they:

1. Start BEFORE that first minus.

2. Read their Snellen.

3. Be prepared to take ALL responsibility for both the work, and the
judgment of their work.

4. Make all measurement with BOTH Snellen and Focometer.

5. Be honest, and keep up the work for one year (the test group.)

6. I believe that, with engineers (not Judy) the results would be
excellent.

Judy says she needs "funding". I need no such thing. I need the RIGHT
people, since success depends on people like you. That COULD be the
future of the human race — if we let it happen.
I do not "dislike" Judy. It is just that she is a powerful position
to BLOCK such an effort.

Otis

Sassy, starting at worse-than 20/200, is now seeing accommodation
between 20/50 to 20/100.
This is a very difficult task, and NO ONE can predict results.  Here
is her commentary:

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

Completed this week:

long swings, short palming sessions, yoga, and exercise
My vision when reading the Snellen chart is changing.  The letters
are getting much blacker but now my acuity is different.  I can read
20/100 at anytime in good light, whereas I used to be able to read
20/70 at most times, even 20/50 on some days.  I can still clear to
20/50 with great clarity, but when I clear to 20/50 the letters are
not as black as they should be.    I am actually excited for this as
I think it's a sign that my vision at 20/200 and 20/100 is becoming
stronger if you will.  It is very hard to describe and not something
most people would probably understand unless they've experienced this
progressive improvement on the Snellen chart.  I have no way of
quantifying the quality of my vision, I can only report which lines I
can read.  Unfortunately this measure does nothing to describe the
quality of my vision (i.e. how black the letters are).  Luckily
however, I think it's irrelevant as I continue to see improvement and
at no point since I "got on the chart" (could see 20/200) has my
vision ever degraded back to the point where it was in the beginning
(3.5/200).

I have ordered some new reduced pairs of glasses.  I'm finding that
in certain lighting conditions at work I can simply not read my
computer screen.  I can read the one at home without any problem, but
I need to have a pair of very reduced computer glasses for work.
The -4.25 D glasses are too strong for computer work so I ordered two
new pairs from Zenni.  One pair is -3.75 D (both eyes) and the other
pair is -3.25 D (in both eyes).  I don't plan to use these often.  I
only can stand to wear glasses that give me just sufficient enough
power to see well enough to type so once again I'm moving to a more
reduced lens!  I never wear any lenses that give me sharp vision.  I
had hoped I could go completely without glasses from this point
forward, but unfortunately at work I need to wear them sometimes.  I
do take frequent breaks however where I will take off my glasses and
look outside and then palm for a few minutes.  I can usually read the
computer screen for part of the day without glasses, but there is
usually an hour a day where I need the extra power to make out the
text.  The great news is that I'm continuing to step down the lens
power of the glasses I'm wearing

Sassy

Re: Plus lens



Dear Jean,

I will answer your questions -- but with some
editorial on my part -- as well as clarifications.

Remember your statement about a child with normal
(20/40 vision) who was given a strong minus (2 diopters)
for full time wearing?

That is in my judgment WHEN PREVENTION MUST BE
STARTED.

In my opinion -- it is now or never -- if you accept
my point of view.

If I could live my life a second-time -- then I would
wish to make heavy use of a plus at the 20/40 level.

Further I never use the word "cure" or "therapy".

I say, "avoid", and "get out of". I do not support
the plus as a "medical" device.

I regard it like using ear-muffs when working
in a high noise enviroment. The plus can prevent
in that manner, but it can never "cure".

I wrote my book for my relatives, so that they
could have a "fighting chance" at true prevention.

The rest -- was up to them.

To further respond:


--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Daniel Mimi" <accountant@...>
wrote:

> Dear Otis

> By pure coincidence may I know your lens prescription please?

Otis> It is about -7 diopters. (I use that to drive a car.)
I have a -5 dipoter which I wear virtually all the time.


It seems that you like plus lens therapy very much and you are right.

Otis> Right in a scientific sense -- about prevention on the
threshold. But I learn a long time ago that you can never help a
person -- until that person "internalizes" the solution and "does it
himself". This is true of Dr. Bates, method, as well as plus-
prevention.


Jean> It is a very good way to maintain clear distant vision and also
in reversing myopia.

Otis> I say avoid entry into a negative STATE for the eye -- but that
the real scientific truth -- as far as I am concerned.

Jean> If we can
> put this in people's head myopia will for the first time be on the
downward
> trend from the statistics all around the world.

Otis> I make NO CLAIMS, only SUGGESTIONS. I SUGGEST that a child
with 20/40 vision SHOULD NEVER start with the minus, since he has
functional vision at that point. We know that once a child starts
wearing a strong minus, his refractive STATE will continue DOWN
until he quits school. Every parent should be so informed before
that first minus. Since this "choice" has life-time consequences, it
must necessarily be an INFORMED CHOICE. (Tragically, this choice, of
prevention by Bates, or Plus, is NEVER EVEN DISCUSSED.

Otis> This is the true importance of i-see. Because we "open" this
discussion for those who are prepared to learn.


Jean> Now let's talk more about plus lens, I think that the lens
power should be chosen with particular care.

Otis> I agree!

Jean> Let me explain, I was using plus lens therapy for a while and
my eyes didn't react as I expected and this bothered me a lot and up
to now but I was asking myself why?

Otis> Some of this is "personal" -- and that does make it difficult.
Can I ask -- were you reading your Snellen also. I consider that
critical, since your Snellen was probably 20/60 or so.

Jean> The reason was simple either I was using a too low plus power
or a too high plus power.

Otis> If you read my site, you will find that:

1. You read your Snellen.

2. You select a plus that "just blurs" at your reading distance.
This MUST be self selected. It must be strong enough to do that.
Anything "weaker" will not have the desired effect -- in my opinion.

Jean> A +1.00 have little effect on me so I added +1.5D, still same
result. With a +2.25D it seems to work, the eye chart becomes
clearer, then to boost up the process I put on a +3.25D and my eyes
stopped to react. I think this will vary form person to person may be
it is the level of myopia or on the person physiology.

Otis> Again, I only "argue" that you start while your distant vision
is still FUNCTIONAL, i.e., you can read the 20/60 line (by self
checking.) In that range, I believe you can personally verify that
you in due course (after continued heavy use of the plus) pass the
LEGAL Snellen, of reading 3/4 inch letters at 20 feet (the DMV
requirement.

Jean> Plus lens Best

Otis> Your right to an INFORMED, competent second-opinion, best,

Otis

Scabies.txt

      Subject:  Even the "experts" get "office myopia".

It is hard to believe that a simple problem -- that had
a solution -- could be so badly mis-diagnosed.

      Disabled by a painful skin condition, Robert Clark says, "I
was a basket case who couldn't put two and two together." (By Paul
Connors -- Associated Press For The Washington Post)

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


TITLE:  As Plain as the Rash on his Feet.


      Disabled by a painful skin condition, Robert Clark says, "I
was a basket case who couldn't put two and two together." (By Paul
Connors -- Associated Press For The Washington Post)

      Even before he entered the examining room to meet his new
patient, dermatologist Howard Luber was confident he knew what was
wrong with the man.

      This Story a..  Medical Mysteries:  As Plain as The Rash On
His Feet b..  Share Your Medical Mystery The diagnosis was so
obvious, Luber recalled, that his nurse suggested it after taking
Robert Clark's history and looking at the angry, encrusted rash
that blanketed nearly every inch of the 64-year-old's body except
his face.

      Luber's certainty was all the more surprising because of who
the patient was and what he'd endured:  A physician who
specialized in infectious diseases, Clark had seen numerous
doctors, including three dermatologists, immunologists, internists
and infectious disease experts, all of whom had been stumped by
the cause of his ferocious, uncontrollable itching.  He had
undergone two skin biopsies and taken countless drugs, but he
would still awaken with fingernails bloody from scratching his
skin raw.  Doctors who had treated him for more than a year
couldn't decide whether his problem was severe eczema, a rare
cancer, an unusual fungal infection, an autoimmune disorder or an
unspecified allergy.

      "It's pretty hard to believe," said Luber, who called Clark's
malady "bread and butter dermatology.  I don't have a good
explanation" for why his problem went undiagnosed for so long.
Maybe, he suggested, doctors were focused on more severe disorders
and the skin's worsening appearance camouflaged the underlying
problem.  "If you're not thinking of it, you could miss it."

      Clark, a former researcher at the National Institutes of
Health who lives in the Phoenix area, has a different perspective:
He didn't attempt to second-guess his doctors.  "I just acted like
a patient, and that's what got me in trouble," he said.  "I never
at any point until the end of this illness suspected they didn't
know what they were doing.  Dr.  Luber saved my life."

      Clark's problem, which he called "devastating" and
"life-changing," began in 2004, when he developed an itchy rash on
his left side. His internist wasn't sure what was wrong but
prescribed the usual treatment for such maladies:  an
antihistamine, cortisone cream, various ointments for dry skin and
oatmeal baths. When the rash got worse, he sent Clark to
dermatologist number one, who performed a skin biopsy and then
prescribed Elidel, a topical medicine used to treat eczema.

      That didn't work, nor did the other antihistamines the
dermatologist prescribed.  By the time Clark got to dermatologist
number two he was having trouble concentrating.  Some nights he
donned thick ski gloves or thin white cotton ones to try to
prevent his furious scratching; he often awoke with lacerated skin
or to find drops of blood on his sheets.

      Several months later a new symptom arose: a painful fuzzy
rash on Clark's feet that was diagnosed as a rare fungal
infection.  Doctors also noticed that his eosinophil count, a
measurement of a type of white blood cell, was extremely high,
suggesting either a rare skin cancer or an allergy.  But to what?
No one could say.

      The rash now covered much of his body, and dermatologist
number three, along with two infectious disease specialists, an
immunologist and an endocrinologist, wasn't sure what was wrong.
One doctor suggested chemotherapy.  Another thought the problem
might be a drug reaction.  A third prescribed a high dose of
prednisone, a steroid Clark took for six months.  It blunted the
itching but led to severe pain in his hips, which was diagnosed as
avascular necrosis, permanent bone damage linked to long-term use
of corticosteroids.

      Clark said he was so disabled by the pain and itching that he
had stopped practicing; he is now retired.  In an effort to give
him some relief, the immunologist prescribed narcotic pain
medication and insisted that Clark see dermatologist number four:
Luber. Clark balked, but the immunologist insisted, so he went,
after canceling an initial appointment.

      Clark recalled that Luber "was in the room less than a minute
when he said, 'You will be feeling better in a few days.' " The
dermatologist gently scraped Clark's inflamed, leathery skin and
then had him look at the slide under the microscope.

      The problem was immediately obvious:  The skin sample was
teeming with a common parasite called scabies, a tiny mite passed
from direct contact with an infected person.  The eight-legged
mite thrives in overcrowded conditions or among people with
substandard hygiene, but it can affect anyone, according to the
American Academy of Dermatology.

      Outbreaks have plagued humans for more than 2,500 years and
can occur in institutions such as homeless shelters, nursing homes
and sometimes hospitals.  Diagnosis may be delayed because scabies
mimics other skin conditions and mites are difficult to see with
the naked eye.

      Its most characteristic symptom is itching at night so
ferocious it can keep sufferers from getting any sleep.  The mite
burrows into the skin, laying eggs and producing toxins, causing
an allergy that triggers the itching.  Mites are attracted to
warmth and human scent, and can live up to 24 hours on bedding.

      Clark had the most severe form of scabies, called Norwegian
or crusted scabies.  In these cases, thousands of mites hide under
skin, which becomes thickened, retarding penetration of topical
medicines.

      Treatment with topical medicines and, in severe cases, an
anti-parasitic drug called ivermectin -- Clark took both -- is
standard, and the residence of an infected person must be
thoroughly cleaned and clothing washed in the hottest water
possible.  All members of a household must be treated, because the
incubation period can be as long as eight weeks.

      Luber, who diagnoses about six cases annually, recalled that
Clark was "very surprised.  I remember him saying that no one had
mentioned scabies," which would not show up on a biopsy.

      Clark said that his wife turned out to have a milder case, as
did the couple's housekeeper.  And as Luber predicted, Clark
started to feel better within a day, although it took weeks before
the itching subsided.  He said he doesn't know where he contracted
the disease but suspects it might have been from a patient.

