Dear Judy,

Subject:  Plus prevention -- is what the individual
must learn to do for himself.



Judy>  As I pointed out, reference was made to undercorrection,
bifocal and progressive studies which I would consider to be the use
of plus.

Otis> In NO SENSE can you consider the use of a minus -- and a plus
to be a statement about plus-PREVENTION.

Otis> Plus prevention means that the person is informed completely
about the proven effect of a -3 diopter lens on the natural eye's
refractive STATE.

Otis> The person would measure BOTH his refractive STATE (with a
Focometer), and his visual acuity using the standard Snellen.

Otis> Only after his intelligence (and engineering competence) were
established, would a PREVENTIVE effort be started.

Otis> This type of study, depending on BOTH motivation and
intelligence (and respecting the person that way) could not
be run by you -- under any circumstance.

Otis> You could be a "friendly observer" -- but no
in "control" of this type of scientific study -- in
my opinion.

Otis> Run as a competent SCIENTIFIC STUDY, It is my
belief that is would succeed in the objective minds
of the people who are actually in control of the study.

Second-opinion best,

Otis

Dear Judy,

Subject:  Writing letters suggesting CHANGE.


Re: Dealing with a totally CLOSED MIND.

Don Rehm has written such letters.

They all wind up in the waste basket.

Our own converstations are a good
indication of the "closed mind"
about prevention on the threshold.

But an HONEST review would examine -- honestly -- Dr.
Bates 1913 study, Dr. Young's multiple studies
suggesting that prevention would be possible
for the intelligent, MOTIVATED person who
is not yet wearing an over-prescribed
minus ALL THE TIME.

I realize that you believe you have
NO RESPONSIBILITY for any of these issues -- and
maybe you are right.

But if we are ever to have a TRUE preventive
study, then I think the person (on the
threshold) must address them -- even as
these "pub-med" reviews ALWAYS
MISS THIS POINT.

Just my scientific second-opinion,

Best,

Otis




--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Judy,
> >
>
> > Otis> Good, then I suggest that Dr. Colgate had a valid
> > second-opinion, that plus-prevention would be WISE
> > FOR THE PERSON WHO HAD THE MOTIVATION TO DO IT
> > CORRECTLY AND SUCCESSFULLY.
> >
>
> >
> > Otis> But that other medical people (Dr. Prentice,
> > Dr. Liberman, Dr. Raphaelson, Dr. Francis
> > Young are -- and their PREVENTIVE
> > judgment is not accurately represented.
>
> Your original post (and my comment in reply) was the question of why
> "plus prevention" was not mentioned in a 2006 review of myopia
treatment.
>
> As I pointed out, reference was made to undercorrection, bifocal and
> progressive studies which I would consider to be the use of plus.
>
> The review was limited to studies published in the past two decades
in
> journals with citations in PubMed.  The authors stated that
limitation
> in their discussion of study design.  I can only presume that the
> reason the review did not mention Bates, Colgate, Prentice,
Liberman,
> Ralphaelson and Young is that those people did not publish any
studies
> in those journals in that time frame.
>
> If you think that the study design was flawed, I suggest you write a
> letter to the editor of the journal in which it was published.  That
> will have more effect than complaining to me about it.
>
> Judy
>
>
>
> >
> > Scientific second-opinion best,
> >
> > Otis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown"
<otisbrown@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Judy,
> > > >
> > > > Answer me this -- are other optometrist
> > > > your peers?
> > >
> > > yes
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Do they ALL AGREE WITH YOU -- WITH NO EXCEPTIONS?
> > >
> > > Of course not.  What a silly comment. Many things in both
clinical
> > > practice and science are not fully understood and there may
well be
> > > two valid approaches to a problem.
> > >
> > > Of what relevance is this question?
> > >
> > > Peer review, as in peer reviewed journal, does not imply that
there
> > > is 100% agreement, in fact, peer review is not about agreement
at
> > > all. What is does mean is that a study has been reviewed by a
panel
> > > of researchers in the same field who have determined that the
study
> > > design has no major flaws, the right stats were run and known
> > > factors are accounted for.  It is "insurance" that the study is
> > > valid.
> > > Judy
> > >
> >
>

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

> Otis> Good, then I suggest that Dr. Colgate had a valid
> second-opinion, that plus-prevention would be WISE
> FOR THE PERSON WHO HAD THE MOTIVATION TO DO IT
> CORRECTLY AND SUCCESSFULLY.
>

>
> Otis> But that other medical people (Dr. Prentice,
> Dr. Liberman, Dr. Raphaelson, Dr. Francis
> Young are -- and their PREVENTIVE
> judgment is not accurately represented.

Your original post (and my comment in reply) was the question of why
"plus prevention" was not mentioned in a 2006 review of myopia treatment.

As I pointed out, reference was made to undercorrection, bifocal and
progressive studies which I would consider to be the use of plus.

The review was limited to studies published in the past two decades in
journals with citations in PubMed.  The authors stated that limitation
in their discussion of study design.  I can only presume that the
reason the review did not mention Bates, Colgate, Prentice, Liberman,
Ralphaelson and Young is that those people did not publish any studies
in those journals in that time frame.

If you think that the study design was flawed, I suggest you write a
letter to the editor of the journal in which it was published.  That
will have more effect than complaining to me about it.

