Dear Friends,

Subject: If you ask me to do somthing (for my own benifit) -- I ask why?

Re: If it forces me to study and answer my own question -- the perhaps that is
the better way.

Here is Lisa's commentary on Bates:




RE: Bates Method defined, take three


Lisa>  What I find myself wondering is why try to define the Bates method? Isn't
it
better to just practice it?

Lisa> This effort to me a bit like trying to summarize a poem. Almost
impossible,
and if achieved at all, done so at huge cost to the original.

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

Bates was very powerful.  But, for both Bates and Prentice, as well as the
"conventional minus lens" -- I MUST ask questions.

Best,

Otis

More commentary on VT, and "prescribing" a +1/2 for reading.

Enjoy,

Otis

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


Re: [optometrysucks] Addendum


This is an amazing rant.  Of all the people I know who started cold, only a few
have had much parental help and none lived at home.  I'm sure there are a few
doctors who have had such help, but my feeling is, good for them, they belong to
a supportive family.

I've helped with a dozen startups during the past couple of years, all offered
VT but most offered primary care as well.  The most family help I know of was
parents in construction who supervised planning and buildouts.

Then there was the OD who served in the Air Force in exchange for his tuition. 
He started debt free...I guess that makes you right about family, the guy got a
lot of help from his uncle (Sam).

The basic reason ODs aren't making good money these days is that they let
themselves be suckered into managed care plans whose reimbursements don't cover
costs, and their failure to detect and prescribe for the many visual demands
with which their patients must contend.  Anyone can fix this by doing the
following: 1) using a good history form and making certain that patients fill it
in (have staff do it for them if necessary).  Get a great Hx form from the
download page of my website, idealvt.com...its free.  2) test for nearpoint and
binocular vision problems and recommend separate Rxs for each that requires a
distinct Rx.  3) demonstrate the effect of plus by having the patient try it for
themselves.  If the patient likes it, recommend it...and yes, that means plus
.50 adds.  Have the young patient read with and without low plus.  If the
reading rate or word attack is better, recommend it.

Re: the AOA, did you read the editorial in the News about doctors taking time to
make certain a plan covers costs of patient care delivery before signing up? 
Thought I'd never read something so sensible in an AOA periodical.

Thomas Lecoq

This is a test:

myopiafree.wordpress.com

Thanks,

Otis

Subject: Raphaelson and "making a living".

The minus lens is VERY EASY and simple to apply.

In fact I have my own trial-lens "set", and do is myself.
This is  indeed "low cost", and I have the experience and judgment to understand
WHY I must protect my vision myself -- as an engineer, and being supportive of
Dr. Raphaelson's successful concept.

Here, an OD describes the huge cost of setting up a business, not to mention the
endless "risks" of doing so.

I sympathize with them, but all they do -- is EXACTLY WHAT I AM DOING.

Here it the commentary from OD Andy.

Enjoy,

Otis

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



There is one thing I wanted to add to my previous post.

There are a few net trolls (one who posts here occasionally) who berate those
who question the "ease" with which one is able to go "private practice"....

According to these people: "I did it...you can too. There must be something
wrong with you...."

Then you come to find out....they live or have lived with mom and dad or
mother-in-law and father-in-law (who pay the rent/mortgage, utilities, phone,
cable, etc), they drive a car owned by one of their relatives, a relative pays
the bills when they can't, they practice in a building owned by a relative, they
got a loan from a relative, they simply got money from a relative, a relative
paid their tuition (i.e. they came out of school debt-free), they got a job
working for a relative, they work at a corporate franchise, they were given
their practice by a retiring relative...and probably one of the most crumby
actual modes taken that I know of ( taken by a "practice management guru") -
they divorced the wife who worked to put him thru optometry school, and then wed
a rich student whose parents then built/bought them a new practice as a wedding
gift.

What I'm talking about is doing everything by yourself PLUS paying the way for
your family too, again all by yourself. If you live with mom and dad while you
start a practice...that NOT the same thing as truly "going solo".

That's sort of liking receiving "family based medical assistance." lol

Granted, there's nothing wrong with that if it's necessary and available... But
then one shouldn't claim they "opened cold and made it all by themself." That's
just not true.

.....or easy.

Andy, from "Optometry Sucks"

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJGY5zLBKWM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzg7GjjitGk&feature=related


> Enjoy,
>

In my "research" -- I found that I was told what was "conventionally believed".

That is, what the person THOUGHT was true, but NOT what was true as a matter of
pure science.

But it took a long time to discover this truth.

What I found in Dr. Raphaelson (from his autobiography) was that he must have
realized that his own PERSONAL habits, (reading with nose on the book and the
like), results in his eyes changing their refractive STATE in a negative
direction.

This is now proven in science beyond any reasonable SCIENTIFIC doubt.

But even so, in his "practice" he found that the ONLY thing the public was
prepared to "understand" was that minus.

This truth DOES NOT REFLECT ON JACOB RAPHAELSON.  It reflects, rather, on the
truth that what impresses superfically, SELLS AND CONVINCES THE PERSON THAT THE
MAN IS AN EXPERT.

Thus you truly do have a problem.

But, Raphaelson did the ONLY thing he could do.

He helped his three girls, by checking their Snellen and refractive STATE, and
insisted that THEY wear a plus for all close work.

The result was that they kept their refractive STATE postive, and their distant
vision clear for life.

But it took a very strong optometrist to truly understand this issue, and form
the resolve to institute that type of fundamental change.

Best,

Otis

Dear Reader,

I want to thank the optometrists like Jacob Raphaelson, who taught HOW TO
PREVENT WITH THE PLUS.

But in a deeper sense, he was teaching me how to DO IT MYSELF.

This means that I obtain my own trial lens kit, and monitor BOTH my Snellen AND
MY REFRACTIVE STATE.

I am then in a position to spot any MEDICAL ISSUE.

Perhaps it takes a lot of courage or intelligence to take that step.

But I do not have these "money" problems, nor the need to "make a living" under
the conditions stated below.

My distant vision is too valuable to put it under THEIR control.

(Never again -- with that minus.)

Enjoy,

Otis

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




===========

Re: No work available for optometrists


--- In optometrysucks@yahoogroups.com, "johndmarvin" <jdmarvin@...> wrote:

  Move to Houston, there are plenty of jobs and great opportunities to start
your own practice!