      When Clark told some of the physicians who examined him what
had happened, he said they were not sympathetic.

      "Several told me I was an infectious disease specialist and I
should have figured it out," he recalled.  "That was very unfair
and made me angry.  I was a basket case who couldn't put two and
two together."

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>

>
> Do you know of any warnings given by ODs for wearing overprescribed
> glasses –> leading to progressive myopia? Has anyone tried to have
> such a warning mandated to be put in place? My sister (sorrisiblue,
> sorrisi on these blogs and iblindness.org) and I are trying to figure
> out a way to do this. Any ideas or experience with anything like this?

Quite simple to do.

Fund a study that provides minus lenses to one group of myopic humans
and no minus lenses to a matched group of other humans and follows
them for several years.  Compare the refractive errors of the two
groups at the end of the study.  Publish the results.

If the minus lens wearing group gets progressive myopia and the non
lens wearing group doesn't, other researchers will repeat the
experiment.  If the results are reproducible, health regulatory bodies
will issue the warnings.

Judy

Subject: Sassy's question -- about Raphaelson's
efforts to PREVENT with the plus.

Re: About statistics, concerning why " n = 1 " is very
important -- if YOU are the " n ".

From Sassy:

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

Thanks Otis,

Sad, but true — we must all rely on ourselves to "care" for
ourselves. Only "I" have a vested interest in "my" vision, there is
no consequence to/for anyone else!

Do you know of any warnings given by ODs for wearing overprescribed
glasses –> leading to progressive myopia? Has anyone tried to have
such a warning mandated to be put in place? My sister (sorrisiblue,
sorrisi on these blogs and iblindness.org) and I are trying to figure
out a way to do this. Any ideas or experience with anything like this?

Sassy

Subject: Prevention at the threshold -- is possible.

Here is a woman who is working to clear her Snellen,
and her refractive STATE from about -6.5 diopter.

As Judy points out -- there is not a DIRECT relationship,
so, in a engineering-scientific effort it would be wise
to have the engineer measure BOTH his visual acuity,
and his refractive STATE with a Focomter.  This instrument
is quite accurate and reliable.

Here is Sassy's commentary for your insterest:

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

This weekend I had the chance to do many activities that I consider
beneficial to my sight; plenty of exercise (indoors and out), yoga,
meditation, swinging, and palming.  It was very relaxing and a
wonderful reminder of how much better I feel (and how much better my
vision is!) when I spend more time tuning in to my body and getting
plenty of exercise.

My vision is going "in and out" more than ever.  What I mean by this
is that my vision fluctuates drastically from 20/100 to 20/50
throughout the day.  I think outside it fluctuates even more, though
when I'm outside and noticing the improvement I don't have a Snellen
chart to confirm the level of acuity.

I continue to go without glasses except for the situations I
mentioned before and I think this has been key to my improvement.
Right now I'm fighting the urge to get more "reduced" lenses because
I'm trying to make my current pair (-4.25 D) the last pair of glasses
I ever use…  I tested and I can read 20/30 with these glasses on
(indoors in a sunny room).  I realize -4.25D is still far optically
from uncorrected glass, but I don't believe that vision improvement
is linear.  I can see from my own experience that I can wear these
glasses to see well, to read the computer screen for example, or I
can use the natural vision habits to see without glasses.  To give a
perspective, right now I'm typing and reading what I'm typing without
glasses.  If I don't practice my natural vision habits though I can't
see the words well, so I can wear my glasses to read the text (the -
4.25 D, though a weaker lens would work).  This to me is a subjective
experience that shows the non-linearity in our vision and vision
improvement.

Sassy
E. E. Engineer

Dear Judy,

Consistent with scientific verfication of the fundamental
eye's behavior -- I NEVER said "cure".  What I said,
that, as a matter of fundamental science, it is
possible for a wise, motivated person to apply
the principles of science to himself, and gradually
get his refractive STATE to change for a slight
negative value -- towards a postive value, and,
by monitoring his Snellen and Refractive STATE, confirm
his personal success.

Yes that is indeed science, where " n = 1 ".

But since it is success, it is clear that others,
equally motivated and wise, could follow the
example of succes of others.

Just my scientific second-opinion,

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Judy,
>
> >
> >>
> > Otis> Then you would agree that if the person
> > has the GUMPTION to work on vision-clearing and
> > change of refractive STATE (in a postive direction,
> > with a Focometer), then they would be doing the
> > correct thing -- as fundamental science.
>
> It would not be fundamental science if only one person is in the
> treatment group and there is no control group.
>
> > Otis> But you have no problem if Dr. Orfield, Captain Fred
> > Deakins, Alex Eulenberg, etc., wish to clear their Snellens,
> > and refractive STATE back to normal -- under THEIR
> > control.
>
> I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home.  I
> only have a problem, if after doing it, they claim it is scientific
> evidence that whatever technique used works to reverse myopia.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,

>
>>
> Otis> Then you would agree that if the person
> has the GUMPTION to work on vision-clearing and
> change of refractive STATE (in a postive direction,
> with a Focometer), then they would be doing the
> correct thing -- as fundamental science.

It would not be fundamental science if only one person is in the
treatment group and there is no control group.

> Otis> But you have no problem if Dr. Orfield, Captain Fred
> Deakins, Alex Eulenberg, etc., wish to clear their Snellens,
> and refractive STATE back to normal -- under THEIR
> control.

I don't care what anyone does in the privacy of their own home.  I
only have a problem, if after doing it, they claim it is scientific
evidence that whatever technique used works to reverse myopia.

Judy

Discussion:

And yes, they are correct.

So Issac Newton watched an apple fall, and wondered
if this "fall" or gravity extended out to the
Moon's orbit.

Then by INDUCTION, he calculated the force of
gravity at the distance of the moon (inverse square law).

Then he further calculated the orbital parameters of
an object at the distance of the moon.

Yes, that is (invalid) scientific induction at work.

It it were not for that ability -- we would have
no science at all.

Just my engineering second-opinion,

Otis

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




--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Subject:  scientific induction
>
> This is the name given to one mode of creating presumably valid
> propositions: you consider many known true facts, and form a
general
> rule which predicts all those facts.
>
> For example, we have the facts: (1)today the sun rose, (2)yesterday
> the sun rose, (3)the day before yesterday the sun rose, ..., (N)the
> day I was born the sun rose. From these, we can use scientific
> induction to form the proposition the sun rises every day.
>
> Scientific induction, of course, gets its name because it is
assumed
> to be the basis for the scientific method. (Although there is not
> complete agreement that that is in fact the case). It is
> the "opposite" of deduction, which starts with a general rule, and
> derives specific instances of it. (e.g., "all men are mortal, and
> Socrates is a man, so Socrates is mortal").
>
> The problem of induction is: why should we trust scientific
induction
> to give valid results? Unlike deduction, it is not logically
> necessary. Even more disturbingly, it is not even "inductively"
> necessary -- we can give many examples where inductions does work,
> but also many where it does not! And yet, many of the facts we feel
> most certain about are rooted in induction.
>
> Scientific induction should not be confused with mathematical
> induction, which is a type of deduction.
>

Dear Judy,

While we disagree about the dynamic behavior
of the fundamental eye (on a SCIENTIFIC LEVEL),
we truly do not disagree about anything else -- until
THAT ISSUE IS RESOLVED.

Tragically, it is up to the person himself to
resolve this issue -- if he can do so, by
his wisdom and under HIS control.

More commentary:


Otis> Don't these preventive measures suggested by
Dr. Bates, Dr. Raphaelson, and others
qualify as an honest second-opinion, even
if you prefer to believe they are false?

Judy> I have no reason to doubt that these people improved their
unaided acuity or to think that their reports about their measured
changes in refractive error are false.

Otis> Good.  Then you would agree that if the person
has the GUMPTION to work on vision-clearing and
change of refractive STATE (in a postive direction,
with a Focometer), then they would be doing the
correct thing -- as fundamental science.

Judy>  What I question is what caused the changes.

Otis> I prefer to run scientific experiments on the
dynamic behavior of the natural primate eye (as
anyone can do) to find out.

Judy>  As I have told you many times, when published, peer reviewed,
placebo controlled clinical trials confirm their opinion about what
caused the changes, I will accept them.

Otis> But you have no problem if Dr. Orfield, Captain Fred
Deakins, Alex Eulenberg, etc., wish to clear their Snellens,
and refractive STATE back to normal -- under THEIR
control.

Otis

Judy

Subject:  scientific induction

This is the name given to one mode of creating presumably valid
propositions: you consider many known true facts, and form a general
rule which predicts all those facts.

For example, we have the facts: (1)today the sun rose, (2)yesterday
the sun rose, (3)the day before yesterday the sun rose, ..., (N)the
day I was born the sun rose. From these, we can use scientific
induction to form the proposition the sun rises every day.

Scientific induction, of course, gets its name because it is assumed
to be the basis for the scientific method. (Although there is not
complete agreement that that is in fact the case). It is
the "opposite" of deduction, which starts with a general rule, and
derives specific instances of it. (e.g., "all men are mortal, and
Socrates is a man, so Socrates is mortal").

The problem of induction is: why should we trust scientific induction
to give valid results? Unlike deduction, it is not logically
necessary. Even more disturbingly, it is not even "inductively"
necessary -- we can give many examples where inductions does work,
but also many where it does not! And yet, many of the facts we feel
most certain about are rooted in induction.

Scientific induction should not be confused with mathematical
induction, which is a type of deduction.

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> Do you believe...
> That [Dr. Orfield] got her refractive STATE to change
> by +3 diopters by a lot of hard work over
> seven years.
>
> Please explain her success, or the reason
> why you believe she was not successful.
>
> Also, why do you not believe that Stirling Colgate
> and others have not been able to clear their
> vision by these various preventive mesaures.
>
> Don't these preventive measures suggested by
> Dr. Bates, Dr. Raphaelson, and others
> qualify as an honest second-opinion, even
> if you prefer to believe they are false?

I have no reason to doubt that these people improved their unaided
acuity or to think that their reports about their measured changes
in refractive error are false.

What I question is what caused the changes.  As I have told you many
times, when published, peer reviewed, placebo controlled clinical
trials confirm their opinion about what caused the changes, I will
accept them.

Judy

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,

> you could never lead an effective
> SCIENTIFIC PREVENTIVE STUDY.

As I am not a researcher, I have no plans nor interest in leading a
study.

> That type of study would have to be conducted
> by open-minede pilots-engineers who manage to
> avoid your intellectual blindess.

I look forward to reading the results of the study when they are
published.

Judy

Orwell.txt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimestop

Subject:  Frozen "thinking" that does not
allow the mind to fully explore the concept
of a natural eye that is proven to be dynamic -- in
terms of measured refractive STATE.


Re: Credit to Wikipedia, Crimestop is a Newspeak term
taken from the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.

      It means to rid oneself of unwanted thoughts, i.e.
thoughts that interfere with the ideology of the
Party. This way, a person avoids committing thoughtcrime.

      In the novel, we hear about crimestop through the eyes of
protagonist Winston Smith:

      - The mind should develop a blind spot whenever a dangerous
thought presented itself.  The process should be automatic,
instinctive.  Crimestop, they called it in Newspeak.  He set to
work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with
propositions -- 'the Party says the earth is flat', 'the party
says that ice is heavier than water' -- and trained himself in not
seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them.
"

      Orwell also describes crimestop from the perspective of
Emmanuel Goldstein in the book The Theory and Practice Of
Oligarchical Collectivism:

      - Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by
instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought.  It includes
the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they
are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any
train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical
direction.  Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.[1]

Dear Judy,

Do you believe in the second-opinion stated
by Dr. Orfield.

That she got her refractive STATE to change
by +3 diopters by a lot of hard work over
seven years.

Please explain her success, or the reason
why you believe she was not successful.

Also, why do you not believe that Stirling Colgate
and others have not been able to clear their
vision by these various preventive mesaures.

Don't these preventive measures suggested by
Dr. Bates, Dr. Raphaelson, and others
qualify as an honest second-opinion, even
if you prefer to believe they are false?

Thanks,

Otis

Dr. Orfield's statment about Snellen and Refractive
STATE change.