Judy



>
> Scientific second-opinion best,
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Judy,
> > >
> > > Answer me this -- are other optometrist
> > > your peers?
> >
> > yes
> >
> > >
> > > Do they ALL AGREE WITH YOU -- WITH NO EXCEPTIONS?
> >
> > Of course not.  What a silly comment. Many things in both clinical
> > practice and science are not fully understood and there may well be
> > two valid approaches to a problem.
> >
> > Of what relevance is this question?
> >
> > Peer review, as in peer reviewed journal, does not imply that there
> > is 100% agreement, in fact, peer review is not about agreement at
> > all. What is does mean is that a study has been reviewed by a panel
> > of researchers in the same field who have determined that the study
> > design has no major flaws, the right stats were run and known
> > factors are accounted for.  It is "insurance" that the study is
> > valid.
> > Judy
> >
>

Dear Judy,

While you may love the effect of a minus lens on
the person, the second-opinion is that it is
a seriously flawed idea and concept.

Since you don't believe me when I tell you this,
here is the proof -- that Dr. Rasmussen PRESCRIBES
as plus (in good faith) and achieved good
results from doing so.

http://www.i-see.org/plus_therapy/Rasmussen.pdf


It is necessary that all professionals inform the
general public of this issue of "contractory"
opinions about the dynamic behavior of the
eye -- and encourage the parent to EDUCATE
himself about the viable preventive method.

Just my scientific second-opinion,

Otis

Dear Judy,

Subject: When highly qualifed professionals (even in your
"field" DISAGREE with you about natural eye's behavior -- that
IS BY DEFINITION, THE SECOND-OPINION.

Re: About plus-prevention, and disagreement about it.

Re: When equally qualified people disagree, for example
Dr. Bates an his insistance on prevention, as
per his 1913 study and successful results.


Judy> Of course not. What a silly comment. Many things in both
clinical
practice and science are not fully understood and there may well be
two valid approaches to a problem.

Otis> Good, then I suggest that Dr. Colgate had a valid
second-opinion, that plus-prevention would be WISE
FOR THE PERSON WHO HAD THE MOTIVATION TO DO IT
CORRECTLY AND SUCCESSFULLY.

Otis> I do agree that it takes a scientist to
do that -- and he is no in your "peer group",
since you are not a scientist.

Judy>  Of what relevance is this question?

Otis> That scientist are not in your peer-group.

Otis> But that other medical people (Dr. Prentice,
Dr. Liberman, Dr. Raphaelson, Dr. Francis
Young are -- and their PREVENTIVE
judgment is not accurately represented.

Scientific second-opinion best,

Otis






--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Judy,
> >
> > Answer me this -- are other optometrist
> > your peers?
>
> yes
>
> >
> > Do they ALL AGREE WITH YOU -- WITH NO EXCEPTIONS?
>
> Of course not.  What a silly comment. Many things in both clinical
> practice and science are not fully understood and there may well be
> two valid approaches to a problem.
>
> Of what relevance is this question?
>
> Peer review, as in peer reviewed journal, does not imply that there
> is 100% agreement, in fact, peer review is not about agreement at
> all. What is does mean is that a study has been reviewed by a panel
> of researchers in the same field who have determined that the study
> design has no major flaws, the right stats were run and known
> factors are accounted for.  It is "insurance" that the study is
> valid.
> Judy
>

Here is the "standard" idea that you do NOTHING
FOR PREVENTION.

There are 200+ references.


http://www.aoa.org/documents/CPG-15.pdf

The second-opinion, about plus-prevention is that
you do the preventive work under your OWN CONTROL.

Thus you are not a "patient" at all, and have
the wisdom to understand your own responsibility
TO YOURSELF -- CLEARLY.

Enjoy,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> Answer me this -- are other optometrist
> your peers?

yes

>
> Do they ALL AGREE WITH YOU -- WITH NO EXCEPTIONS?

Of course not.  What a silly comment. Many things in both clinical
practice and science are not fully understood and there may well be
two valid approaches to a problem.

Of what relevance is this question?

Peer review, as in peer reviewed journal, does not imply that there
is 100% agreement, in fact, peer review is not about agreement at
all. What is does mean is that a study has been reviewed by a panel
of researchers in the same field who have determined that the study
design has no major flaws, the right stats were run and known
factors are accounted for.  It is "insurance" that the study is
valid.
Judy

Dear Judy,

Answer me this -- are other optometrist
your peers?

Do they ALL AGREE WITH YOU -- WITH NO EXCEPTIONS?



Best,

Otis




--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Judy,
> >
> > It is absolutly BLIND both in science and
> > engineering to DENY objective facts and
> > a contrary opinion and wise judgment.
> >
> > Why not publish these reference in such
> > a publication?
> >
> > http://www.myopia.org/
> >
> > http://www.chinamyopia.org/
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/AboutUs.txt
> >
> > http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/
> >
> > Why not??
>
> They are not peer reviewed journals.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Judy,
>
> It is absolutly BLIND both in science and
> engineering to DENY objective facts and
> a contrary opinion and wise judgment.
>
> Why not publish these reference in such
> a publication?
>
> http://www.myopia.org/
>
> http://www.chinamyopia.org/
>
> http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/AboutUs.txt
>
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/
>
> Why not??