> > Good Luck with that thinking ...but...interesting point.

> > Having practiced in Texas myself I have found that as long as you stay away
from the major metro areas of Dallas, Houston , San Antonio and to a lesser
extent, Austin, El Paso, Abilene, Amarillo, Lubbock, Laredo, Harlingen, and
Corpus Christi ...your chance of starting your own practice and succeeding is
questionable. Granted, if you come into a Walmart or Eyemasters...that's
different. But as an independent...forget it. I see little if no chance of
success. Years and years of heavy OD production have loaded the population
centers.
> > Now, if you go into a town like Pecos in the West Texas frontier...where the
only OD recently folded...you might have a shot at it.
> >
> > But remember this saying...."If you don't find an OD there...don't think
someone else hasn't at one point tried the place."
> >
> > As I said ....Good luck with that thing
> >
> Andy, why do you stay in optometry if you dislike its opportunity so much? Or
did I miss something and you are no longer active in the profession?
>

Hang on a second....you're reading things into my answer that aren't there.

I didn't say...or imply ...that I dislike optometry.

I'm just saying that private practice isn't the "sure thing" success that you
will achieve if you simply "work hard" and/or "stick to it."
The world isn't just "dripping" with golden opportunities.


Here's an example:

There is an office near me owned by an OD. Let's give it an aribtrary name (not
the real one)..."As the Eyeball Turns".

I drive past this office every day on my way to work. I always see one car in
the parking lot. The same car. I assume that's the one young lady who is the
only person I have ever seen working in there.

Occasionally I see another car, again, always the same. I assume that's the
doctor.

Very occasionally,, I see another car in the lot. Different cars. I assume those
are scattered patients.

The OD who owns the office works full time in a commercial dump.

My assessment: this OD works a commercial job to support his "trophy" practice.
This practice is 3 years old.

I would have given up on this place as a mistake 2 years ago...but the OD still
has it running. I suppose it fulfills some need....although I don't know what
reasonable need that could possibly be.


Then you see some ODs, I've noticed a few on OD wire, who brag about their
"private" practice. Then you find out that it's a Walmart gig.

Those kind of opportunities are "your practice" until the day someone walks in
and tells you to "get out".


What IS difficult, in my opinion, is REALLY starting a practice and succeeding.
This takes guts, brains and lots of money.

Find a good location without astronomical rent. Rent/build an office.
Rent/construction is paid up front. Lease/buy equipment. Again, money up front.
Get displays, frames, CLs, staff, office supplies, hardware, utilities,
advertising, etc. etc etc. ...AGAIN all money up front. You put up a boatload of
bucks, which is going to start to come due in being paid back within weeks
....and you have yet to see a patient walk in the door.

Yep. It's tough. Too many choices for the consumer. Too few sure things for the
providers (i.e. ...us!) THAT's what I'm saying.

BTW...if you think going commercial is an easy out... In Dallas, a DM for
Walmart told me he has potential applicants for an opening draw up "business
growth plans" for him in order to see who gets the gig. Big Deal...a corporate
giant has the doctors engage in an exercise they probably have legions of
professional advertising agents for.

www.myopiafree.com

Now is hosted on Go Daddy.

It is linked to

http://geocities.com/otisbrown17268

I will probably just link to an archived version after
Geocities is deleted from Yahoo.

Best,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Removing yourself from the problem -- for
> awhile.
>
> There is noting like "sailing" to clear the mind.
>
> Take a few minutes -- chill out.
>
> Otis
>
> ==========
>
>
> > Freedom and Sailing.
> >
>
> >
> >  You are on your own.  A great experience.
> >
> >
> > It teaches independence of mind.
> >
>
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1GlVlLy7nZ4&feature=related
>
>
> >
> > The wind, the sea, and the stars!
> >
> > This is where I truly say, ENJOY!
> >
>

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Learning to fly an airplane -- also teaches you
> to stand alone -- face risks -- and trust
> yourself.
>
> Otis
>
>
>
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Flight frees the mind.
> >
> > Being independent -- think for yourself -- be wise.
> >
> > Otis
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Some of the most pleasant experiences -- flying
> > > the J-3 "Cub" and the Volksplane.
> > >
> > > Otis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The freedom of flight.
> > > >
> > > > Freedom of science and vision.
> > > >
> > > > Freedom to keep your vision clear for
> > > > life -- if you have the wisdom and
> > > > motivation to do it right.
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Longer Video on the Volks Plane (9 min.)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SpNl83h1Xl4&feature=related
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown"
> > <otisbrown@>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Subject:  Flight update.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From Ground -- Volksplane Part 1:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It was great fun,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1b2d-6qQsv4&feature=related
> > > > > >
> > > > > > An adventure to fly...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > View in flight looking toward tail of VolksPlane:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=E9frePYcJ5I&feature=related
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking Aft, while landing the VP.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Upv2aPaUowQ&feature=related
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Part 4 -- The Panel -- in flight:
> > > > > >
> > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=R02APMjcsqQ&feature=related
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Boy, does this bring back memories!
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Part 3:  Landing and take off:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5JXPCGeFD9k&feature=related
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Flight -- Volksplane Part 2:
> > > > > >
> > > > http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=16Q4ffLWzl8&feature=related
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Work in progress.


http://help.godaddy.com/article/3006?isc=goaz2001i

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Friends,

My site under "Geocities".

I will now look for alternative hosting.

(See Below).


Best,

OTis





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

Important Announcement
After careful consideration, Yahoo! has decided to close GeoCities later this
year.

You can continue enjoying your GeoCities service until then — we just wanted you
to let you know about the closure as soon as possible. We'll share more details
this summer. For now, please visit the help center for more information.

Here is the Link


http://www.allscan.ca/ergo/vangle2.htm

Enjoy,

Otis

Dear Engineering-scientific friend,

Subject: To all medical people "think the same"?

This is to state the second-opinion that it would be WISE, and MATURE to
consider the preventive plus -- before the minus.

Here is the commentary by Dr. Kaisu on the failure of "organized medicine" to
EVEN RECOGNIZE THE PROBLEM, let alone take the FIRST STEPS OF TRUE PREVENTION.