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



The author underwent myopia reduction from a spectacle prescription
of -3.87 DS and -3.37 DS to -.50 DS and -.25 DS over a period of
seven years. The essence of the program was passive adaptation to a
series of weaker glasses and better vision in a reverse of the
process of adaptation to stronger and stronger glasses and a more and
more warped space world. General health work including nutrition,
exercise, yoga, outdoor walks, postural training with the Alexander
Technique, and advanced chiropractic were also helpful. The system
worked because the practitioners and patient believed it could be
done and did not overreact to transient bouts of less than 20/20
vision during adjustment periods. Active therapy was limited to six
months of optometric office training to reduce the last diopter. Home
therapy was monocular only and involved free space motor procedures.

Key Words

Accommodation, Alexander Technique, ambient visual system,
convergence, divergence, myopia control, myopia reduction, peripheral
awareness, space volume.


Introduction

      I can still remember discussions with my brother when we first
needed glasses at age 12; long wistful talks about the survival of
the fittest and how we, with our nearsighted genes, were probably
only allowed to survive childhood because of the invention of
glasses. Otherwise, we would be run down by trucks or eaten by lions.
Now, though, with our ophthalmic crutches we myopes could all go
forth and multiply. That was evidently the reason that more and more
of us appeared every year wearing glasses. Or was it? Yet when I told
my ophthalmologist that surely God had not intended that evolution
should lead to a human race so rampantly nearsighted, he assured me
that whether God intended it or not, that was the way things were and
anyone who said otherwise was a quack. I wasn't convinced, but
gradually, as I lost more and more control of my vision, I started to
believe him.

      Many years later, when I went through a visual retraining
program that reduced my then nearly -4.00 DS, OU prescription to
practically nothing, I knew that ophthalmologist was wrong.
Nevertheless, there are an estimated 60 to 80 million myopes in this
country,1,2 most of whom go through similar experiences with no
better help than I had. The purpose of this article is to suggest
that this does not have to happen. It will address three topics: 1)
the space changes that occur as one slips into myopia when no
intervention is attempted, 2) the type of whole body and brain re-
programming that can reverse the myopic process, and 3) how an
experience of learning to see space again shapes one's approach to
treating nearsighted patients. A second article in a subsequent issue
suggests a theoretical basis for understanding why myopia reduction
of this kind works. It can be found in recent brain research on neuro-
programming, plasticity, visual pathways, visual development, visual
memory, and neuro-rehabilitation.

      Functional myopia is not just an imbedded accommodative spasm3
and it is not just enlargement of eyeballs.2 It is a reflection of
the shrinking of the brain's space world by closure of the periphery,
first by stress,4 and then by errors in spatial judgment induced by
minus lenses. It is easy to observe this in children who are plunging
deeper and deeper into nearsightedness. What has happened is that
their space world has shrunk down to primarily central vision, so
they cannot judge distances. The lenses induce such warped vision in
the periphery that their brains have to screen it out. While stress
and poor visual skills, nutritional sins, and hereditary tendencies
may have been the initial cause of their reduced periphery and
acuity, the lenses deepen their dislocation in space. Lacking the
periphery and experiencing the side effects of virtual images, they
can no longer judge how far is far or where to look. So, naturally,
they cannot see the chart clearly, and they frantically accommodate
and demand more and more minus in their lenses.

      Increasing myopia is a learned brain program. It happens as a
side effect of seeing virtual images centrally and blur on the
periphery. Increment by increment, adaptations are made. Children
going myopic are literally living in a "con-cave," looking out at the
world through the mouth of the cave, the center of the minus lens,
unable to judge how far the chart is because they do not see anything
around them or even between themselves and the chart. Their habits
and the lenses have programmed their brains to think of vision as
looking at something and seeing only that. To cure myopia, one has to
re-program the brain to see space.


Remembrances of a Myopia Past

      When I was a child, I understood as a child. I did not know that
when people are under stress they "zero in" at near, stop looking
far, and stop processing peripheral light.4 I figured out, though,
that it was much easier to read and cast my eyes down than to deal
with the hallways full of teenagers in my large junior high.

      I noticed in eighth grade, when I sat in the middle of the
auditorium that the people on the stage were blurry. I remembered
that the year before they had been clear from the back of the
auditorium where the seventh graders sat. I could still see the
chalkboard but I failed the school screening. My first glasses were -
1.25 DS, OU and with them I was given the power to see the veins on
the leaves of the trees at astounding distances. Was this the good
vision I had lost? After that I sat in the exam chair every year and
demanded telescopic sight. I did not have words for the extra stress
those glasses put on my accommodative system. I just took them off to
read.

      I did not know how to react to that panicky feeling brought on
by the loss of clear sight. The inevitability of visual deterioration
was the worst of it, with no way to stop the inexorable process of
eyeballs growing longer and longer, I thought. I strained harder to
see in the same way one might focus in dim light on tiny print at
near. Soon I needed the glasses for the chalkboard as well as the
auditorium. There was no one to tap my occipital bone and tell me
to "see farther back in the head," to "relax and look softly," and
to "hang on to the periphery."

      I felt I was an oddity, a genetic mistake, totally unlike all of
my friends. Most people in those days had clear sight.5 Now we don't,
but our contact lens technologies and fashion frames have lulled us
into thinking myopia, rampantly increasing as it is, is not such a
loss. At age 12 in the fifties, though, it was socially and
aesthetically catastrophic to become a myope. I was known as
the "blonde bombshell" in junior high, but blondes were no longer
bombshells in girls' glasses with little rhinestones at the corners.
Later, when frames were small black cat eyes, good looks were still
elusive. With a prior self-image of beauty, I was suddenly caged in
ugliness. I wore them only in class. The rest of the time I moved in
a fog of vanity and became somewhat introverted. I stopped looking
far. I felt my personality change behind my very eyes. My mother
wondered what had happened to her "outgoing" daughter.

      I was athletic and had won a letter the year before I became
nearsighted. It was much harder to catch a ball with my glasses on.
Things were smaller and closer than they were without my glasses, and
I was in a different place. Behind my frames, I was no longer in the
world, but looking into it, instead. There was fear of breaking
glasses then, too. They didn't have prescriptions in plastic then and
the only contacts available to athletes were large, painful scleral
lenses. Our babysitter wore them and my emmetropic mother looked at
her coming up the walk, goggle-eyed, and said, "Poor Susan."

      My father was sorry that it was his "dominant" myopic genes that
had made us so blind. He gave me a book by oculist Dr. William Bates
on "better eyesight without glasses."6 At 13 or 14, I faithfully did
the exercises for three months, hoping to eliminate my then -2.50 DS
with cylinder myopic correction all at once. I surprised my
ophthalmologist that year because I did not get worse. He had
predicted progression to age 16.7 In fact, I never did get worse
until a whiplash injury at 22 put me over the -3.00 DS mark,8 and
during my second pregnancy an appointment with an ophthalmologist
unaware of hormones put me over the -4.00 DS mark at age 29.

      Perhaps I even got better after "doing Bates," but it was not
part of my doctor's model of vision to take minus away from a myope.
I would "grow into it all soon enough," I heard him tell my mother.
If perchance I was already full grown, these would give me "extra
help" when I learned to drive. Or so we thought.

      I did not know that depth perception is affected by minus or
that when one has to over accommodate, convergence is pulled in more
or recalibrated. I just knew that space was so different in glasses
that I wasn't sure where things were any more. Once the driving
instructor used his brake when I was certain we could turn without
hitting those pedestrians.

      I did not suspect that the higher the lens power, the more the
periphery is warped by the lens, because light is focused for the
benefit of foveal acuity at the expense of ambient vision. Nor did I
understand that the more the periphery is warped, the harder it is to
see the center clearly because you cannot judge how far it is without
accurate peripheral cues. All I knew was that I didn't feel safe
driving. I could not see anything out of the sides of my eyes and had
to whip my head back and forth and back forth and was in great danger
of losing sight of the middle of the road. The driving instructor
told me I had to keep my eyes straight ahead and not look to the side
or I would drive off in the direction I was looking. I tried to do
that, but it scared me so much I didn't take my test until I was 20.

      I thought glasses gave me good vision, though, because I could
see the veins on the leaves of the faraway trees. I did not know that
when you're certain of what you see and where it is, that is good
vision. All I knew was that I didn't know what was there for sure
without my glasses, and with my glasses I wasn't sure where the what
was. But I was a child.

      When I was 21, my husband delighted me on our honeymoon by
saying I was beautiful in glasses and, since I could not see him
clearly across the table without them, he would be honored if I would
wear them all the time. He was worrying about the risks of my hard
(the old PMMA type) contact lenses because they frequently slid off
my corneas when he was kissing me and had to be retrieved from
somewhere awfully close to my brain. I was glad to get rid of them
because I couldn't read in them any more easily than I could read in
my glasses. By then there was no longer any possibility of not
wearing something-except for reading.

      While I never read in glasses, I took notes in them. I sat
through high school and college and graduate school in them. No one
ever suggested a bifocal in class or plus spectacles over the
contacts to read. I told two contact lens specialists in two cities
that I couldn't read through my contact lenses. They both frowned and
said "You should be able to read through them," and that was that
when I was a child.

      When I was 31, I was cyclopleged because another ophthalmologist
thought my case-hardened coke bottle lenses were too strong. He gave
me a -3.87 DS and a -3.37 DS, which I wore until I learned to reduce
my myopia. I had to keep them by my bedside table, but I still took
them off to read.

      Then at 33 I took my oldest daughter to Dr. Amiel Francke in
Washington, D.C., and was so interested in what this behavioral
optometrist had to say about vision that I made an appointment for
myself. Francke was the first optometrist I had ever known. I told
him about my Bates experience. He explained that lens reduction must
be gradual or it would be rejected. You couldn't just take off a
strong lens all at once and see. He also allowed that he had a few
more tricks up his sleeve than Bates. Indeed, he had managed to
reduce his own myopia and that of many others, as well. One's "space
world" had to change in order to do it, though.

      I wondered what this meant at the time. Later, when I was
wearing much weaker lenses, I knew. The space world is a mental
perception of "how far is far" and "how wide is wide." We can all
measure 20 feet the same, but we all see that measured space in our
own way. As I gave up lenses, I felt I was "pushing space out with my
eyes." This new kind of looking occurred naturally, I wrote of it in
my diary:

      I seem to have pushed the horizon away quite a bit and it is
still sharp and clear: I was getting very puzzled about how far is
far? ...How do we know the farness that we see is the same as the
farness that someone else sees? Physical space can be measured but
visual space cannot. It is in the eye and brain of the beholder.
Whose space is the true space? In my mind's eye I can shoot an arrow
into the air and say, "It came to rest I know not where." In the
reference frame of related things I can see what time it lands and
where. And so can anyone else in the vicinity. But what we each see
when we say, "It went 50 meters" has no physical reality. It appears
to me now that "On a Clear Day You Can See Forever."9

      That was a jarring perception for one who had lived in virtual
reality for 25 years. There were many such perceptions as space
expanded side to side, up and down, out in front; as color
sensitivity increased; as stereopsis became more precise farther and
farther away; as relationships in space were viewed all at once; as
memories of the long, slow fall into myopia reawakened; as posture
and energy levels changed; and as the new views changed patterns of
thinking.

      I discovered that each minus lens has its own virtual world that
is achieved by the interaction of the individual and the optics of
the lens, and once one adjusts to that lens, one is looking into that
world and has learned a new brain program of spatial perception. The
compressed view then continues one's need for the lens. That view is
the force that maintains the positioning and focusing of one's eyes
as if items in space were much closer than they really are. The deep
three-dimensional reality of good vision becomes, in subtle ways, a
two-dimensional image of reality in minus lenses. Even in contacts
the spaces between objects are visually compressed.

      To begin the process of giving up lenses and learning to see
well again, my crisp 20/15 correction was exchanged for one that
allowed flexibility at the middle of my range of 20/20. Besides
locking me into a compressed space world, the 20/15 virtual vision
did not let me perceive the momentary fluctuations of clarity at
distance that a visually normal person experiences. I had forgotten
to converge at varying distances of "far" and refocus with just a
blink of the eye. As I wore the weaker lenses, I became aware of
these just noticeable differences (the JNDs that we train patients to
see) and my brain learned to refocus my eyes far away in order to
clear the view. It is simply not true that there is no significant
visual difference between the 20-foot exam distance and infinity,
except possibly from behind strong minus lenses.