They are not peer reviewed journals.

Judy

Judy,

It is absolutly BLIND both in science and
engineering to DENY objective facts and
a contrary opinion and wise judgment.

Why not publish these reference in such
a publication?

http://www.myopia.org/

http://www.chinamyopia.org/

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/AboutUs.txt

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/

Why not??

Best,

Otis

Dear Judy,

Subject: Ignoring ALL SCIENCE AND DATA.

Re:  Science does not "cut off" prior to 1987


"A Medline search using PubMed was conducted to
identify relevant articles published in the last 20 years"

That is not science.  That is self-imposed intellectual
blindness.

Judy -- that is a profound ommission.

Just my second-opinion.

They wipe off the scientific table:

1.  Dr. Bates 1913 study.

2.  ALL OF DR. FRANCIS YOUNG'S EXCELLENT WORK.

What is the "rationale" for this cut-off.

They  do not explain.

Perhaps you can?

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Judy,
> >
> > Yes, I did read the article.
> >
> > I deeply regret that it is profoundly isolated
> > from fundamental science, and does NOT
> > ALLOW FOR ANY 'CHECK' 'BALLANCE' OR
> > COUNTER-OPINION.
>
> I don't understand this comment.  The article was a review of all
> published studies on myopia prevention.  How is that "isolated from
> science".  And if it looked at all studies, how can you say there
is
> no balance?  Do you expect them to look at unpublished studies?
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> Yes, I did read the article.
>
> I deeply regret that it is profoundly isolated
> from fundamental science, and does NOT
> ALLOW FOR ANY 'CHECK' 'BALLANCE' OR
> COUNTER-OPINION.

I don't understand this comment.  The article was a review of all
published studies on myopia prevention.  How is that "isolated from
science".  And if it looked at all studies, how can you say there is
no balance?  Do you expect them to look at unpublished studies?

Judy

Subject: A proposed study -- that makes NO optical
or scientific sense.

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

Randomised Clinical Trial of Myopia Prevention Using +3D Lenses (PLS)

This study is not yet open for participant recruitment.
Verified by Sun Yat-sen University, February 2008

Sponsors and Collaborators:  Sun Yat-sen University
Australian National University

Information provided by:  Sun Yat-sen University
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:  NCT00627874

Purpose

To assess whether a short-term imposed myopic defocus is effective in
preventing the development and progression of juvenile-onset myopia
in Chinese children.



Condition  Intervention

Myopia

  Device: +3D Lenses



U.S. FDA Resources

Study Type:   Interventional
Study Design:   Prevention, Randomized, Open Label, Uncontrolled,
Parallel Assignment, Safety/Efficacy Study

Official Title:   A Randomised, Controlled Trial of Prevention of
Juvenile-Onset Myopia in Chinese Children


Further study details as provided by Sun Yat-sen University:


Primary Outcome Measures:
Axial Length of eyes
[ Time Frame: Annual ]
[ Designated as safety issue: No ]



Secondary Outcome Measures:

Autorefraction
[ Time Frame: Annual ]
[ Designated as safety issue: No ]


Estimated Enrollment:   1200
Study Start Date:   April 2008
Estimated Study Completion Date:   April 2010
Estimated Primary Completion Date:   April 2010 (Final data
collection date for primary outcome measure)


Arms  Assigned Interventions

1: Experimental

wear +3D glasses for 30 minutes per day and engage in activities
which require vision at more than 1m

Device: +3D Lenses

wear +3D glasses for 30 minutes per day and engage in activities
which require vision at more than 1m

2: No Intervention


Detailed Description:

To determine if +3D lenses wearing for half an hour everyday prevents
the development and progression of myopia in school children.

To identify ocular parameters and risk factors at baseline associated
with development and progression of myopia.

   Eligibility

Genders Eligible for Study:    Both

Accepts Healthy Volunteers:    No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

All children in the selected class are enrolled

Exclusion Criteria:

Hyperopia > +2.0 D
High myopia > -6.0 D
Astigmatism> 1.5 D
Anisometropia > 1.5 D

Strabismus and amblyopia
Any ocular, systemic, or neurodevelopmental conditions that could
influence refractive development
Chronic medication use that might affect myopia progression or visual
acuity

Already receiving other treatment for progressing myopia
   Contacts and Locations


Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:
NCT00627874

Sponsors and Collaborators


Sun Yat-sen University

Australian National University


Investigators


Study Director:      Mingguang He, PhD, MD

Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center

   More Information


Responsible Party:    Zhongshan Ophthalmic Center, ZOC ( Mingguang
He )

Study ID Numbers:    PLS2008

First Received:    February 20, 2008

Last Updated:    February 24, 2008

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:    NCT00627874

Health Authority:    China: Ethics Committee


Study placed in the following topic categories:

Eye Diseases
Myopia
Refractive Errors



ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on October 03, 2008


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


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...>
wrote:
>
> What's this?
>
> http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00627874?cond=%22Myopia%
> 22&rank=23
>
> Myopia control by wearing +3 when NOT reading??
>
> Makes no optical or scientific sense at all!
>
> Otis
>

PrevEntr.txt

Dear Friends,

Subject:  Don has the courage to challenge the
           majority-opinion system.