Our distant vision is forfit because of the "majority-opinion ATTITUDE".

Best,

Otis

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


JUDICAL MURDER IN FINNISH MEDICINE
RECENT  SERIES  OF  EVENTS  IN  ITS ENTIRETY which started from Olavi
Pärssinen´s review  in the Finnish Medical Journal (6/2009)
(This text is translated into English from the original Finnish exchange)

Finnish Medical Journal's discussion policy: "Public discussion refers to open
discussion about material appearing in this magazine. Its purpose is to give
fresh feedback to the editors and to provide our readers with an opportunity for
criticism. The letters will not be published elsewhere without the express
consent of the writer. On behalf of the Finnish Medical Journal, the Editors-in
chief and Managing Editor will reply to comments sent in as necessary."

1)
This letter was originally sent in February 12th 2009, by three patients of mine
- which I  have now read - to COMMENT on Olavi Pärssinen's review "Pilaako
lukeminen silmät?" (Will reading spoil your eyes?) (The Finnish Medical Journal
6/2009):

Ophthalmologist, DM Kaisu Viikari has been speaking for the prevention of myopia
for more than thirty years.

As we have personal experiences of getting rid of the minus lenses, we have been
actively following the progress of myopia prevention in the world at large.

We are thoroughly familiar with all of Viikari's three works; for example, in
her most recent book "jotta totuus ei unohtuisi" (2004, 2006) she refers to an
article that appeared in Duodecim (2003;119:2475) "Likitaittoisuuden esto
kanoilla ja ihmisillä" (Prevention of myopia in hens and humans).

In this article, Professors of Ophthalmology T. Tervo and L. Laatikainen from
Helsinki state that slowing down of myopia development with plus lenses, which
the article that they were discussing referred to (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci
2003:44:2818) was not a new idea. These are the very problems that Kaisu Viikari
has been concerned about for more than three decades.

This is why we were surprised to find that among the 55 references of Olavi
Pärssinen's review that appeared in the Finnish Medical Journal 6/2009, (Pilaako
lukeminen silmät?) he does not mention this Finnish article that essentially
touches on the prevention of myopia.

It is difficult to think of a problem that would have such in-depth consequences
for the wellbeing of mankind as increasing myopia – and in a wider sense,
accommodation strain – in front of which, however, we do not need to throw our
towel in and put our hands up.

Names withheld.

2)
The Finnish Medical Journal's reply (6 March 2009):

Thank you for your comment.

I will pass it on to the writer of the article, Olavi Pärssinen.

We will not publish your comments in our Letters column, as we feel that in this
connection, it would not be in the best interest of our readers.

With friendly greetings, N. N.

The Finnish Medical Journal

3)
The Finnish Medical Journal (Lääkärilehti), Helsinki.

I was just informed that a comment written by my patients – which I have read
and find extremely appropriate – on Olavi Pärssinen's review was not regarded as
fit for publishing in the Finnish Medical Journal.

You promised to return to the reply that was sent on 12 February, and the
sender, when he contacted you again (after 3 weeks), received a reply, a
negative one, on the 6th of March! What kind of a magazine can exist on these
premises!

If Olavi Pärssinen in his "R e v i e w" of the themes of myopia and its
prevention wishes to overlook a Finnish reference which recognizes the decades
of work I have put in for this valid cause (1), that cannot be helped, but the
Finnish Medical Journal should not join in.

I have now had enough. I have nothing to loose, and this is why I am not going
to make it easy for the Finnish Medical Journal or other indoctrinators.

To spare my offspring (even now, 10 of my close family members are in the field
of medicine; my husband Sauli, my father Artturi Mikkonen and his brothers Hemmi
and Aarne have already departed), I have reined myself in and kept my voice
down, but since Providence has given me such a long life – and kept me in my
senses – there must be a reason.

Besides, I believe that if Sauli were still alive, he would allow me to open my
mouth, as he had plenty of opportunities to witness all my positive achievements
and the personal feedback I received.

Starting from the times of Tapani Kosonen and Duodecim, attempts to suppress
this issue have continued for over 36 years.

The wrongs done to me personally are nothing compared to what the Finnish people
– and in a wider sense, the whole world – have lost in terms of their good
health as my message has been silenced.

PANACEA is full of therapeutic "g e m s" – I am bold enough to say this – which
are too difficult for dimwits to perceive, while they have benefited my circle
of family and friends and hundreds of patients, but that's nothing but a "voice
crying in the wilderness"!

The Finnish Medical Journal is only too willing to give space for repetitions of
the century-old mantra, such as Pärssinen's review, which will not help anybody
to feel better.

Who is responsible for a negligence of this magnitude?

Presumably the Finnish Medical Association, which should be working for people's
good health?

To this outburst I am attaching my response to the review, hoping that the
Finnish Medical Journal will lack the courage to leave it unpublished!

With a collegial greeting

Kaisu Viikari

4)
The Finnish Medical Journal

R E P L Y to Olavi Pärssinen's (1) review, The Finnish Medical Journal 6/2009,
495-8

To begin with, I will content myself with pointing out that in the 55 references
of his review, Pärssinen does not see fit to include the statement by two
Finnish Professors of Ophthalmology, which indicates that I have for several
decades promoted the prevention of myopia by plus lenses (2).

The most aggravating part of the review's message, however, was the firm belief
in the hereditary nature of myopia, which has long since been found faulty by
those who understand anything about these matters.

On page 78 of Tetralogia (3); and page 101 of Panacea (4), I write: "By means of
suggestion, belief in hereditary factors has probably been the most harmful
influence of all. What is indeed inherited is a set of general reactions to
life´s situations, includin spasm of accommodation."

A rapidly expanding group of professionals and lay people are beginning to
understand how fateful this doctrine that has been prevailing for centuries is,
especially to prevention of myopia. Parents have found comfort in thinking that
there is nothing they can do about the fate of their children.

The parties who have been the most successful in promoting this cause are
insightful lay persons, mainly physicists (even today, this applies to parents
who contact me), who, concerned about the unexpected myopisation of their
children, have been aroused to use their brains (in the front line, Ronald S.
Rehm (5) and Klaus Schmid (6) to mention a few diligent ones), facilitated by
the fact that they are not constrained by that belief in hereditary nature of
myopia which has been repeated for centuries and which has caused immeasurable
harm to prevention.