      Lens reduction is truly brain re-programming. It changes the
world as one knows it and one's relationship to it, yet it works even
when one moves as slowly out of lenses and with just as little effort
as one moved into them. It can also happen faster with high impact
prism procedures and forced adjustment to weaker and weaker
disposable contacts. Since I had no time or money for office training
at first, I was put on the gradual lens reduction plan. The key to
success was wearing reading glasses. The lenses did the first 2.50 DS
reduction for me.

      From 1975, to 1983, with Francke's help and that of Dr. James
Blumenthal (when I moved to Illinois in '77), I adjusted to weaker
and weaker lenses and learned to see space, until by 1983 I was
wearing no lenses, or occasionally a -.25 DS and a Plano in spin-cast
soft contacts. Office training for the entire process was limited to
six months with Francke when I was in Washington again in '81
and '82. I kept a diary for that part of the process9 so I have vivid
memories of what it was like to give up that last diopter.

      The whole experience was so fascinating and changed my vision so
radically that I decided to become an optometrist. I wanted to be
certified to use and explore the enormous power of lenses to change
perceived space, to change vision, to change the very functioning of
the brain.

      That was a new world for a former high school English and social
studies teacher. I needed two years of pre-optometry credits before I
could even begin. Finally, in 1985, I enrolled at the Illinois
College of Optometry (ICO) and it became Blumenthal's task to help me
hold the good vision during four stressful years there. I had already
learned that lenses are brain-changing, brain-programming devices
because they shape and control the light patterns hitting the retina
and therefore the signals from the light coursing through the entire
brain and influencing the entire body. They can make our vision worse
or they can train us to reduce our myopia and see space differently.

      My program for myopia reduction is described below. It no longer
seems unusual to me because many of my own patients, as well as those
of other optometrists, are doing the same.


Training to See Space

      My training consisted of three phases: First Phase, 1975-1981:
Lens reduction without any specific training techniques until I wore
a -1.50 DS and a -1.25 DS spherical prescription. Prior to '75 I wore
a -3.87 DS and -3.37 DS with a small amount of against the rule
cylinder. That Rx was based on a cycloplegic refraction in 1973 that
had already cut me from my old -4.25 DS with cylinder OU prescription.

      Second Phase, 1981-82: Office training with Francke for two
three-month blocks of two one-hour sessions per week, with one month
free between, and two months of a home program after. This took me
down to what I now wear for good distance vision (-.50 DS and -.25 DS
in spin-cast soft contact lenses). These lens powers were determined
by retinoscopy, as well as the subjective refraction. When I left
Washington, I was also wearing a +.25 DS pair of training spectacles
over my contacts for walks, and getting excellent vision most days.
During that year every lens cut was first practiced with plus
spectacles canceling out minus before I actually received new
contacts. Even with no lenses at all, I was comfortable at the beach
that summer, seeing numbers on the sailboats, addresses on the houses
across the street, white caps on the bay.

      Third Phase, 1983-89: Further Rx reduction with Blumenthal in
Chicago to a -.25 and a Plano, and then a struggle to hold my gains.
For six months I wore nothing on either eye except to read. There
followed a private tutorial with Blumenthal on myopia control during
two years of pre-optometry classes and four years at ICO. My vision
held up fairly well through the first year and a half of optometry
studies. Then there was some slippage in spite of our efforts, but
now I am back to where I was in 1982 when I left Washington. This
entire phase involved no actual vision training, just lens control.


First Phase

      I reduced my need for minus prescriptions by gradually adapting
to weaker and weaker lenses in the reverse of the process of
adaptation that led me into serious myopia in the first place. No
visual therapy techniques were used; only weaker lenses and reading
glasses a half diopter weaker than my distance Rx. Nutrition,
exercise, outdoor walks, good light, yoga and postural training also
played a role, I am certain. I followed a careful diet and took
megavitamins prescribed by a biochemical geneticist for another
health problem and they improved my vision as well. I was ready for a
lens cut three weeks after I began the nutrition program.

      I maximized activities outdoors. I was directed to walk
frequently and wear large, comfortable shoes to prevent my toes from
curling up and to keep the tripod of my footbones grounded for better
prioception and kinesthetic awareness. I also gardened without my
glasses, especially on days before I made trips from Champaign to
Riverdale to see Blumenthal for further lens reduction. I had full
spectrum lights for my kitchen and bath. Space and light became a
regular part of my life, which is unusual in modern city dwellers. I
find it very difficult to get my Boston area patients to go for walks
outdoors, yet when they do, they tell me in great surprise how much
this helps their vision.

      Binocular alignment at distance improves if there is some reason
to look far and there are moving targets to watch.10 I would add that
movement of oneself in space has even more advantages than spotting
moving targets. It engages the whole body and brain along with the
eyes, waking up the ambient visual system and stimulating peripheral
motion detectors in the retina.

      Besides my walks, I swam three times a week and did yoga other
days, I meditated. I was home with small children, doing physical
work and reading a lot. Two of those years I took evening college
courses in science and math. Happily, Blumenthal refused to give more
minus, so I sat in the front row in chemistry class. I learned that
lecture hall vision breaks down first, not distance vision in the
real world.

      While in Illinois, I had Alexander Technique lessons which also
helped my vision. This Technique is a form of postural reeducation,
developed by F.M. Alexander,11 who had been a Shakespearean actor
with a voice problem. He discovered that the position of his head,
neck and torso affected his voice and he learned to control it. He
called this the "primary control mechanism" for posture and movement.
Soon he was helping other actors and then people in other fields who
heard of his success, including writer Aldous Huxley,12 famed
philosopher of education, John Dewey,13 anatomist Raymond Dart,13 and
Nobel winner in medicine, Nicholas Tinbergen.14 All wrote praises of
the Technique, which is now a widely distributed complex hands-on
body therapy system15 requiring three years of intensive daily
training for practitioner certification.16 The essence of the system
is that the teacher, with subtle and firm touch, effects a change in
the student's habitual posture which allows greater ease and energy
economy in sitting, standing, and walking. One does not consciously
try to change oneself, but rather "leaves oneself alone" and lets the
teacher create a kinesthetic experience of proper body alignment and
movement. Once upon a time, most of us had that "good use"-it is
instinctive in healthy babies-but it gets warped by the stresses of
childhood and youth, as well as by imitation of poor parental posture
and by computer use.

      After a lesson, one's brain tries to recreate the kinesthetic
experience of correct posture because it is so much more pleasant and
efficient than the habitual warp. With subsequent lessons, which are
all kinesthetic experiences of better "use," the student gradually
changes his habits of movement and stance; his "use of self" as
Alexander called it.11

      A trained student can then achieve the improvement on his own
with just a little attention to "direction" of his thought or
awareness. Long-term stress causes one to revert to worse posture,
though, just as it causes worse vision.

      I also learned that "end gaining"11 to get a project or some
physical work done without considering Alexander's "means whereby"11
led to slap-dash patterns of poor use that aggravated my vision
problems over the years by draining energy and locking in poor
posture. I discovered that I had often done things I "had to do"
without really committing myself to the process and that this led to
a tendency to be mentally somewhere else, and unaware of the
ideal "means whereby." I would, as I put it, "hurry to get something
done without really being a part of what I was doing."9

      Both the vision changes and the Alexander work trained me to be
more aware, to "be here now" in the present moment. Minus lenses have
a tendency to remove one from the scene, to make one an onlooker, I
concluded. Before I reduced the lens power, though, and trained to
see "volume" wrapping around me, I never imaged that my space
perceptions were warped in any way.

      Alexander teachers do find that vision improves as patients
continue lessons and often lens prescriptions need to be reduced or
further postural improvement is impossible.16 In his appendix to The
Art of Seeing, Aldous Huxley reports that F.M. Alexander recorded
cases of some myopic children who recovered normal sight when they
learned proper head and neck alignment.12 Darrell Boyd Harmon, too,
emphasized the posture/vision connection.17

      I know from experience that posture and vision are interactive.
Neck tension is one of the major things that was released with
Alexander Technique. Getting my neck "free and back" and my "energy
up" reduced the amount of lens power that I needed to see clearly and
reducing lenses, in turn, further reduced my neck tension. The best
way to observe this interconnection is to wear some excessively
strong lenses and be aware of the change in posture and feelings in
the neck area. Or one can sit at a computer all day with chin up and
neck thrust forward and note the blurry vision at the end of the day,
as well as the stiff neck. Perhaps this warped VDT posture occurs
because most people were more practiced at converging in downgaze
prior to the rise of computers, so they simulate that position while
facing straight ahead at the screen.

      During those years of myopia reduction I was not using
computers. I only read or typed. I placed a board across the arms of
my reading chair like Thomas Jefferson, and propped the book parallel
to my face to avoid leaning over my lap. Whenever my reading glasses
became clear enough to see at distance, they became my new distance
glasses. My distance frame was recycled into new reading glasses a
half diopter less than the old reading prescription. As far as I
know, I was exophoric, so theoretically plus should not have
worked.18 Yet I reduced my lens power this way significantly. I was
still so insecure in space, though, that I needed to keep my glasses
at my bedside in case a child awoke at night.


Second Phase

      I was back in Washington for a year and six months of in-office
training with Francke. During the first two months of the office
program I also did one hour a day of vision procedures at home. The
rest of the year I swam, walked, and observed my vision daily. I cut
nearly all the rest of my lens power and learned to see space, as I
described it.9

      The first week in the program I was referred out for soft
contact lenses of -1.25 D OU in a specified brand that allowed full-
spectrum light into the eyes. Luckily they fit. The office training
was all done in free space with training lenses over the contacts. No
office procedures were done without lenses, yoked prisms in all
directions, or pairs of dissociating prisms that created vertical
diplopia. The procedures coordinated specific body and eye movements
while demanding better posture, peripheral vision, and sharper
kinesthetic and proprioceptive awareness. Most of the office
procedures were binocular and were done standing or moving with the
shoes off. Gradually, 12 home procedures19 and 10 office procedures20
were given. Some of these were Francke originals, others came from
the late Dr. Bruce Wolff. The home procedures were gross and fine
motor activities involving posture, movement, proprioceptive
awareness, and timing for one hour of daily home practice. They were
all monocular and included movement of body and hands while fixating
a target and forcing constant peripheral awareness until I could
appreciate details and organization of space in the periphery.

      The motor approach to vision therapy for myopia reduction worked
and it is theoretically sound. It has long been noted that in the
treatment of amblyopia the hands must be involved along with the eyes
in order to establish good vision in the amblyopic eye.21 It is also
recommended in the optometric literature that relearning for a head
injury patient must use movement to expand the collapsed space world
of the patient.22,23 This is because both of these conditions involve
spatial awareness problems. So does myopia, I would argue, because of
what minus lenses do to an individual's space world.

      I had numerous "critical empathy" experiences as my brain
reorganized its processing of space.24 I saw space visibly expanding
so that the interior of my house was bigger than I had known; my
children were shorter; I was taller; the kitchen chopping board I
used was farther from my eyes. Out on the Mall, the Washington
Monument became taller and taller and the volume of space within the
Botanical Gardens expanded enormously. My eyes seemed to "go back and
back amongst the flowers."9 I could pull up to the five-way
intersection on 7th and Pennsylvania and see the whole area and all
the incoming streets in one glance.

      One incredible evening, "the apparent motion" of the trees and
hedges around the U.S. Capitol and the Supreme Court building where I
walked caused me to perceive distances in new ways. I noted that the
apparent speed of the stationary objects that seemed to move past me
and around each other was all related to their distance from me as I
walked past them. Walking under the arcade around the Capitol it felt
as if the pillars were whizzing by. Down on the Mall the pavement
rolled under my feet and the stars floated across the sky.

      When I stabilized this new world again, it was a vast,
mysterious, and beautiful place with tunnels of deep space under the
overarching trees. The light was different-more mellow-and objects
were rounder and fuller. Things seemed "more real." All of these
experiences were thrilling and released a great deal of energy that
had evidently been locked up in maintaining my old virtual world.
Then with each incremental downward shift in lens power there would
be another major adjustment and further perceptual change. The lens
reductions were the driving force for change.