RE:  Engineering review of "The International Myopia
Prevention Association has questioned the use of prescription
lenses in children.  Is it misguided thinking?


      Here is a detailed response.

      I have "suggested" a preventive effort at a four year college
-- with

      PILOTS who have both the "smarts" and MOTIVATION to make
prevention

      work along the lines of Frank Young's successful study.  The
only difference?

      These pilots would understand the science and engineering
behind true-prevention.

      My commentary:

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

      Childhood Myopia: No Clear Choice for Clear Vision

      By Kim M. Norton

      For The Record

      Vol.  17 No.  10 P.  38

Kim> Comment:  The International Myopia Prevention Association has
      questioned the use of prescription lenses in children.  Is it
      misguided thinking?


Otis> Why not allow Don and other engineer-scientists to spell out
      their concerns?

Kim> There is growing controversy in the ophthalmic community
      about the correct course of action for treating myopia or
      nearsightedness when a child presents with blurry vision,
      headaches, and squinting. Although it is considered the
      standard of care, some say a prescription for a minus lens
      may not be the best approach to childhood myopia.

Otis> Any "work" assumes that the person himself has BOTH the
      education and motivation to:  1.  Reject the minus (when at
      20/50) and 2.  Use the plus under their (scientific control).
      That "act" would remove the subject from the field of
      medicine.

Kim> Some experts say myopia is the result of an inherited
      multigene that predetermines whether a child will be myopic
      and the severity of the myopia.  Opponents of prescription
      lenses say myopia is not inherited; rather, it is caused by
      outside factors resulting in the overaccommodation of the
      ciliary muscles, which renders the child myopic.

Otis> I said NONE OF THESE THINGS.  I think that if you are "for"
      prevention -- you need to understand science (and the intense
      bias against even the START of a true prevention study.

Kim> Currently, the standard of care for a pediatric myopic
      patient is to prescribe a minus lens to help the child see
      more clearly.  A minus lens helps focus rays of light further
      into the myopic eye so a clear image will be displayed on the
      retina.  When a person is myopic, the eyeball is slightly
      longer than normal, which makes distant objects appear
      blurry.

Otis> Serious miss-conception about the proven behavior of the
      natural eye -- in the first place.

Kim> Prescription eyeglasses help make distance vision clearer,
      but only while the lenses are worn.  The ophthalmic community
      is absolute in its position that there is no cure for myopia;

Otis> Not quite true.  Learn to understand Bates, Young and others
      who profoundly OBJECT to that FIRST minus -- and why.


Kim> however, refractive options are able to correct distance
      vision.

Otis> No doubt.  But you jumped past the first step.

Kim> These options include prescription lenses, contact lenses,
      orthokeratology, and refractive surgery.

Otis> Now the office-bias begins.

Kim> Because many parents are now conducting their own
      Internet-based research and trying to educate themselves
      about medical conditions,

Otis> A negative refractive STATE of -1 diopter (20/50) is NOT A
      MEDICAL CONDITION.  Grow up!

Kim> they may find numerous options available for the treatment of
      their child's myopia.  In addition to refractive surgery and
      designer frames, there are exercises for strengthening the
      eye.  Other, more controversial methods include pinhole
      lenses that claim to provide clearer vision and products such
      as the Myopter, which claims to retard myopia completely.

Otis> Why not mention Young's study that strongly suggests the use
      of a pure-plus for true prevention.  Did I hear some minds
      slam shut?

Kim> With so many options available to parents of school-aged
      children, the age when myopia progresses the fastest, it is
      easy for parents to become overwhelmed by choices.  Donald S.
      Rehm, scientist, researcher, founder of the International
      Myopia Prevention Association (IMPA), and author of The
      Myopia Myth:  The Truth About Nearsightedness and How to
      Prevent It, claims that the ophthalmic community is being
      dishonest with the general public and doing irreparable harm
      to young children's eyes by prescribing minus lenses for
      myopia.


Otis> Kudos for Don!  They are not allowing REASONED publications
      that argue for a preventive effort at a four year college.

Kim> "There is no reason for any child to need minus prescription
      lenses for acquired myopia," Rehm states.  According to Rehm,
      genetics have nothing to do with myopia unless the child is
      born with the birth defect of congenital myopia, which he
      says must be treated with minus lenses for the child to
      overcome the birth defect.

As it appears, there are some discrepancies between the ophthalmic
      community and the IMPA.

Otis> Yes indeed!

Kim> Research has demonstrated that if one parent is myopic, there
      is a 15% chance that the child will be myopic.  If both
      parents are myopic, the chance of inheriting the genetic
      influence jumps to 60%.  According to the National Eye
      Institute (NEI), 25% of all Americans have myopia.


Otis> They IGNORE pictures of kids reading with their NOSE ON THE
      BOOK.  Why not mention that sad truth??

Kim> Rehm, who disagrees with these findings, believes all myopia
      is induced by eye strain through close reading and work, and
      can be avoided.

Otis> The second-opinion about the proven dynamic and natural eye.

Kim> Nature vs.  Nurture "Myopia is determined by a multigene
      genetic influence that determines a child's prescription,"
      says Philip Calenda, MD, PC, FAAO, medical and surgical
      director of the Westchester Vision Center in Scarsdale, N.Y.