What has turned out to be the greatest obstacle is the lack of committed
professionals having mastered the concept. When patients telephone me, their
first question always is if there might be somebody they could turn to in their
own area. But there just isn't!

Klaus Schmid has compiled a "Myopia Manual", (6) (first edition 2002) including
over 1,000 references, page 20 (2004) of which contains the sentence "The
conclusion is that myopia itself is not inherited".

Attempts to stamp out this heresy of myopia's hereditary nature have certainly
emerged from time to time, but they have always been crushed by the overwhelming
majority of those who are unskilled (and maybe a little afraid of taking
trouble).

In this connection, I urge the reader to see on my website (7) the fifth
paragraph under Feedback. It has a illustrative description of what examining a
patient is all about, and the same information can be found nowhere in my
writings.

Further, with reference to the serious global situation of today, the sixth
paragraph of my website under "Miscellaneous", is titled "A Cry for Help",
intended more than anything to wake up employers to see and realize what a great
opportunity for improving their employees' ability to work could be offered by
relieving accommodation strain (= an attempt to reduce minus values in lenses
and, on the other hand, strengthening plus glasses).

And thirdly, I would urge you to read case history nr. 306, which can be found
both in Tetralogia (3) and Panacea (4). It shows how weaning off a patient who
is fond of his minuses from the glasses may require such a level of presence and
almost "violence" from the ophthalmologist that, in practice, this is not even
possible with the great masses.

After visiting my new website, Schmid (6) has this year (2009) first of all
added to his own site the following:

Other sites about myopia and related issues, which are especially worth visiting
http://www.kaisuviikari.com/panacea.htm and
http://www.kaisuviikari/books/PANACEA_by_Kaisu_Viikari_1978.pdf

The Internet article "The Secret of Myopia" (8) has, in the feedback under items
6) and 7), captured the essence of my message: "The problem is no longer
"science" but rather to get the person to understand true-prevention BEFORE
he/she even "starts" with the first destructive minus" and which I in my book
(9), p. 43, on starting prevention as early as possible, have formulated as
"should preferably been born with plus glasses on our noses!"

And further

"That website (www.kaisuviikari.com) pretty much sums up everything in one
phrase.

Truly, the greatest hurdle to getting humanity off its addiction to the minus
lens is going to the universal knowledge of prevention. And prevention, in terms
of myopia, is described, as you often put forth, measures put in place BEFORE
the first minus lens. The problem is that it isn´t usually the grown people who
get their first minus lens, it is young children whose parents have no idea of
the implications of their choices."

What shows up the vagueness of Pärssinen's message is expressions like

- For reasons that are so far unknown

- an obvious connection

- it has been assumed

- is, however, difficult to explain

- is apparent

- the results, however, indicate that

And what a brilliant conclusion to the review: "the only practical method of
preventing myopia is outdoor exercise" – in which people are forced to cast
their eyes further – if not even to the infinity (= the most efficient way of
relaxing the accommodation spasm)!

We should ask if we can regard ourselves as having the rule of law in this
country.

Personally, I have given up even questioning this since 2 July 1973 (7), but
when I now read the description of the Finnish Medical Journal's principles
concerning their "discussions" (see Finnish Medical Journal's discussion policy
at the beginning), even the promises of that magazine – as they reject letters
of pertinent criticism – seem rather false.

Kaisu Viikari

M.D., P.h.D., Specialist in Ophthalmology

Dear Friend,

(At this site):


http://www.hpb.gov.sg/web/nmpp/


You have done a good job.

But the experts ALSO recommend the use of a plus lens – for a child on the
threshold.

Why not publish this information on your site?

Experts recommend doing this.  Please check these sites to help all our children
with true PREVENTION.

Expert in CHINA:


http://www.chinamyopia.org/

Expert in Singapore

http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/

Ophthalmologist in Finland:

http://www.kaisuviikari.com/

Expert in Germany:

http://www.myopia-manual.de/

Scientific effort (National Science Foundation) book in Chinese:

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/Sci_Understanding.doc


I hope you can "see" this honest scientific approach to be of help – as these
experts state.

Sincerely,

Otis S. Brown

My friend Donald has done a woderful job of developing preventive methods.  See:

http://www.myopia.org/

I also believe he can be a POSTIVE FORCE for true prevention -- if the person
himself can:

1.  Get the idea and
2.  Start the effort BEFORE the minus -- and that is essential.

So, with that statment, let me say that I agree with all but the last statement.



Don>  THE PROBLEM

Myopia, or nearsightedness, is not inherited but is caused by excessive reading
and other close work.
After doing prolonged close work, the focusing muscle inside the eye locks up
into a state of near focus.


Over time this leads to permanent nearsightedness, an abnormal lengthening of
the eye that can lead to eye disease.


The "distance" glasses routinely prescribed accelerate this process by causing
the world to appear closer.



This causes the eyes to exert more focusing effort, resulting in even more
myopia.


Stronger glasses are prescribed again and again, creating a vicious circle of
increasing myopia.


Consequently, distance glasses should not be used for close work, only for
distance.


Most eye doctors do not reveal that the glasses they prescribe are harmful to
our eyes.


Don>  Myopia can easily be prevented by the use of reading glasses.


Otis> Anyone who has gone through this knows that it is difficult to "inspire" a
person to use the plus.  A negative STATE can be prevented (I am wearing a +2.5
diopter for that purpose), but it is not "easy".

Otis> But it is absolutely NECESSARY.

Enjoy,

Otis

We do not live in a "perfect" world.

But a number of people in medicine have recognize that any use of a minus has
tragic consequences for all of us.

I recognize in Raphaelson a man who begin to understand these issues.  Sadly it
does take time to understand both the issues and the necessity of a
plus-prevention solution.

If we use the word "prevention" -- then Raphaelson is indeed correct as a matter
of pure science.

But as a matter of the word "cure", then that can not be said to be true.

It all depends on how you define the dynamic behavior of a population of natural
eyes, and the words you choose to describe that (now proven) behavior.

And that issuse is indeed a pure-scientific issue.