      During my training, the only props besides the lens changes and
prisms were an eye patch, an 8-foot 2" x 2" walking rail, coins,
straw, string, dowels, a silver wand, and a set of parquetry blocks.
The thrust of Francke's training was to motorically re-program all
parts of the brain for motion and spatial awareness simultaneously.
In other words, to reawaken and enhance the ambient visual system and
coordinate it with the central focusing and vergence mechanisms, as
well as with the other senses. Bilateral motor equivalency was
emphasized.

      After about three months I did almost no home procedures.
However, I continued to swim "the crawl" daily as fast as I could for
1/2 hour, breathing on alternate sides, and walked at least an hour
outdoors, working on seeing space. Specifically, I learned to see
large things like the front of the U.S. Capitol or the Washington
Monument at 90 degrees to the east while I faced north or south by
the reflecting pools on the Mall. I worked on the intermediate sized
objects, learning to see the colors and types of parked cars along
East Capitol Street while I looked ahead down the sidewalk. I also
worked on smaller details seen in peripheral view, like the face of
my husband as he walked with me, faces around the dinner table, and
faces of people sitting next to me on the subway.

      I practiced looking farther than I believed possible, and
adjusting neck positions, posture, and the flow of walking, to
improve the vision. I focused and refocused my eyes to clear signs at
different distances in ever weaker lenses. It became a game. I felt
like Superman with x-ray vision. I couldn't see through walls, of
course, but I could clear objects that had been behind the wall of my
blur boundary. It was as if my vision went out to them and penetrated
through the fog with just the blink of an eye. The horizon was
clearer and clearer, farther and farther away.

      I frequently wore +.25 DS or +.50 DS training glasses over my
contacts for walks in order to push a shift to less power outdoors
before I was ready to actually accept a weaker lens. I wore +.50 DS,
OU, +.75 DS, OU or +1.00 DS, OU for reading, depending on comfort and
my level of adaptation to the latest reduced contacts. I was not
presbyopic at the time. All spectacles were in lightly tinted plastic
frames to allow peripheral viewing. My contact lenses were gradually
reduced in power, usually one eye at a time. I never read without
plus spectacles. During part of the program I did not read at all in
order better to explore three-dimensional space.

      I had additional help from two more Alexander Technique teachers
and a cranial chiropractor for re-programming my body balance.
Cranial chiropractors treat a neurological programming fault known
as "ocular lock."25 As I worked through my old whiplash injury and
other anatomical problems, I learned that good posture, hip and neck
alignment, and subtle patterning in the nervous system are all
crucial to good vision.26 Periphery is wider if the ears are even
with the shoulders instead of poked forward, but it is more than
that. I noticed that I could noticeably improve my distance vision by
moving my neck up and back, lowering my poked chin. I could blur it
by raising my chin and tilting the top of my head back.

      The latter is a posture typical of many myopic patients. It may
result from poor distance or near convergence skills which are being
supplemented by overaccommodation. When focus fatigues, the head goes
back and the eyes go down to maintain single binocular vision if it
easier for that individual to converge in downgaze. The relationship
of the accommodation-convergence synchenesis to the "primary control"
head-neck-torso position of Alexander needs to be researched.

      With the office training, I dropped another diopter of myopia.
It is, by the way, the last diopter that is the hardest to give up.
Everyone I know who has reduced some or all of their myopia says
that "it is quite easy to get down from the high numbers." The last
diopter is the myopic core and tiny increments of lens power have a
major impact on clarity of sight and organization of space when one
is -1.00 DS or under. This may be a myopia that was developed to make
reading tasks easier when the sympathetic nervous system was flooding
out normal accommodation under stress or during excessive attentional
near work.27,28,29 Or it could be myopia that resulted from a
divergence excess provoking the need for accommodation at distance to
maintain single vision. Whatever the cause, this is the myopia that
is lurking underneath all the layers of lens reductions, waiting to
be uncovered and cured.

      The last diopter was not just a matter of relaxing focus. I had
to learn to look far. I discovered that distance vision required a
variety of timed converging and focusing eye movements, the accuracy
of which was enhanced by seeing space (expanding the periphery
horizontally, vertically, and between oneself and the object of
regard) so that one knows where to look. But seeing space is partly
from the looking. It is a circular process and depends on both the
central and peripheral vision systems. In strong glasses, though,
one's ambient system is compromised. Seeing space is also somehow
enhanced by visualizing the space behind one. I believe this is what
breaks down the mental pattern of looking into space from outside,
from behind the glasses.

      In weaker contacts I "slipped into space again." That year, as I
discovered the new view, I described my old visual experience as one
of being "knocked out of space" and the new vision with minimal
lenses as "slipping into space." That is literally how it felt to see
differently, and I would "slip in and out of space" for a time until
I discovered the mental attitude of being present. This is visual and
perceptual. One minute I would see a vast expanse of space stretching
clear before and around me. The next minute I would be in a two-
dimensional universe again with everything compressed. I compared my
old view to "seeing as through a glass darkly," and the new
to "seeing face to face."9 One of my patients described her life
before she trained out of her minus lenses as "only watching a movie
of my life and not actually participating in it."

      The major changes in my vision were not so much in clarity,
because one can obtain that in lenses, but in "volume" of space
perceived. Objects were more solid and one fixation gathered more
space. Spaces between things stretching in front of me were clearly
visible and the distances were greater than I had imagined. My
ambient vision was so enhanced by the prism training, the forced
peripheral awareness, and the outdoor viewing that I was able to
overcome the space world of minus lenses and recover a world of light-
wide and deep and high, intensely beautiful, and wrapped all the way
around me. It was quite different from the telescopic sight in
my "strong, old, cold lenses," as I put it. I wrote in my diary then
that my brain was being "re-programmed" to see in a different way.9

      After this training, I became a vision therapist for a clinic in
Chicago and had no trouble doing any of the procedures used in
classical therapy, though I had never done them before.


Third Phase

      This was done with Jim Blumenthal again in Illinois. On a home
program, I cut the -.50 DS and -.25 DS that I left Washington wearing
down to Plano OU with primarily "deep wink" and long walks. I wore no
distance lenses for about six months until I went back to school.
then I began to notice the beginnings of the old myopic process under
stress. I had to increase my lens power to -.25 DS and Plano. I
realized that just a tiny amount of power could make a huge
difference. I decided that many eye doctors were guilty of much
overkill. Nevertheless, over the six years in school I had to fight
to keep from resorting to stronger and stronger lenses, and I did not
totally succeed.

      Training had taught me that clear vision past 20 feet is not an
automatic perception process but an active motor process. The
constant refocusing and subtle convergence adjustments take energy.
This is enhanced by peripheral awareness, which is the first thing
myopes sacrifice when stress is depleting their reserves, and when
nearpoint is the all-consuming arena of action with no time to walk
and look far. I can remember riding down Chicago's Lakeshore Drive on
the bus with a backpack of heavy books, trying to "hang onto the
periphery" and realizing that it took energy that I did not want to
expend.

      I had no time for vision training, so we tried gas permeable
lenses, but I could not wear them. To slow the deterioration while I
was in optometry school, I wore a bifocal over my soft contacts. It
had a -.25 DS on top for classroom viewing and a plus add for in-
class note taking. If I could relax to be comfortable in the add at
near, I could easily clear the lecture slides. If I were tempted to
remove the plus at near, I knew my lecture hall vision would be
worse. I had to force myself to clear the plus to get the distance
back. Now I spend a lot of time on patient education regarding the
purpose of bifocals and reading prescriptions, and why it is
important not to take them off if they start to get too blurry at
near because of stress myopia. I also prescribe separately for
classroom vision and everyday vision.

      Before I was presbyopic, I had several different powers of plus
spectacles for reading, with and without my contacts. Later, in
stressful situations, my new presbyopia became temporarily worse. My
exophoria increased, but at times of extreme stress I tested
esophoric. By fourth year, I wore a special against the rule
astigmatic prescription over my contacts while doing binocular
indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO).30 I kept them in my BIO case and used
them only to see the peripheral retina. After I graduated I got a
headache the first time I used them. I no longer needed cylinder.
Neither could I wear the -1.00 DS and -.75 DS contact lenses that I
wore my fourth year at ICO. I cut back to -.50 DS, OU.

      My vision, though, became -.75 D worse again when I was first in
practice working seven days a week in windowless exam rooms and
sitting on an elective local school council many evenings. I saw
Francke in May of 1990 and quickly cut back to a five-day work week.
It still took a while to recover, though, because I did no training.
I swam, but took no time to walk, in spite of having learned in
Washington that "when my vision worsens I can retrieve it walking."9
Unfortunately, the myopic solution to nearpoint stress and the habit
of "end gaining" was in my brain program longer than seeing space.

      Finally, by 1992, I was back to wearing the distance contacts Rx
of -.50 DS and -.25 DS that I wore when I finished Francke's office
program in 1982. I wear a Plano with a +1.75 DS (.25 extra plus)
bifocal add over those for lecture hall vision.

      Since I have learned to see space, a -2.00 flipper reveals a
visibly flat and warped distance view. A -3.50 DS or a -4.00 DS is a
swimming blur, the way my father's glasses seemed to me when I was a
child. It is hard to believe I spent years looking through them. How
was it possible?

      By gradual, stealthy adaptation.

      How did I get out of them, then?

      By gradual de-adaptation.

      "Undercorrection" during periods of "stress myopia" is
comfortable for me, because, since I had the office training, I do
not rely as heavily on central acuity. My ambient vision, while not
as good as it was before optometry school, is still so enhanced that
I fell secure in space even when the signs are fuzzy. Seeing space,
very different from having 20/20 sight, is the "vision thing" which
is lost with strong lenses when central sight is all we optometrists
prescribe for. Regaining it is what makes reducing and controlling
one's myopia worthwhile.

      The main thing I learned besides how to see space is that vision
is a very flexible process and it is important that myopia control
and reduction be an ongoing project for all functional myopes. There
will be ups and downs because of stress, but vision can move towards
better, as well as worse, if we take the long view and don't fixate
on Snellen acuities or retinoscopy from a particular day. My own
patients have reduced their myopia much faster than I did but what is
significant about my experience is that most of my lens reduction was
done without any special effort other than faithful wearing of
reading glasses, lifestyle changes for better health, and alertness
to the need for prescription reductions. It could be duplicated
easily with large numbers of functional myopes in primary care
practices.


Reflections on Myopia after Seeing Space

      Whenever I am considering a minus lens increase for a
progressing myope I think of Ray Bradbury's story, "The Man in the
Rorschach Shirt," about the psychologist who got new glasses and
suddenly saw only "pores." Losing his more holistic insights, he
said: "Have you ever thought, did you know, that people are for the
most part pores...Pores. A million, ten billion ... pores. Everywhere
and everyone. People crowding buses, theaters, telephone booths, all
pore and little substance. Small pores on tiny women. Big pores on
monster men ..."31

      The experience of giving up myopia has made me very conservative
in lens prescribing, especially in new myopes. I see that our
instruments and darkened rooms and the myope's tendency to
accommodative spasm lead us to frequent overdosing with minus. This
then unfortunately determines forever after that person's brain
program for seeing space.

      Arnold Sherman describes myopic progression as the process of
the patient's visual system transforming itself so that it is suited
for near, if flexibility is not possible. Then:

      When an adaptation is decompensated (by stronger minus lenses),
a readaptation will occur in order to achieve steady state
performance at near tasks, resulting in a further increase of
myopia.32

      He calls the continual prescribing of more minus without any
intervention the "iatrogenic" cause of myopia. I would add to what
Sherman has said that the adaptation to stronger and stronger minus
lenses is a brain program and that reducing myopia is necessarily
brain re-programming. It is the restructuring of one's entire
perception of space, of where things are, and what size they are, and
of how one's eyes respond to that motorically. It is my experience
that minus lenses cause both the ambient and focal visual processes
to be repatterned so that the resulting world is no longer the "space
world" that one sees and the translation between the two is a
constant effort that wastes brain energy. But I did not know this
when I was a child. I didn't know it when I was grown up, either,
until I had reduced enough of my myopia to see it.