Otis> So much confused bull.


Kim> "It is certainly not environmental."


Otis> The classic blindness of the majority-opinion.


Kim> Myopia cannot be cured but it can be treated with
      prescription lenses, he adds.


Otis> Leaps to his preferred blind conclusion.

Kim> Geoffrey W.  Goodfellow, OD, FAAO, chief of pediatrics at the
      Illinois Eye Institute in Chicago, represents another point
      of view.  He believes myopia is a combination of both
      hereditary and environmental factors.  "Hereditary genes have
      a definite impact but at around third or fourth grade,
      environmental factors become an issue because this is when
      there is a peak in the child's prescription.  Around the age
      of 19 to 21 is when the prescription begins to level off," he
      says.

Kim> With the child's eye changing throughout adolescence, the
      prescription is bound to change, Calenda says.  Because he
      believes a child's myopia is predetermined, prescription
      lenses are designed to match the prescription of the child's
      eye to aid him or her to see clearly.  Calenda agrees with
      the concept that there is no cure for myopia, rather there
      are ways to improve the situation.

Kim> Goodfellow also advises parents to take careful consideration
      of the eye exam.  Often, when a child is examined for suspect
      myopia, it is the child's tendency to overfocus, according to
      Goodfellow.  "By overfocusing, the child induces myopia that
      is not really there and the prescription for nonexistent
      myopia can perpetuate the decline in the child's vision," he
      says.


Otis> They NEVER check the child's reading habits -- of reading at
      4 inches (-10 dopters).  Why is that difficult?

Kim> To ensure that an accurate assessment of the eye is taken,
      Goodfellow recommends the dilation of the eye using
      cycloplegic drops such as Tropicamide 1.0% to paralyze the
      internal focusing system or accommodation to allow the true
      prescription to be assessed.

Kim> "If no myopia is present, the child may be suffering from
      overfocusing, which can be corrected with vision therapy or
      eye coordination exercises," Goodfellow says.  Often, vision
      therapy can eliminate the problem and the child will see
      clearly as a result, he adds.

Kim> "Any studies showing that [myopia] is environmental have
      quickly been disproved," Calenda argues.  Although myopia is
      a genetic condition, he says the best way to treat these
      patients is to evaluate the child's eyes to make sure they
      are fitted with the appropriate prescription lenses that will
      help them see more clearly.

Kim> Can Glasses Worsen the Prognosis?

Otis> You bet. Look at science (the blue-tint model).


Kim> "Myopia does not worsen with eyeglasses.  The eye will reach
      its predetermined prescription and glasses are designed to
      meet that number," Calenda explains.

Otis> Intellectual blindness.

Kim> Although other treatments are available for older children,
      glasses are still the standard of care, he adds.

Otis> The minus lens is very easy -- no doubt.

Kim> Goodfellow agrees that prescription eyeglasses are the
      prevailing treatment but says it is imperative that the
      appropriate prescription is prescribed or the child's myopia
      could worsen rather than stabilize.

Otis> What is the "appropriate prescription".

Kim> In addition to eyeglasses, Goodfellow also advocates the use
      of contact lenses in children or even infants.

Otis> Contacts for infants.  Has this guy slipped off the "deep
      end"?


Kim> "Contact lenses can help normal vision develop in infants
      that have severe vision problems," he says.  Contact lenses
      should be viewed as a medical device in these patients,
      Goodfellow adds.

Kim> The IMPA and Rehm are in direct disagreement with Calenda and
      Goodfellow.


Otis> No kidding!

In his book and on his Web site, Rehm states that prescription
      lenses worsen the child's eye.  In his opinion, store-bought
      reading glasses (up to +3 D) would be a better option because
      the reading glasses would "eliminate accommodation at a
      normal reading distance."

Otis> I would say -- Keep the eye "in the distance" -- same as
      Eskimos with excellent vision.

Kim> Calenda argues this notion, stating, "Reading glasses are
      prescription glasses, saying otherwise is unfounded."

Otis> Then why are they sold in stores WITH NO PRESCRIPTION??????

Kim> The pediatric myopic patient already has too much plus power
      in his or her eye and adding more will only make his or her
      vision more blurry.

Otis> We are not talking about kids here.

Kim> "Plus lenses will not correct or eliminate myopia, but if
      they are used in the long term they could damage the young
      eye beyond repair," Calenda says.

Otis> Incredible lie.  See the blue-tint model for the proven
      effect of a -3 diopter lens on the eye's refractive STATE.
      This man is a professional bone-head, and anti-science to the
      core.


Kim> "If used for a great length of time, reading glasses could
      instigate amblyopia, which left undetected until the age of
      12, the child could suffer permanent damage to the eye."


Otis> Wow!  The lies continue, and expand.

Rehm disagrees.  He believes that if a child uses reading glasses
      and holds the reading material at a distance of 15 inches,
      the child will see clearly.  "The material should be just
      blurry but still clear," he says.

Otis> This MUST be started before that first minus.  Otherwise the
      "cause" is indeed lost.  Rehm fails to state that you MUST
      PRY THE CHILD'S NOSE OFF THE BOOK.  Funny no one addresses
      THAT ISSUE.