Enjoy,

Otis

Otis S. Brown wrote, quoting Judy on sci.med.vision:

> On Apr 7, 1:46 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@...> wrote:
>
> "[Bates] accordingly wrote a prescription for concave 1.00 D. S., and
> the glasses were ordered and mailed to [the patient]"
>
> Oh my God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Dr Bates wrote a prescription for and supplied  minus lenses for a
> patient.   My world is shattered.
>
> Judy

Yes, Judy, of the idea that myopia was organic, not functional, Bates
says: "I believed myself until I learned better." (same article).

It is probable that Bates prescribed those glasses before he "learned
better" but even if it was after he had renounced the use of glasses,
Bates notes that this was an exceptional case: "as his mother was
nearing the end of her life, he was very anxious to gratify her last
wishes. So, like the unjust judge of the parable, I yielded at last to
his importunity, and wrote a prescription" first for plus lens glasses,
then for minus lenses.

My hope is that someday, Judy, you too will see the light, and people
reading your old posts in favor of prescribing minus lenses will be
similarly shocked.

--Alex

Dear Knowledgable friends,

Subject: How much responsiblity must you have -- to do it yourself.

I do not use the word "patient", and consider that I have enough knowledge and
responsibility to:

1.  Confirm my visual acuity with a Snellen, and

2.  With a trial-lens set, determine my refractive STATE, objectively, under my
control.

The reason for this is that:

1.  I am an engineer.

2.  From long-term review (30 years), the engineering evidence it that the eye
is dynamic, and prevention would be wise.

3.  I am responsible for myself.

Here is the problem when a person calls himself a "patient".  This is always a
mistake, if the person is to learn how to use the preventive plus correctly.

Here is Dr. Bates assessments:

Otis

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





[...Correspondence treatment is usually regarded as quackery, and it
would be manifestly impossible to treat many diseases in this way.
Pneumonia and typhoid, for instance, could not possibly be treated by
correspondence, even if the physician had a sure cure for these
conditions and the mails were not too slow for the purpose. In the
case of most diseases, in fact, there are serious objections to
correspondence treatment.

But myopia, hypermetropia and astigmatism are functional conditions,
not organic, as the text-books teach, and as I believed myself until I
learned better. Their treatment by correspondence, therefore, has not
the drawbacks that exist in the case of most physical derangements.
One cannot, it is true, fit glasses by correspondence as well as when
the patient is in the office, but even this can be done, as the
following case illustrates.


An old colored woman in the wilds of Honduras, far removed from any
physician or optician, was unable to read her Bible, and her son, a
waiter in New York, asked me if I could not do something for her. The
suggestion gave me a distinct shock which I will remember as long as I
live. I had never dreamed of the possibility of prescribing glasses
for anyone I had not seen, and I had, besides, some very disquieting
recollections of colored women whom I had tried to fit with glasses at
my clinic. If I had so much difficulty in prescribing the proper
glasses under favorable conditions, how could I be expected to fit a
patient whom I could not even see? The waiter was deferentially
persistent, however. Hip had more faith in my genius than I had, and
as his mother was nearing the end of her life, he was very anxious to
gratify her last wishes. So, -like the unjust judge of the parable, I
yielded at last to his importunity, and wrote a prescription for
convex 3.00 D. S. The young man ordered the glasses and mailed them to
his mother, and by return mail came a very grateful letter stating
that they were perfectly satisfactory.


A little later the patient wrote that she couldn't see objects at the
distance that were perfectly plain to other people, and asked if some
glasses couldn't be sent that would make her see at the distance as
well as she did at the near-point. This seemed a more difficult
proposition than the first one; but again the son was persistent, and
I myself could not get the old lady out of my mind. So again I decided
to do what I could. The waiter had told me that his mother had read
her Bible long after the age of forty. Therefore I knew she could not
have much hypermetropia, and was probably slightly myopic. I knew also
that she could not have much astigmatism, for in that case her sight
would always have been noticeably imperfect. Accordingly I told her
son to ask her to measure very accurately the distance between her
eyes and the point at which she could read her Bible best with her
glasses, and to send me the figures. In due time I received, not
figures, but a piece of string about a quarter of an inch in diameter
and exactly ten inches long. If the patient's vision had been normal
for the distance, I knew that she would have been able to read her
Bible best with her glasses at thirteen inches. The string showed that
at ten inches she had a refraction of four diopters. Subtracting from
this the three diopters of her reading glasses, I got one diopter of
myopia. I accordingly wrote a prescription for concave 1.00 D. S., and
the glasses were ordered and mailed to Honduras. The acknowledgment
was even more grateful than in the case of the first pair. The patient
said that for the first time in her life she was able to read signs
and see other objects at a distance as well as other people did, and
that the whole world looked entirely different to her.


Would anyone venture to say that it was unethical for me to try to
help this patient? Would it have been better to leave her in her
isolation without even the consolation of Bible reading? I do not
think so. What I did for her required only an ordinary knowledge of
physiological optics, and if I had failed, I could not have done her
much harm.


In the case of the treatment of imperfect sight without glasses there
can be even less objection to the correspondence method. It is true
that in most cases progress is more rapid and the results more certain
when the patient can be seen personally; but often this is impossible,
and I see no reason why patients who can not have the benefit of
personal treatment should be denied such aid as can be given them by
correspondence. I have been treating patients in this way for years,
and often with extraordinary success.


Some years ago an English gentleman wrote to me that his glasses were
very unsatisfactory. They not only did not give him good sight, but
they increased instead of lessening his discomfort. He asked if I
could help him, and since relaxation always relieves discomfort and
improves the vision, I did not believe that I was doing him an injury
in telling him how to rest his eyes. He followed my directions with
such good results that in a short time he obtained perfect sight for
both the distance and the near-point without glasses, and was
completely relieved of his pain. Five years later he wrote me that he
had qualified as a sharpshooter in the army. Did I do wrong in
treating him by correspondence? I do not think so.

On Apr 7, 1:46 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@...> wrote:

"[Bates] accordingly wrote a prescription for concave 1.00 D. S., and
the glasses were ordered and mailed to [the patient]"

Oh my God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dr Bates wrote a prescription for and supplied  minus lenses for a
patient.   My world is shattered.

Judy

Dear Alex,

Subject: The problem of the definition of "strain".