      Now, I explain to patients that when we prescribe maximum minus
for central acuity we sacrifice more of their ambient vision, more of
the periphery. We also take away the comfort at near they have
unconsciously achieved by becoming more myopic. If we increase minus
we have to cancel it off at near with reading lenses in order to hold
the line on further deterioration. If I must increase minus, I give
separate lenses for the classroom with as little extra power as
possible. Patients are instructed to sit in front where they "won't
need binoculars." I tell law students that I am giving them just
enough minus "to take the edge off their panic" in class, so they
don't accommodate and make things worse. They are to wear it only in
class in a bifocal prescription. Outside, they go back to their
habitual rx. If there is any plus acceptance, they get computer
glasses as well. While there are those who will not budge from their
need for more and more dioptric power for full-time wear, most
people, I find, are eager to stop the process if someone will show
them how. Others, though they are few, even want to attempt a
reduction program. I warn them it is very long and very slow and
involves many shifts in lenses. We can do it more easily now, though,
with disposable contacts than when I was going through it in the '70s
and early '80s.

      "You train a patient whenever you put a lens on him," Francke
told me. That means you change programs in the brain. Why not train
patients into weaker instead of stronger lenses? Even if it takes
seven years, that person can be changed for life.

      In some cases, as Dr. John Thomas has suggested,33 strong lenses
may even cause tissues changes. We know from research with chickens
and monkeys34 that a blurry image on the fovea causes increased axial
length and stretching in the posterior pole like that in some
hereditary myopes. It also may be true of humans, as observed in
identical twins.35 Thomas speculates that it may be the blurry image
created by the high minus lens distortion at the periphery that
causes myopic degeneration and eyeball stretching. Indeed, in
chickens "only peripheral field occlusion is necessary to induce a
myopia shift, while the central retina is receiving sharp images,"
Crewther, Crewther, Nathan and Kiely reported.36 Elio Raviola and
Torsten Wiesel speculated years ago that "the retina exerts a control
on eye growth by releasing regulatory molecules whose production is
influenced by the pattern of light stimulation."37

      Overall eye enlargement and increased axial length does exist in
high myopia.38 We automatically assume, though, that it is the
elongation of the eye that occurs first, in some spontaneous manner,
causing the myopia, causing the light to fall short. We think of this
enlargement or elongation as the definition of myopia. We need to
entertain the thought that myopic changes in the eyeball could
develop secondarily from chemical signals put out by a retina
responding to central blur caused by other factors such as
accommodative spasm. This could then be compounded by blur in the
periphery caused by the very compensatory minus lenses that are
supposed to correct the problem.

      We need to examine our model of vision again in the light of
retinal research, successful myopia reduction, and a great many cases
of multiple personality where, depending on the personality in
charge, the glasses can vary in prescription quite significantly.39,40

      Luckily, I never did develop major retinal changes that we see
in high myopes. I never wore my lenses full time because I could not
read through them and I read a large part of every day. That also may
be why it was relatively easy for me to train out of them.

      Because of my own personal experience that myopia can be
reduced, and because of the fact that many of my patients also reduce
their prescriptions during or at the end of therapy, and because
others report similar results,41-45 I had to evolve a model of vision
that included traditional optometry as well as the new insights.
Vision, I now see, is an intensely adaptive process, in which
unconscious choices are made, depending on what solution is most
useful for meeting an individual's visual demands, within the
specific life, health and stress conditions he faces. Myopia is a
good solution at near for the person who can't avoid close work and
doesn't have the energy to stay flexible. Unfortunately, the same
plasticity that allowed the myopia to develop in the first place
remains after the minus lens is introduced to recover distance sight.
Minimal prescriptions, therefore, are probably a better idea than a
lens that recovers crystal clear distance again at the expense of
comfort at near. I use plus at near as a counterforce to substitute
for the adaptation so it need not occur. I am happier when my lenses
can be tools for change or prevention rather than compensatory
crutches.

      When we use lenses only to compensate for problems, we have
thrown away our healing power, which is great, because we have at our
command precision modifiers that shape, direct, and give controlled
doses of the very stuff of the universe, which is light. They are
awesomely powerful and optometry is the only field that has
sufficient understanding of their use to apply them in a truly
healing manner.

      John Streff reminds us of the power of our tools.

      Lenses interact with the body motorically and affect timing.
They are light transformers that amplify or dampen selectivity, size,
distance, distribution of light to the eyes, and affect the
ambient/focal balance of system.46

      The optical bench model distracts us. It makes us think that
distance vision is a passive process of light falling on the fovea.
It isn't. As I learned during my training, "vision is a motor act,"
and if patients realize this they are empowered to work on their
vision. I never tell them they have long eyeballs. That is so
fatalistic, so permanent, so mechanical, and so often wrong. The
lenses we prescribe, if we believe that, are likely to be too strong
to stabilize the system because we are going for precision in foveal
focus instead of overall balance in a total system. We may even be
creating tissue changes, just by blurring peripheral light, relative
to the sharp focus we are delivering to the fovea.

      Full minus also takes away an individual's ability to refocus at
distance so that far vision does, indeed, become the passive process
we have believed it to be. In addition, we recalibrate the whole
accommodative and convergence system around that lens. How one
perceives space, where one thinks objects are, has a large impact on
how one's vision operates, I learned. The deep three-dimensional
reality of good vision becomes, in subtle ways, a two-dimensional
image of reality in minus lenses. Even in contacts, the spaces
between objects are visually compressed, but only patients who get
weaker lenses ever realize it. the virtual images have created a new
brain program for spatial relations. Distance is brought in as if it
were at near. The brain adjusts. If one wants to get out of minus
lenses, one has to intervene at the level of the brain program. This
is my fundamental assumption based on experience. There are ways to
do this, but they must all be done at once, together. A single
factor, such as a bifocal, does not cut it. Lenses for different
purposes, though, are a key part of any brain changing program.

      In an article under preparation for the JBO, I discuss the brain
and vision research which explains for me how it is possible to give
up minus and learn to see space again. There is ample evidence that
this kind of change is probably due to enhancement of the ambient
visual system through peripheral awareness training, simultaneous
movement training of eyes and body, stress management, and mental
processing changes.

      Many other professionals do myopia reduction-body workers of all
types, yoga teachers, naturopathic doctors, and psychologists.47,48
Since lenses and prisms, combined with movement, are the most
efficient tools for the space world expansion that reduces myopia,
optometrists should be involved. We need to demonstrate the use of
our tools for the healing of vision. Otherwise therapy will be taken
away from us in the marketplace of health by healers who do.


References



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


1. Sperduto RD, Seigel D, Roberts J, Rowland M. Prevalence of myopia
in the United States. Arch Ophthal, 1983; Mar:101:405-07.
2. Zadnik K, Satariano WA, Mutti DO, Sholtz RI, Adams AJ. The effect
of parental history of myopia on children's eye size. J AM Med Assoc,
1994; May 4;27(17):1323-27.
3. Rosenfield M. Accommodation and myopia, are they related. J Behav
Opt, 1994; Vol.5(1):3-11
4. Shipman VI. The restriction of the perceptual field under stress.
Thesis summary, presented to the Eastern Psychological Assoc., Jan.,
1954. In: Francke A. Introduction to optometric visual therapy. Optom
Extension Prog, 1988-89; C II, Vol 60-61.
5. Records of Texas school children from 1900 to 1962. In Pearse JC.
The bond of power. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1981.
6. Bates WH. The Bates method for better eyesight without glasses.
Revised Ed. New York: Henry Holt, 1940.
7. Goss D, Winkler R. Progression of myopia in youth: age of
cessation. Am J Optom Physio Optics, 1983; Vol. 60 (8):651-58.
8. Roca PD. Ocular manifestations of whiplash injuries. Proceedings
of the XV Annual Conference of American Assoc of Auto Med, Colorado
Springs, CO, Oct. 20-24, 1971.
9. Orfield A. Giving up myopia: a patient's diary. Unpublished
manuscript, copyright 1986.
10. Falx N. The optometric treatment of intermittent divergent
strabismus. Eastern seaboard Vision Training Conference, Washington
D.C., 1963: 52-57. Ref. In: Goldrich SG. Optometric therapy for
divergence excess strabismus. Am J Optom Physio Optics 1980, Jan;57
(1):7-14.
11. Alexander FM. The use of the self. Downey, CA: Center Line Press
by arrangement with Q.P. Dutton, 1984 (orig.pub. 1932).
12. Huxley A. The art of seeing. Berkeley, CA;Repr. Creative Arts
Book Co., 1982; Orig.1942; Harper and Row.
13. Gelb M. Body learning: an introduction to the Alexander
technique. New York: Delilah, 1981.
14. Tinbergen N. Etiology of stress diseases. Science, 1974;July
5;185:20-27.
15. Jones FP. Body awareness in action, a study of the Alexander
technique. New York: Shocken Books, 1971.
16. Personal conversations with Joan Murray, Charlotte Jackson, Rose
Bronec-all Alexander Technique teachers.
17. Harmon DB. Notes on a dynamic theory of vision, 2nd Rev;1957,
Later 3rd rev. Austin, TX, published by author, 1958.
18. Goss D, Grosvenor T. Rates of childhood myopia progression with
bifocals as a function of nearpoint phorias: consistency of three
studies. Optom Vis Sci 1990; Aug; 67(8):637-40.
19. Francke A. Introduction to optometric visual training. In: Optom
Extension Prog, C II, 1974-75, Reprinted 1988-89 (Vol.60-61).
20. Forkiotas CJ. Focus on vision (at New Haven Conference 1989). 4
video tapes of demonstrated procedures. Frydenborg Productions, 1989.
Available from Optom Extension Prog, Santa Ana, CA.
21. Ciufredda K, Levi D, Selenow A. Amblyopia: basic and clinical
aspects. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991.
22. Cool SJ. The traditional "medical model" of practice +
the "recent" psychoneuroimmunological mode + behavioral/functional
optometric practice. Skeffington Memorial Lecture presented at
Mountain States Congress of Optometry, Keystone, CO, Aug, 1993.
Available on tape from Perpetual Motion, 1705 14th St., Suite 396,
Boulder, CO 80302.
23. Padula W. A behavioral approach for persons with physical
disabilities. Santa Ana, CA: Optom Extension Prog, 1993
24. MacDonald L. Collected works, Vol. II. Optom Extension Prog,
1993.
25. Walther D. Applied kinesiology, Vol I and II: basic procedures
and muscle testing. Pueblo, CO: SDC Systems, 1981.
26. Gilman G, Bergstrand J. Visual recovery following chiropractic
intervention, J Behav Optom 1990; 1(3):73-74.
27. Birnbaum M. Optometric management of nearpoint vision disorders.
Boston:Butterworth, 1993.
28. Birnbaum M. Nearpoint visual stress: a physiological model. J Am
Optom Assoc, 1984; Nov;55(11):825-35.
29. Birnbaum M. Nearpoint visual stress: clinical implications. J Am
Optom Assoc, 1985; June:56(6)
30. Birnbaum M. Functional relationship between myopia, accommodative
stress and against-the-rule astigmia: a hypothesis. J Am Optom Assoc,
2978;Aug;49(8)911-914.
31. Bradbury R. The man in the rorschach shirt. In: Katz H, Warrick
P, Greenberg MH (Eds.) Introductory psychology through science
fiction. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1974.
32. Sherman A. Clinical management of the myopic patient. J Behav
Optom, 1993; 4(1):16,20-22.
33. Thomas J. Myopia control. A lecture at 22nd Annual Meeting,
College of Optometrists in Vision Development, Oct. 1992 in Newport
Beach, CA. Available from InstaTape, Inc. P.O. Box 1729, Monrovia, CA
91017-5729.
34. Wiesel TN, Raviola E. Increase in axial length of the macaque
monkey eye after corneal opacification. Assoc for Res in Vis and
Ophthal, 1979;18(12): 1232-36
35. Johnson CA, Post RB, Chaiupa LM, Lee TJ. Monocular deprivation in
humans; a study of identical twins. Assoc for Res in Vis and Ophthal,
1982, July;23(1):135-38.
36. Crewther J, Nathan SG, Crewther DP, Kiely PM. Effects of retinal
image degradation on ocular growth in cats. Invest Ophthal Vis
Science, Nov. 1984, 25(11):1300-06. Avail. Dr. S.G. Crewther, School
of Optometry, University of New South Wales, P.O. Box 1, Kensington
NSW 2033, Australia.
37. Raviola E, Wiesel T. An animal model of myopia. New Eng J Med,
1985; 312(24).
38. Cheng HM, Singh OS, Kwong KK et al. Shape of the myopic eye as
seen with high resolution magnetic resonance imagery. J Optom Vis
Sci, 1992; Sept;69(9):698-710.
39. Birnbaum M. Lecture at 23rd Annual Meeting COVD, Nov 1993 in
Chicago, IL. Available: InstaTape, PO Box 1729, Monrovia, CA 91017.
40. Personal conversations with Krumsieg-Waters JB, a Maine Ph.D.
psychotherapist specializing in multiple personality disorders,
Northampton, MA, June 1993.
41. Personal conversations: Apell R, Forkiotas C, Streff J. At New
Haven Optometric Seminar, Dec 1993.
42. Trachtman JN. The Baltimore myopia study 40 years later. J Behav
Opt 1991; 2(2)47-50.
43. Lieberman J. Lectures at 1992 Conference on Light and Vision.
Brookline, MA.
44. Sirota H. Interview notes, Jan. 1983.
45. Kaplan RM. Seeing beyond 20/20. Hillsboro, OR: Beyond Words,
1987.
46. Streff J. The bimodality of neurology and visual processing:
ambient and focal, a lecture series, New Haven Optometric Seminar,
1992.
47. Leviton R. Seven steps to better vision. Brookline, MA: East/West
Natural Health Books, 1992. (With intro by Kaplan R.M.)
48. Rosanes-Berrett M. Do you really need eyeglasses? P.U.L.S.E.,
Barrytown, New York: Station Hill Press, 1990.