Kim> The biggest concern Rehm has with the ophthalmic community is
      the lack of direction given to children who are prescribed
      minus lenses.  "The eye doctors do not tell them to take off
      their glasses for close work, they just fit them with lenses
      and send them out," he explains.

Otis> True prevention would require more that "spinning" dials on
      a Phropter (trial-lens kit).  It would require a parent who
      accepts a true education on the process of prevention.

Kim> "The public deserves the truth," Rehm continues.  "Eye
      doctors would better serve the public if they did not waste
      people's money by giving children glasses they do not need.
      Instead, these doctors should go into the schools and provide
      eye exams there, which would defray the loss of revenue from
      prescribing unnecessary glasses."

Kim> According to the Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial,
      conducted by the NEI from September 1998 to September 1999,
      progressive addition lenses (reading glasses) slowed the
      progression of myopia in the study group when compared with
      single vision lenses within the first year of the trial.

Otis> And the Oakley-Young study showed that the PLUS stopped
      entry.  But it is ignored.

Kim> Although there was some difference between the two groups,
      the NEI states that "the small magnitude of effect does not
      warrant a change in clinical practice."

Otis> Plus-prevention IS NOT CLINICAL PRACTICE.  It is a matter of
      a wise person learning how to do it correctly for himself --
      and his children.

Kim> Reading glasses will make the myopic child's vision blurrier
      and these glasses "will prevent normal development of the
      eye," Calenda says.

Otis> Majority-opinion bull

Kim> Rehm and the IMPA submitted a petition to the FDA in March
      requiring that eye doctors issue written warnings to the
      parents of pediatric myopic patients.  The warning would
      advise parents that distance lenses worsen myopia in children
      and that the prescribing of reading glasses for excessive
      close work may reduce or prevent myopia.

Otis> Look at the blue-tint model.  That is accurate science.  Or,
      at the VERY MINIMUM it supports the concept of
      true-prevention at the threshold.

Kim> Other Treatment Options Besides prescription lenses, there
      are alternatives for older children who choose not to wear
      their glasses or cannot wear them.  Contact lenses are one
      solution for older children and LASIK or refractive surgery
      may be another option, Calenda says.

Kim> However, LASIK should be considered a last resort in vision
      correction, according to both Calenda and Goodfellow.  The
      eye is continuing to change and altering the surface of the
      cornea with ablation is not always the best course of action.
      Although not a first-line treatment, surgeons have seen good
      outcomes with LASIK in this patient population, Calenda says.

Kim> Another alternative to contact lenses are the Paragon CRT
      (Corneal Refractive Therapy) contact lenses.  The Paragon
      lenses are intended for children over the age of 10 who are
      active during the day and believe their glasses inhibit their
      regular activities.

Kim> The Paragon lenses work by temporarily reshaping the cornea
      while the child sleeps.  "The lenses significantly improve
      vision during the day, but if the child does not wear the
      lenses overnight, the effect will cease.  So these are not a
      cure," Calenda explains.  The lenses can be used in
      prescriptions up to -6 D and with astigmatism up to 1.5 D.

Kim> Goodfellow also recommends orthokeratology, or the use of
      rigid contact lenses at night in children as well as adults
      who would like freedom from their glasses during the day.
      However, Goodfellow explains that children are more likely to
      see better results than adults with orthokeratology.

Kim> Other Products Various Web sites also discuss pinhole glasses
      as an option for myopia correction.  Pinhole glasses are
      designed to focus light rays directly onto the retina without
      being bent.  While the person is wearing these lenses, he or
      she will have clearer vision but there will be no peripheral
      vision because of the design of the glasses.

Kim> The lenses reduce the blur associated with myopia by
      distorting the light coming into the eye. Pinhole glasses
      also reduce the amount of accommodation the eye must use so
      the person can see much more clearly.

Kim> However, the glasses are not designed for persons with myopia
      greater than -6 D, according to the IMPA. The IMPA advises
      that stronger efforts be undertaken in these cases, although
      no specific measures are stated.

Kim> "Pinhole lenses can damage the peripheral vision of the child
      and if used excessively can stop the child's eye from
      developing normally," Calenda explains.  Although the child
      may see an improvement to 20/30 or 20/25, the peripheral
      vision can be damaged by promoting more rays of light to
      project directly onto the retina rather than the small
      percentage that do naturally, he adds.

Kim> According to a March 16, 1994, press release from the Federal
      Trade Commission, "The use of pinhole glasses does not result
      in long-term improvement in nearsightedness, farsightedness,
      or astigmatism." Additionally, it was stated that pinhole
      glasses do not cure, correct, or improve any of these
      ailments. Furthermore, "pinhole glasses are not a
      replacement for prescription lenses and there is no
      scientific research to back up the claims made by persons or
      organizations selling these glasses as a replacement for
      prescription lenses."

Kim> Another product available exclusively from the IMPA is the
      Myopter.  The Myopter, patented in 1972, works by the same
      principle as reading glasses but with the use of binocular
      lenses, according to the Web site.  The Myopter is better for
      close reading and work than reading glasses, the IMPA states.

Kim> Ideally, the child should use pinhole glasses during the day
      and the Myopter at home to eliminate myopia entirely,
      according to the IMPA.  "No child ever needs minus lenses,"
      Rehm says.