Tragically the word stain is poorly defined -- at best.

This was for me, a "show stopper", because of these conflicted definitions.  As
you have see, from the discussions of Lisa and John (both very sincere) they had
endless "arguments" -- but they failed to agree on the definion of "stain".

That remains the "open question" here -- and Bates did not resolve it, nor did
any of his "followers" -- with due respect.

Can you resolve it, Alex, with a better definition?

Best,

Otis

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


I think there is a limited grain of truth to what Bates said here, but
the practical implications are not obvious. "Strain" at the near point
is indeed associated with an inability to accommodate for the near,
and "strain" when looking in the distance is associated with an
inability to accommodate for the distance. There may be some place for
"returning to rest" in one's comfort zone periodically, or for some
"adversive therapy" but again, these are footnotes that cannot be
taken out of context of the admonition to those who want to keep or
improve their distant vision, to read the distant Snellen card every
day.

--Alex




--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Otis S. Brown wrote:
>
> > But, putting your nose on the page -- very, VERY bad, and the
> > parents should receive a strong warning about kids who do this.
>
> Actually, that's the vein in which Bates's advice on the matter should
> be taken, that is, "rubbing one's nose in it."
>
> http://www.i-see.org/perfect_sight/chap17.html
>
> "In myopia it may be a benefit to strain to see fine print, because
> myopia is always lessened when there is a strain to see near objects,
> and this has sometimes counteracted the tendency to strain in looking
> at distant objects, which is always associated with the production of
> myopia. Even straining to see print so fine that it cannot be read is
> a benefit to some myopes.
>
> http://www.i-see.org/perfect_sight/chap9.html
>
> "hypermetropia (or a lessening of myopia) is always associated with a
> strain to see at the nearpoint"
>
> Bates's advice to myopes is not to "practice" or "work with" near
> vision, but to associate it with strain!
>
> Contrast this with what Robert said to nearsighted Nancy:
>
> http://www.effortlessvision.com/forum1/viewtopic.php?t=525
>
> "practicing in the nearpoint can give her a great sense of what
> relaxed muscles do and feel like when they are seeing well"
>
> and
>
> "Nancy, you'd probably get more benefit from near point work than you
> would at far point work."
>
> > We need to learn to "do better", and correct some of the in-correct
> > statements of Bates.
>
> I think there is a limited grain of truth to what Bates said here, but
> the practical implications are not obvious. "Strain" at the near point
> is indeed associated with an inability to accommodate for the near,
> and "strain" when looking in the distance is associated with an
> inability to accommodate for the distance. There may be some place for
> "returning to rest" in one's comfort zone periodically, or for some
> "adversive therapy" but again, these are footnotes that cannot be
> taken out of context of the admonition to those who want to keep or
> improve their distant vision, to read the distant Snellen card every
> day.
>
> --Alex
>

On Apr 9, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Otis S. Brown wrote:

> But, putting your nose on the page -- very, VERY bad, and the
> parents should receive a strong warning about kids who do this.

Actually, that's the vein in which Bates's advice on the matter should
be taken, that is, "rubbing one's nose in it."

http://www.i-see.org/perfect_sight/chap17.html

"In myopia it may be a benefit to strain to see fine print, because
myopia is always lessened when there is a strain to see near objects,
and this has sometimes counteracted the tendency to strain in looking
at distant objects, which is always associated with the production of
myopia. Even straining to see print so fine that it cannot be read is
a benefit to some myopes.

http://www.i-see.org/perfect_sight/chap9.html

"hypermetropia (or a lessening of myopia) is always associated with a
strain to see at the nearpoint"

Bates's advice to myopes is not to "practice" or "work with" near
vision, but to associate it with strain!

Contrast this with what Robert said to nearsighted Nancy:

http://www.effortlessvision.com/forum1/viewtopic.php?t=525

"practicing in the nearpoint can give her a great sense of what
relaxed muscles do and feel like when they are seeing well"

and

"Nancy, you'd probably get more benefit from near point work than you
would at far point work."

> We need to learn to "do better", and correct some of the in-correct
> statements of Bates.

I think there is a limited grain of truth to what Bates said here, but
the practical implications are not obvious. "Strain" at the near point
is indeed associated with an inability to accommodate for the near,
and "strain" when looking in the distance is associated with an
inability to accommodate for the distance. There may be some place for
"returning to rest" in one's comfort zone periodically, or for some
"adversive therapy" but again, these are footnotes that cannot be
taken out of context of the admonition to those who want to keep or
improve their distant vision, to read the distant Snellen card every
day.

--Alex

Subject: Review of the Oakley-Young Study.


Otis>      But the reality is that the results are highly significant.

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

From Alex:

Otis, no one ever argues that the results weren't "significant", given the data.
The argument against this study is always that there could have been/must have
been some error in collecting the data in the first place, because:

1. The subjects were not typical myopes ("nearpoint esophores")

2. The subjects were not randomly collected

3. The person doing the measuring knew which group the subject belonged to
("experimenter bias")

4. Other experiments testing the "same thing" had different results.

--Alex

=========

Dear Alex,

In fact I have my own "review" of Frank's study -- which I think are VERY
important considerations for a truly SCIENTIFIC study.

1.  Frank did not calculate the "Sigma" for these measurements.  This makes is
very difficult to calculate the significance level.  THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

2.  Frank ran this with children, not mature engineers and scientists.

3.  If you desire that a engineer be CONVINCED as to the competence of his OWN
STUDY -- insist that he PERSONALLY make his refractive STATE(Snell) measurement
himself.

4.  Insist that he understand the word, "Standard Deviation", Average, Mean, 
Stastics.

5.  Randomly assign the entire group of 100 students into the "test" and
"control" groups.  But don't stop them from talking to each other, nor reading
about it on the internet.  In fact you could not stop them from doing that.

6.  Based on the significance of the Oakley-Young study, you can predict that
you would get HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT RESULTS in about six months.

7.  The judgment of these highly significant results WOULD HAVE TO REST WITH THE
ENGINEERS RUNNING THEIR OWN STUDY.

8.  This is true "empowerment", and this is not a medical study.

Hope this clarified how I judge the Oakley-Young results.  You can "build" on
them to create an even better in the future -- with the engineers who have the
scientific competence to do it RIGHT.