Corresponding author:

Antonia Orfield, O.D., M.A., FCOVD, FAAO
New England College of Optometry
New England Eye Institute
1255 Boylston Street
Boston, MA 02215
Date accepted for publication:
April 22, 1994


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------


The article below by Agnes Blum appeared in the Education section of
the Boston Sunday Globe on December 1, 2002.


"Vision Therapy Helps Children With "Hidden Disability"
Tossing beanbags to a child while he walks on a balance beam with a
patch over one eye may seem an unusual way to improve reading skills,
but Aluma Motenko swears it worked for her son.

Two years ago, when Micah Motenko was 9, he couldn't sit still in
class, couldn't read assignments, and was unable to finish homework.
So his mother took him to Antonia Orfield, an optometrist who
specializes in vision therapy and prescribed several eye
exercisesüincluding the balance beam one.

After a few months, the Motenkos saw results that have stuck, his
mother said. "Before he would sit forever and cry. Hours would go by
and he still wasn't able to do his homework," said Motenko, of
Brookline. "Now he says school is so much easier. He used to wear
glasses all the time, and now he only wears them for reading."

Micah is one of the lucky ones, with parents who didn't immediately
accept a diagnosis of a "non-verbal learning disorder," said Orfield,
one of about 400 vision therapists certified in vision development by
the College of Optometrists. Founded in 1971, the association
represents eye care professionals who specialize in vision therapy
and rehabilitation.

Thousands of other children suffer with vision problems that never
get addressed, said Orfield, who works at Harvard University Health
Service and runs a private practice.

Between 1993 and 1999, Orfield, who worked at the New England College
of Optometry at the time, started a vision clinic in the Mather
Elementary School in Dorchester. She tested about 800 children for
three major vision issues: tracking, converging (having both eyes
lock onto the same object at the same time), and focusing. More than
50 percent of the students failed, and many of these students had
20/20 eyesight, Orfield said. That's because the traditional eyesight
testüthe Snellen wall chartütests only whether a child can clearly
see letters 20 feet away. It does not test the ability to see objects
that are close.

"Vision and eyesight," Orfield said, "are two different things.
Vision is a learned skill, just like learning to walk," she said.

"We're looking for the wrong things," she said, "and the system does
not deliver. A lot of the kids have middle-aged-type vision."

And those children often give up on reading because it's just too
hard, Orfield said.

The letters swim on the page, giving the children headaches. Children
try to compensate by bobbing their heads back and forth to constantly
refocus their eyes, or shutting one eye and reading with the other.
They invariably fall behind and become frustrated with reading,
Orfield said. Most do not report a problem reading because they do
not realize that their experience is abnormal, she said. And
administrators often mislabel these children as suffering from a
learning disorder, such at attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
or dyslexia, when in fact it is their vision that is impaired.

Gary Orfield, a professor of education and social policy at Harvard
University and Antonia's husband, said too often students with such
problems end up in special education classes instead of getting
vision therapy. "It's a tragic situation because these are solvable
problems," he said.

A study done of 6,000 students in New York state showed that while 23
percent had vision problems, 93 percent of those who were in some
sort of special education program suffered from vision problems, said
Paul Harris, an optometrist who practices vision therapy in Maryland
and runs the Baltimore Academy for Behavioral Optometry.

"It's a hidden disability," Harris said. "There's a strong
implication that we may be over-medicating our kids." Vision therapy,
he said, can make a huge difference.

"Kids who go through my program make a 73 percent jump in reading, on
average," Harris said. "This is a school problem that should be
treated in school. It's much less expensive to do it in school than
in private practice."

Inner-city children are the most vulnerable because they are least
likely to receive adequate medical care, Harris said. Studies have
shown that children from low-income families who are given
prescriptions for glasses, or appointments with doctors outside of
school, seldom pursue them. The only way to serve these children,
Harris said, is to offer the services in school.

"And the problem is exacerbated by television, a major cause of
vision development disorders, especially among low-income children,"
Harris said. "The average American child, between the ages of 2 and
17 years old, watches 25 hours of television a week. One in five of
those children watch more than 35 hours a week, according to the
National Institute on Media and the Family, a non-profit organization
that promotes research about the impact of media on children and
families."

"The good news," Harris said, "is that the human eye can be retrained
to visualize properly. The only hurdle is access to the proper
medical professionals and treatments."

Aluma Motenko was so impressed with the progress her son made with
vision therapy that she enrolled her whole family. Motenko, who has
worn glasses for most of her life, said the treatments have almost
eradicated her stigmatism.

"I can wake up in the morning and open my eyes and see," she
said. "My world is totally different now."


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------



HomeArticlesEyes For LearningEye ExamVision QuizVision Therapy
Success StoriesLocationVision LinksDirectory




Member, Optometrists Network & Find an Eye Doctor. Publisher of What
is Lazy Eye?, What is Vision Therapy?, and many other Eye Care and
Visual Health Patient Education Web Sites.

Privacy Policy     Terms and Conditions of Use
Copyright © 1996-2008 Optometrists Network. All rights reserved.

Dear Judy,

You truly should watch and listen to the Randy Pausch
lecture.

As he said, solving problems means recognizing the
"Brick Walls" -- what they are and how to
deal with them.

Tragically the "Brick Wall" is in your mind, and
denies even the POSSIBILITY OF PREVENTION.

For PREVENTION to take place, it would be necessary
to truly understand that brick-wall, and the
reasons why you could never lead an effective
SCIENTIFIC PREVENTIVE STUDY.

That type of study would have to be conducted
by open-minede pilots-engineers who manage to
avoid your intellectual blindess.

Why Pilots?

Why Engineers?

1.  Pilots engering a four year college could learn
from YOU MISTAKES, and mistaken assumptions.

2.  Pilots would have the MOTIVATION to apply
scientific concepts TO THEIR OWN NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE
STATE.

3.  Pilots could be TRUSTED to make BOTH the refractive
STATE measurement and the VISUAL ACUITY MEASUREMENT.

Why engineers?

1.  Because they WILL understand the statistics so necessary
for science -- in the first place.

2.  Because they understand the need for measurement-control,
or, read it this way -- you will NOT be making the
measurements.

3.  Prevention takes considerable persistence.  Most people
simply don't have it.  (with due respect -- but that
is the truth of it.

4.  Prevention CAN NEVER BE REDUCED TO A "MAGIC PILL" THAT
WILL SOLVE ANY PROBLEM.

I hope you understand these issues.

Second-opinion best,

Otis







--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
wrote:
> >
> > Otis> The majority-opinion still remains that an
> >  applied minus to the natural eye has NO EFFECT AT
> >  ALL.
> >
> >
> > Judy>  As far as I know (and a great body of literature backs me
> up), vision scientists and eye care professionals would agree that a
> -3 lens worn by young, non myopic animals during all waking hours
> would have a significant effect.
>
> > Otis> Are you prepared to say that a primate with a refractive
STATE
> of zero, on which a -3 dioper lens is placed, will NOT go down by -2
> diopters in less than six months.
>
> NO!!!
>
> Can't you just read what you copy and paste instead of asking me the
> same question over and over? You just copied and pasted my comment
> that I "agree that a -3 lens worn by young, non myopic animals
during
> all waking hours would have a significant effect", and I have told
you
> so many times.  In fact, the "majority opinion" scientists did the
> science that shows that the eyes of young animals wearing minus 24/7
> to simulate neonatal hyperopia will adjust their growth so as to
> create an emmetropic eye/lens system.
>
> > Otis> i.e., that the -3 diopter lens does NOT induce the
> > very "situation" is it supposed to solve.
>
> And what "situation" is that?  What problem does applying a -3 lens
to
> a non myopic animal solve?  The studies of  non myopic animals using
> minus were not studies of the minus lens as a therapy; they were
> studies of how the young animal eye responds to refractive error
> present at birth.  There was no "situation" to solve.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
> Otis> The majority-opinion still remains that an
>  applied minus to the natural eye has NO EFFECT AT
>  ALL.
>
>
> Judy>  As far as I know (and a great body of literature backs me
up), vision scientists and eye care professionals would agree that a
-3 lens worn by young, non myopic animals during all waking hours
would have a significant effect.

> Otis> Are you prepared to say that a primate with a refractive STATE
of zero, on which a -3 dioper lens is placed, will NOT go down by -2
diopters in less than six months.

NO!!!

Can't you just read what you copy and paste instead of asking me the
same question over and over? You just copied and pasted my comment
that I "agree that a -3 lens worn by young, non myopic animals during
all waking hours would have a significant effect", and I have told you
so many times.  In fact, the "majority opinion" scientists did the
science that shows that the eyes of young animals wearing minus 24/7
to simulate neonatal hyperopia will adjust their growth so as to
create an emmetropic eye/lens system.

> Otis> i.e., that the -3 diopter lens does NOT induce the
> very "situation" is it supposed to solve.

And what "situation" is that?  What problem does applying a -3 lens to
a non myopic animal solve?  The studies of  non myopic animals using
minus were not studies of the minus lens as a therapy; they were
studies of how the young animal eye responds to refractive error
present at birth.  There was no "situation" to solve.

Judy

Dear Friends,

"Phoria" is normal eye-turn, during the "cover" test.

Tropia -- is a problem as described by Judy.

Enjoy,

Otis

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

On Jul 26, 3:14 pm, jerseyca...@... wrote:

Layman> My daughter was recently diagnosed with accomodative
esotropia, and has been prescribed glasses.  This diagnosis has been
confirmed via a second opinion visit to another doctor.
Question is, for a moderate case of accomodative esotropia, how many
years should the child be expected to wear glasses?


Hard to say, as it varies tremendously from person to person.  Could
be until age 16-18, could be for the rest of her life

Layman> Are there other treatments available?  Why can't strabismus
surgery be used to straighten the eyes?

Strab surgery is used when esotropia is caused by the eye muscles
being out of position.  In accommodative esotropia, the muscle are
fine.   Hyperopia is causing the esotropia and hyperopia is treated
with glasses, not with surgery.

See the link below for more details

http://www.pedseye.com/strabismus_accommodative_esotropia.htm

Dr Judy

Some further tribute to Dr. Randy Pausch:

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

      Do all that and "the dreams come to you," he said.

      This is not rocket science.  The display of sincere emotion
is not terribly complicated, and it is always moving to other
human beings.  It is surprisingly easy to recognize.  This can be
learned by watching people tell you a story in a language that you
don't understand.  You'll realize before you get the translation,
whether you believe what they are saying, and whether you care.