Kim> The Myopter is only available through the IMPA Web site
      because, according to Rehm, "the optometric society doesn't
      want to touch this.  I cannot find any distributors for it
      because the eye doctors want the Myopter to be suppressed."

Kim> The FDA has not approved either pinhole lenses or the
      Myopter.  "These items were put on the market before the FDA
      began regulating medical devices," Rehm explains.

Kim> Future Treatment Options Another treatment option that may be
      on the horizon for pediatric myopic patients is the
      ophthalmic gel Pirenzepine 2%.

Kim> In a recent one-year, double-masked, placebo-controlled
      parallel study of patients aged 8 to 12, the researchers
      found that Pirenzepine is an effective and relatively safe
      treatment plan for slowing the progression of myopia.

Kim> Pirenzepine retards the progression of myopia by reducing the
      development of deprivation-induced myopia and axial
      elongation, according to animal studies.

Kim> Goodfellow says that although pharmacological items are not
      yet the standard of care for treating myopia, they have the
      potential to be a good treatment modality once proven safe
      and effective.

- Kim M.  Norton is a freelance writer/journalist.

Resources

Correction of Myopia Evaluation Trial. Conducted by the NEI:
      September 1998 to September 1999.

Federal Trade Commission www.ftc.gov

International Myopia Prevention Association www.myopia.org

National Eye Institute www.nei.nih.gov

Siatkowski RM, Cotter S, Miller JM, et al for the US Pirenzepine
      Study Group.  Arch Ophthal.  2004;122:1667-1674.



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

      There is no question but that true-prevention is possible.

      It just can not be "reduced" to a magic "pill" in five
minutes.

      The insightful, and MOTIVATED PERSON will have to do it
himself.  It is obvious that they will get no support from the
above.

      You must make a choice before that first minus.


      Best,

      Otis

Dear Judy,

Yes, I did read the article.

I deeply regret that it is profoundly isolated
from fundamental science, and does NOT
ALLOW FOR ANY 'CHECK' 'BALLANCE' OR
COUNTER-OPINION.

I will post my remarks.

Second-opinion Best,

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Funny, they mention "prevention" but then say
> > nothing about how to do it SEPARATELY from
> > their "office routine".
>
> Did you actually read the full text of the link?  If so, I don't
> understand your comment.  The review was done by a workgroup of eye
> researchers, public health researchers, Ministry of Health staff and
> clerical support staff.  What "office routine" would they have?
>
> The report lists a number of commercial programs and devices
including
> Bates exercises, pinhole specs, and supplements all used outside of
> professional offices
>
> > http://www.annals.edu.sg/PDF/36VolNo10SupplOct2007/V36N10%28S1%
> > 29pS65.pdf
> >
> > Further THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE PLUS LENS -- UNDER
> > "tools" and costs.
> > They are totally isolated in their offices -- and
> > "see" only what they WANT to see.
>
> The review was a review of the published literature and
> bifocal/progressive/undercorrection are mentioned.  Has the use of
the
> plus lens been published?  If not, then that is why it was not
mentioned.
>
> Judy
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Funny, they mention "prevention" but then say
> nothing about how to do it SEPARATELY from
> their "office routine".

Did you actually read the full text of the link?  If so, I don't
understand your comment.  The review was done by a workgroup of eye
researchers, public health researchers, Ministry of Health staff and
clerical support staff.  What "office routine" would they have?

The report lists a number of commercial programs and devices including
Bates exercises, pinhole specs, and supplements all used outside of
professional offices

> http://www.annals.edu.sg/PDF/36VolNo10SupplOct2007/V36N10%28S1%
> 29pS65.pdf
>
> Further THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE PLUS LENS -- UNDER
> "tools" and costs.
> They are totally isolated in their offices -- and
> "see" only what they WANT to see.

The review was a review of the published literature and
bifocal/progressive/undercorrection are mentioned.  Has the use of the
plus lens been published?  If not, then that is why it was not mentioned.

Judy

Subject:  Office Myopia (the lack of ability to
preceive ANYTHING other than your "office function".

Re:  Intellectual blindness towards all science and
objective FACTS -- where you don't like the implication
of those facts.

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

Myopia as metaphor

The terms myopia and myopic have also been used metaphorically to
refer to cognitive thinking and decision making that is narrow
sighted or lacking in concern for long-term consequence.

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

And indeed, with rare exceptions, a man in his
office, over-prescribing a strong minus lens
willy-nilly, is lacking in any concern
for the long-term consequences of his actions.

But here is the article for your enjoyment:

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

http://myopia.eu/

Let the intellectual blindness continue.

We will all pay the "price" of it.

Otis

Funny, they mention "prevention" but then say
nothing about how to do it SEPARATELY from
their "office routine".



http://www.annals.edu.sg/PDF/36VolNo10SupplOct2007/V36N10%28S1%
29pS65.pdf

Further THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE PLUS LENS -- UNDER
"tools" and costs.


They are totally isolated in their offices -- and
"see" only what they WANT to see.

Tragic!

Second-opinion best,

otis

Subject:  It would be far better if you read
your own Snellen.

Re: And further, had your own low-cost trial
lens kit.

Here is the description by an OD.



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


The medical part is always OK.