Engineering best,

Otis

Dear Alex,

Subject: Put you nose ON the page -- to clear your distant vision.

Sure, I respect Bates. He was a great leader, and conducted the worlds FIRST
preventive study in 1913.

That fact compelled me to do more research, and ask more questions -- including
questions about myself (and my bad habits -- if that is what it is), and about
the "interaction" with an OD or MD.

I began to realize that SOME ODs also came up with the "better answer", i.e.,
insist that your own children wear the plus for all close work -- if their
refractive STATE(Snell) is zero, or slightly negative.

But, putting your nose on the page -- very, VERY bad, and the parents should
receive a strong warning about kids who do this.

To this date -- no "warning" is supplied (except for the Singapore site).

We need to learn to "do better", and correct some of the in-correct statements
of Bates.

Second-opinion best,

Otis



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Friend,
>
> Subject: Logical inconsistency of Bates "teacher" advice.
>
> Re: Is this person a reasonable "Bates Teacher"?
>
> This was posted by Robert of "Effortlessvision".
>
> Under "Bates Method", and then
>
> "Practicing at the near point".
>
> http://www.effortlessvision.com/forum1/
>
> I am not certain exactly what Bates said, or meant to say or imply.  But the
data to confirm this "problem" did not exist when Bates made his statement.
>
> The worst thing you can ever have is "internal inconsistency", and this is the
issue I have with Bates.
>
> If what he says is true (or if I understand him correctly), then all these
kids reading at 4 inches (-10 diopters) and less should have wonderful distant
vision.
>
> The problem is that true, fundamental science is profoundly against this type
of statement.
>
> What is your opinion of Bates statement on this issue.  Care to make a
comment?
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
> ================
>
>
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > For anyone interesting in understanding the effect of BOTH a strong minus on
the eye, AS WELL AS A LONG-TERM "NEAR" environment (on the dynamic natural eye)
I suggest the read by site.
> >
> > I am "pro Bates" to the extent that he objected to that minus lens. But I
certainly can not agree that putting you nose on the page and reading at 4
inches (-10 diopters) for long periods of time is a GOOD AND PERFECT SOLUTION.
> >
> > People who say this are disconnected, now from science (and engineering),
and indeed from second-opinion optometry.
> >
> > Here is the discussion from, "Imagination Blindness" by David.
> >
> >
> > =====================
> >
> >
> >
> > Nancy notes today on her blog:
> >
> > Quote:
> >
> > My behavioral optometrist told me years ago not to do any near work as a
vision exercise, since I'm an eso-myope, meaning my eyes already naturally want
to converge. Instead he wanted me to focus on distance & diverging like with the
Magic Eye books.
> >
> >
> > I disagree with her behavioral optometrist. First, if Nancy's eyes tend to
converge, then it is more relaxing for her to look at the near point. As Dr.
Bates notes and I've noticed, practicing in the nearpoint can give her a great
sense of what relaxed muscles do and feel like when they are seeing well. She
can bring this experience to the distance to get a better sense of what she is
doing incorrectly to cause blur.
> >
> > Practicing very near, like 3 pt font at six inches, can sometimes be the
only way to "turn off" the strain with which a myope see in the distance. This
makes this type of practice a great way to recognize strain as well. Many people
notice distance vision improving after near point practice for this reason.
> >
> > I don't believe her eyes converge "by nature", but rather due to her
nearsightedness, and the fact that it is more comfortable for her to look at the
near point. It is natural to avoid discomfort and limit your vision to distances
that do not require as much strain. By nature, I believe the eyes will
accommodate for far, since the muscles are relaxed in the sense of not
contracted for that distance.
> >
>

Dear Alex,

I was always curious about the "message" of Dr. Bates.

The part where he "objects" to the minus lens is a true today, as it was 100
years ago.

There is great value in reading his ORIGIANL 1913 study.

If we paid attention to THAT study, and worked to understand it, (and all that
has developed in SCIENCE) in the last 50 years, we might be able to create a
FINAL, and EFFECTIVE preventive study or effort -- with the people who have the
greatest need for it.

So when I am told there  is a "Bates teacher" -- I cringe -- because of Roberts
suggestion that putting your nose on the book is a greate "cure" for myopic.

If there is going to be a "preventive" future, for these "relaxation" methods,
then that, that "habit" of children needs to be addressed.  To believe it is
"good for the child" -- wrong.

At least the second-opinion optometrists point this out -- as Raphaelson and
many others have done.

This is why you have SCIENCE and truly study the dynamic behavior of the natural
eye.

This is why you study the refractive STATE of primates keept in cages for YEARS
(with massive numbers of them with negative refractive STATES.)

This is indeed a NATURAL focal-setting process of the fundamental eye.

Yes, I would like to see "Bates" grown -- but not as described by Roberts
"advice".

Second-opinion best,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Apr 8, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Otis S. Brown wrote:
> >
> >
> > What is your opinion of Bates statement on this issue.  Care to make
> > a comment?
>
> Here is the link to the entire thread:
>
> http://www.effortlessvision.com/forum1/viewtopic.php?t=525
>
> I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Nancy wants to improve her
> distance vision.
>
> Robert's latest respnse:
>
> "Nancy, you'd probably get more benefit from near point work than you
> would at far point work."
>
> Well, read the whole exchange. Perhaps near point work can supplement
> far point work, but in my opinion, far point work (with the Snellen
> chart) is the key. Bates made that very clear.
>
> --Alex
>

On Apr 8, 2009, at 6:59 PM, Otis S. Brown wrote:
>
>
> What is your opinion of Bates statement on this issue.  Care to make
> a comment?

Here is the link to the entire thread:

http://www.effortlessvision.com/forum1/viewtopic.php?t=525

I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. Nancy wants to improve her
distance vision.

Robert's latest respnse:

"Nancy, you'd probably get more benefit from near point work than you
would at far point work."

Well, read the whole exchange. Perhaps near point work can supplement
far point work, but in my opinion, far point work (with the Snellen
chart) is the key. Bates made that very clear.

--Alex

Dear Friend,

Subject: Logical inconsistency of Bates "teacher" advice.

Re: Is this person a reasonable "Bates Teacher"?