      Sincerity translates, in other words, on a far more primal
level than language.  This, Randy Pausch understood.  And on the
one day he could leave a scratch mark on the face of oblivion, he
did so with simple, honest life lessons.  That they were
ultimately intended for his children after his death gave the talk
its aura, and he was showman enough to intuit that.

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

     I would add that I saw this same sincerelty in Dr. Jacob
Raphaelson.

Second-opinion best,

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> What is truly important:
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Otis
>
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >      About "Brick Walls" in you mind by Carnegie Mellon Professor,
> > Randy Pausch
> >
> >      The underlying lesson (of life) Randy said, was that if you
> > live your life the right way, the dreams take care of themselves.
> > Good conduct consists of being earnest, honest, working hard and
> > realizing that brick walls in life are only there to separate
> > those who really want to do something -- from those who just say
> > they want to.
> >
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artsandliving/style/
> >
>

Dear Judy,

When did I EVER say anything about the false
word "emmetropia" or "emmetropization".

We are taking about profoudly different issues.

I said NOTHING about your presumed "refractive error" -- what
ever you say.

What I did say was that a population of natural eyes -- need
to be proven to be DYNAMIC -- in the sense
of the "input" minus 3 diopter lens, versus the
OUTPUT -- which would be either:

1.  A change of refractive STATE by -2 diopters in
the direction of the applied -3 diopter lens, or

2.  No change of refractive STATE at all.

We can parse this all you wish.

But science is science, and the facts are the facts.

Second-opinion best,

Otis




--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
wrote:
> >
>
> > Otis> That effect being that a NORMAL EYE, with a refractive STATE
> >       of zero diopters, wearing a -3 diopter lens (visual
> >       environment 13 inches all the time) would change its
> >       refractive STATE by -2 diopters in less than six months.
> >
> > Otis> Thus at the end of this "confined environment" test, the eye
> >       would be 20/100, or -2 diopters MEASURED REFRACTIVE STATE.
> >
> >        Judy then INSISTS that "that will never happen"!!
>
> When have I ever said that a minus lens used on a non myopic eye
will
> never result in a change in refractive error?  If anything, I have
> pointed out emmetropization experiments (minus lens on non myopic
> eyes) to you and you have denied that emmetropization exists.
>
> >        Further she says that no one puts a -2 diopter lens on a
> > person with normal vision.
>
> No, I said no one puts a -3 lens on a non myopic human. I don't use
> the term "normal vision" when I mean non myopic
>
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>

> Otis> That effect being that a NORMAL EYE, with a refractive STATE
>       of zero diopters, wearing a -3 diopter lens (visual
>       environment 13 inches all the time) would change its
>       refractive STATE by -2 diopters in less than six months.
>
> Otis> Thus at the end of this "confined environment" test, the eye
>       would be 20/100, or -2 diopters MEASURED REFRACTIVE STATE.
>
>        Judy then INSISTS that "that will never happen"!!

When have I ever said that a minus lens used on a non myopic eye will
never result in a change in refractive error?  If anything, I have
pointed out emmetropization experiments (minus lens on non myopic
eyes) to you and you have denied that emmetropization exists.

>        Further she says that no one puts a -2 diopter lens on a
> person with normal vision.

No, I said no one puts a -3 lens on a non myopic human. I don't use
the term "normal vision" when I mean non myopic


Judy

Dear Friends,

What is truly important:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ji5_MqicxSo

Enjoy,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
>      About "Brick Walls" in you mind by Carnegie Mellon Professor,
> Randy Pausch
>
>      The underlying lesson (of life) Randy said, was that if you
> live your life the right way, the dreams take care of themselves.
> Good conduct consists of being earnest, honest, working hard and
> realizing that brick walls in life are only there to separate
> those who really want to do something -- from those who just say
> they want to.
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artsandliving/style/
>

About "Brick Walls" in you mind by Carnegie Mellon Professor,
Randy Pausch

      The underlying lesson (of life) Randy said, was that if you
live your life the right way, the dreams take care of themselves.
Good conduct consists of being earnest, honest, working hard and
realizing that brick walls in life are only there to separate
those who really want to do something -- from those who just say
they want to.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artsandliving/style/

Dear Second-opinion friends,

Bates was `beat up' because he OBJECTED to ANY use of a minus. That
is indeed the second-opinion by Bates, Liberman, Prentice,
Raphaelson, Colgate, Romano, and many others in both Science and
Medicine. But I always like to read Bates with (my clarification).

=======

From Chapter 8 by Dr. Bates

(Selected statement for clarity.)

…That (minus) glasses must injure the eye is evident
from the facts given in the preceding chapter. One cannot see
through them unless one produces the degree of refractive error which
they are designed to correct.

But refractive errors, in the eye which is left to itself,
are never constant. If one secures good vision by the aid of
concave, (minus) lenses, therefore, it means that one is maintaining
constantly a degree of refractive error which otherwise would not be
maintained constantly. It is only to be expected that this should
make the condition worse, and it is a matter of common experience
that it does.

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

A person with myopia of 20/70 (about -1.75 D) who puts on glasses
giving him a vision of 20/20 may find that in a week's time his
unaided vision has declined to 20/200.

We have the testimony of Dr. Sidler-Huguenin, of Zurich,
that of the thousands of myopes treated by him the majority grew
steadily worse, in spite of all the skill he could apply to the
fitting of (minus-lens) glasses for them. When people break their
glasses and go without them for a week or two, they frequently
observe that their sight has improved. As a matter of fact the sight
always improves, to a greater or less degree, when (minus) glasses
are discarded, although the fact may not always be noted.

That the human eye resents glasses is a fact
which no one would attempt to deny.

Every oculist knows that patients have to "get used" to them,
and that sometimes they never succeed in doing so. Patients with high
degrees of myopia have a great difficulty in accustoming themselves
to the full correction, and often are never able to do so.

The strong concave (minus) glasses required by myopes of high degree
make all objects seem much smaller than they really are…

These are unpleasantness that cannot be overcome…

All (minus) glasses contract the field of vision to a greater or less
degree. Even with very weak glasses patients are unable to see
distinctly unless they look through the center of the lenses, with
the frames at right angles to the line of vision; and their vision
lowered if they fail to do this …

As for putting (minus) glasses upon a child it is enough
to make the angels weep.

William Bates

==========

That is still, 90 years later -- the SECOND-OPINION.

The majority-opinion is still that the minus is "perfect,
wonderful, had NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATE OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL EYE, etc., etc.,!!!

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Alex,

I think we are BOTH motivated by curiousity -- about
what COULD potentially work (for prevention) and
what does not work (for the most part).

I will respond to your questions in due course.

(On a scientific -- but not medical level.)

I truly do not like to "cross swords" with Judy.

She has no chance to help anyone with true-prevention.

That must be a function of insight and self-motivation
of the person concerned with it.

More later,

Otis

From Alex:

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


Some questions for all I-SEE members, old and new! Please answer as
many questions as you like.

What motivates YOU to do something to improve your eyesight?

How well do you see now?

Are you dependent on glasses?

Do you suffer from eyestrain?

Are you concerned about cataracts or retinal problems?

What do you want to change about your eyesight or the glasses or
lenses you wear?

What would you do to change your eyesight?

If you aren't doing it, then why?

If you are doing something, what made you decide to do it? What keeps
you doing it?

Why did you join the I-SEE discussion group? What do you hope to get
out of it? What do you hope to bring to it?

Anything else you would like to say?

--Alex

Otis has posted my responses to a "first draft" of his "Friendly
Questions" posted here.

Here are some further responses to these questions:

Otis S. Brown wrote:
> Dear Alex,
>
> Re:  The effect of a -3 diopter lens on the refractive
> status of the fundamental eye -- as science, not medicine.
>
> I am curious -- as your friend.
>
> What do you think of confirming the effect of a -3 diopter lens
> on the eye's refractive state?
>
> 1. It never happened.

Earl Smith Jr's research group, in their 1995 article "Spectacle lenses
alter eye growth and the refractive status of young monkeys," showed
that infant monkeys experienced a negative refractive shift as a result
of wearing a -3D minus lens.

Similar experiments have been done on other animals with similar effects.


> 2  It is not important.

It is a very important experimental result. Dr. Smith's was the first
unequivocal evidence that a "close-focusing" environment could cause
myopia in mammals. Before that, the "indoor life" had been shown to be a
risk factor for myopia -- monkeys in cages, children in school -- but
people could always say, well, it was really the diet, the "stress" of
the situation, "form deprivation", or the crossing of the eyes during
reading, not the close-focusing stimulus itself to which the eye
directly adapted.


>
> 3. It is not scientific.
>
> 4. It is scientific -- but not "medical".

I prefer not to categorize things as "scientific" or "medical" -- it's
just word games to me. A fact is a fact. Conclusions drawn are either
valid or invalid.

>
> 4. I (Alex) can learn nothing from the science of it?

  From the experiments summarized here, of which Dr. Smith's experiment
is but one, I think we can learn a lot:

http://www.i-see.org/myopia_correction.html

In particular, we must consider the possibility that adding a minus lens
to the visual environment always leads to a negative refractive (myopic)
shift -- until proven otherwise.


>
>
> I would be curious about what you think about these issues.
>
>

I hope my answers have been satisfactory.

--Alex

Dear Reader,

Alex is an expert.  Not MEDICAL, but he has been conducting
vision "reviews" on i-see for the past 10 years or so.

Therefore his response is critical -- for your
understanding of these issues.

I like an "organized" world-view.  I try to
avoid conflict as much as possible.  So to do
this I always state what I believe is true -- that
tne natural eye can have negative and positive
refractive STATES (as a dynamic system).  This
makes sense to me (after a long struggle), and
is indeed consistent with science and facts.

To avoid further "oonflict", I just call this
"world view" the second-opinion.

Best,

OTis

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




Hi Otis,

Otis> Dear Alex,

> I am curious -- as your friend.

> What do you think of confirming the effect of a -3 diopter lens?

> 1. It never happened.

Alex> Yes it happened.


> 2  It is not important.

Alex> Yes it is important

> 3.  It is not "scientific".

Alex> A fact is a fact. Science is more the conclusions drawn from
the facts, or the process of deciding which facts are important.



> 4. I can learn nothing from the science of it?

Alex> You can learn something, but that something is not always
relevant to the question at hand.


> To me that DEFINES science and the eye's behavior.

Alex> There's much more to the dynamic eye than one monkey experiment.


> But I would be curious about what you think about it.

> To me, it tells me

> 1.  that there is grave risk in even the FIRST use of a
  minus lens.

Alex> I agree.

> 2.  The person should be cautioned about any use of the minus.

Alex>  I agree. "Full time use of minus-power lenses has been proven
to cause  an increase in nearsightedness in laboratory animals"

> 3.  The time to STOP entry into a negative refractive STATE must
START before the minus.

Alex>  I agree.


> 4.  This is of course difficult -- but I see true-prevention (at
the threshold) as about the only possibility the future.

Alex> I think there are lots of possibilities, but surely prevention
should  be the easiest!


> 5. I NEVER use the word "cure" -- because it is misleading at
best   -- and I NEVER intend for that to happen.

Alex> No, I think the word "cure" is often accurate. Oftentimes you
say  "prevention" when you mean "cure" (as for example, when
clearing  vision from 20/60 to 20/20)  and people get confused.

Alex>  People also get confused when they are wearing -2D lenses and
you tell  them about -3D lenses. Not to say valid inferences can't be
made, but  you leave out the details so the only people who
understand you are  people who understand.


> 6. I think that if there is ever to be a PREVENTIVE study, it must
START before that first minus -- and the person himself would have
to "figure out" these issues for himself.

Alex> Right. But I-SEE is about helping people see better. Telling
them  about the -3D lens, which they are not wearing anyway, does not
help  them, does not motivate them.

Alex> I know what you mean when you refer to the -3D lens. Almost no
one  else does. Bringing it up isn't very helpful without the context
and  the conclusion. I have tried to put it all together on one page:

http://www.i-see.org/myopia_correction.html

> 7. If he does, and clears his Snellen the way that Colgate, Keith,
  Deakins did -- then there is no problem at all.

No problem.

> Best,

> Otis