Over-prescribing a -2 diopter lens for 20/40
Snellen -- guarantees stair-case myopia
to follow.

Enjoy,

Otis

Subject:  A negative refractive STATE of the eye
is "life threatening"?



"There is a problem here with asking people to self-diagnose," says
Dr. Robertson. "My eyes may be tired because I am tired from
overwork; I may have a headache due to muscle tension or high blood
pressure; I may be skipping lines while reading because one eye is
higher than the other; I may be reading slowly because of dyslexia.
It is very important that people with symptoms have a proper
diagnosis to make sure those symptoms are not caused by a vision
threatening, life threatening or otherwise treatable condition."


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

This issue is a matter of taking the proven dynamic
behavior of the natural eye -- with refractive
STATES -- and calling them "errors" in EVERY CASE.

Yes, AFTER a child induces a negative refractive
STATE or perhaps -3/4 to -1 diopters (about
20/40 to 20/60) THEN, a simple minus is
VERY IMPRESSIVE.

But it is also a seriously compromised concept.

Further, the proof that the fundamental eye is
dynamic (see blue tint model) is correct, and
the parent should go back and LOOK at the
child's habit of putting his NOSE ON THE BOOK
when reading.

But no OD (since Raphaelson) even ASKS THAT
QUESTION.

It is about time we ask WHY no one asks
the right questions.

Enjoy,

Otis

Dr. Liberman is a professional expert.

He is BOTH and optometrist and a Ph.D.

I never use the word "cure", "therapy", and
ANY MEDICAL TERM.

Here is part of the reason.


http://www.bretoncom.com/vision/2005/09/08.asp

But let us be clear.  I say:

1.  Read your Snellen.

2.  Always START the plus-preventive method
BEFORE THE MINUS.

3.  Always have a MEDICAL exam -- before you
start this PREVENTIVE EFFORT.

4.  Pay attention to science and facts (as established
by Dr. Francis Young, and many others) about the
subject of avoiding entry into a negative refractive STATE.

So read the critique -- and enjoy,

Otis

I can SEE!

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MIEBlkPc1Us&feature=related

There is more to science than that.


Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Pawel,

Part of my interest was to VERIFY claims of this
nature.

When they say "cure" -- I must say I doubt it.

I believe in clearing your Snellen at the
lowest possible cost to you.

Obviously $800 is not a low cost.

Just my opinion,

Otis

===========

Comments
By UteCityGuy at 4:58 PM ON 11/30/07

As an ophthalmic surgeon I am MOST interested in this device and
wonder if, in treating a patient, one treatment would siffice, or are
follow-up secondary treatments required?? I'd like MUCH more
information, please. Thanks DJS

By blahman at 1:55 PM ON 12/02/07

I really doubt this works. So basically, if I assumed that this did
work, then it would be altering the shape of your lenses and making
it more pliable in order to focus the light better. This doesn't seem
to account of a lot of things such as spherical imperfections and
such.

By Been Jammin' at 12:23 PM ON 12/11/07

I'm nearsighted and understand this runs an average of $1,500.00 an
eye so come on with the assurances, the proof.

By nearsigner at 5:08 AM ON 01/14/08

any proofs ?

By MALI at 2:46 AM ON 08/05/08

I FROM ISRAEL, AND I WANT TO TRY THE Eye Power device , HOW CAN I DO
IT ?
TANKS



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "cwalinskidawg"
<cwalinskidawg@...> wrote:
>
> hello guys,
>
> I recently stumbled upon "EYE POWER" a device that costs $800, but
is
> suppose to fix myopia to 20/20. Sounds too good to be true, anyone
hear
> of it or use it? I can't read the website its in japanese, anyone
speak
> japanese here? please check the links below:
>
> http://dvice.com/archives/2007/11/eye_power_device_boasts_pointa.php
>
> http://www.gadgets-
weblog.com/50226711/forget_lasik_get_eye_power.php
>
>
> thanks,
> pawel
>

hello guys,

I recently stumbled upon "EYE POWER" a device that costs $800, but is
suppose to fix myopia to 20/20. Sounds too good to be true, anyone hear
of it or use it? I can't read the website its in japanese, anyone speak
japanese here? please check the links below:

http://dvice.com/archives/2007/11/eye_power_device_boasts_pointa.php

http://www.gadgets-weblog.com/50226711/forget_lasik_get_eye_power.php


thanks,
pawel

As always, Enjoy,

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=FsJmHh1lxdY&feature=related

Otis

Good presentation.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7hiB7LgBwqM&feature=related


Otis

Suny Song.

Many a truth is said in jest.


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Wntx5Y29e0k&feature=related

Enjoy the humor.

Otis

Dear Friends,


Subject: Intellectual analysis -- and a desire to help.


While we all have our "differences" about
the issue of prevention -- because
it depends on the person himself -- I have
no doubt about the good heart of this
organization.



http://www.infocusonline.org/pr_2003_Eyecareforallwhocare.html


In fact I make donations to the organization.

Let us keep the issue of scientific-prevention separate
from our universal desire to help others.

Thanks,

Otis

Here is the definition:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HDwAUQpa0m8&feature=related

Enjoy,

Otis

Here is the eye exam:


http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lYAj2J5I1vI

Enjoy,

Otis