This was posted by Robert of "Effortlessvision".

Under "Bates Method", and then

"Practicing at the near point".

http://www.effortlessvision.com/forum1/

I am not certain exactly what Bates said, or meant to say or imply.  But the
data to confirm this "problem" did not exist when Bates made his statement.

The worst thing you can ever have is "internal inconsistency", and this is the
issue I have with Bates.

If what he says is true (or if I understand him correctly), then all these kids
reading at 4 inches (-10 diopters) and less should have wonderful distant
vision.

The problem is that true, fundamental science is profoundly against this type of
statement.

What is your opinion of Bates statement on this issue.  Care to make a comment?

Best,

Otis

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



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> For anyone interesting in understanding the effect of BOTH a strong minus on
the eye, AS WELL AS A LONG-TERM "NEAR" environment (on the dynamic natural eye)
I suggest the read by site.
>
> I am "pro Bates" to the extent that he objected to that minus lens. But I
certainly can not agree that putting you nose on the page and reading at 4
inches (-10 diopters) for long periods of time is a GOOD AND PERFECT SOLUTION.
>
> People who say this are disconnected, now from science (and engineering), and
indeed from second-opinion optometry.
>
> Here is the discussion from, "Imagination Blindness" by David.
>
>
> =====================
>
>
>
> Nancy notes today on her blog:
>
> Quote:
>
> My behavioral optometrist told me years ago not to do any near work as a
vision exercise, since I'm an eso-myope, meaning my eyes already naturally want
to converge. Instead he wanted me to focus on distance & diverging like with the
Magic Eye books.
>
>
> I disagree with her behavioral optometrist. First, if Nancy's eyes tend to
converge, then it is more relaxing for her to look at the near point. As Dr.
Bates notes and I've noticed, practicing in the nearpoint can give her a great
sense of what relaxed muscles do and feel like when they are seeing well. She
can bring this experience to the distance to get a better sense of what she is
doing incorrectly to cause blur.
>
> Practicing very near, like 3 pt font at six inches, can sometimes be the only
way to "turn off" the strain with which a myope see in the distance. This makes
this type of practice a great way to recognize strain as well. Many people
notice distance vision improving after near point practice for this reason.
>
> I don't believe her eyes converge "by nature", but rather due to her
nearsightedness, and the fact that it is more comfortable for her to look at the
near point. It is natural to avoid discomfort and limit your vision to distances
that do not require as much strain. By nature, I believe the eyes will
accommodate for far, since the muscles are relaxed in the sense of not
contracted for that distance.
>

For anyone interesting in understanding the effect of BOTH a strong minus on the
eye, AS WELL AS A LONG-TERM "NEAR" environment (on the dynamic natural eye) I
suggest the read by site.

I am "pro Bates" to the extent that he objected to that minus lens. But I
certainly can not agree that putting you nose on the page and reading at 4
inches (-10 diopters) for long periods of time is a GOOD AND PERFECT SOLUTION.

People who say this are disconnected, now from science (and engineering), and
indeed from second-opinion optometry.

Here is the discussion from, "Imagination Blindness" by David.


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



Nancy notes today on her blog:

Quote:

My behavioral optometrist told me years ago not to do any near work as a vision
exercise, since I'm an eso-myope, meaning my eyes already naturally want to
converge. Instead he wanted me to focus on distance & diverging like with the
Magic Eye books.


I disagree with her behavioral optometrist. First, if Nancy's eyes tend to
converge, then it is more relaxing for her to look at the near point. As Dr.
Bates notes and I've noticed, practicing in the nearpoint can give her a great
sense of what relaxed muscles do and feel like when they are seeing well. She
can bring this experience to the distance to get a better sense of what she is
doing incorrectly to cause blur.

Practicing very near, like 3 pt font at six inches, can sometimes be the only
way to "turn off" the strain with which a myope see in the distance. This makes
this type of practice a great way to recognize strain as well. Many people
notice distance vision improving after near point practice for this reason.

I don't believe her eyes converge "by nature", but rather due to her
nearsightedness, and the fact that it is more comfortable for her to look at the
near point. It is natural to avoid discomfort and limit your vision to distances
that do not require as much strain. By nature, I believe the eyes will
accommodate for far, since the muscles are relaxed in the sense of not
contracted for that distance.

FYSigLev.txt                    4/7/09


Dr. Peter Greene
B. G. K. T.


Dear Peter,

cc:  Dr.  David Guyton for commentary.

Subject:  Calculating the significance level of the Oakley-Young
      study


      Majority-opinion ODs generally deny ANY significance for the
Oakley-Young study.

      But the reality is that the results are highly significant.

      I have taken the time to go through Frank's "Plus", or
so-called bifocal study.

      He stated that his results were significant -- but hw did not
supply the calculation nor some of the data to prove how
significant his results were for the large number of individuals
involved in this study.

      I wonder if you could review these calculations and either
state your support, or supply questions about the data.

      Here is the data from the study:

Nt = 225 wearing a plus (ages from 6 to 17)

Sigma-T = I am forced to estimate this, but the standard deviation
      (from the Eskimos) was about 1.4 diopters, and is very reasonable
      under the circumstances.

Nc = 192 were wearing a "single minus".

Sigma-C = Again, I am forced to estimate the standard deviation
      (Sigma) was about 2.0 diopters.


      Here is the classic equation from statistics:


	     Xt -  Xc

Z =  ---------------------------------------------------

     Square Root of [ ( Sigma^2/ Nt ) + (Sigma^2 / Nc ) ]


Xt = 0 diopters (the Plus group did not go down)

Xc = -1/2 diopters across the 192 people in the control group.
      (the single-minus went down at a rage of -1/2 diopters per
      year.)

      After one year with 0.5 diopters difference:


	    0.0 - ( -0.5 )

Z = ---------------------------------

   Square Root of [ ( 1.4^2 / 226 ) + ( 2.0^2 / 192 )]


Z =   0.5 / 0.172

Z = 2.91


Highly Significant above Z = 2.33

      This is substantially above highly significant after one
year!!

      After two years:

      Z = 1.0 / 0.172


      Z = 5.82

      This is in fact "off the map" of the Probability Curve.  ***

      Pete, please check this math, and the significance level.

      If you agree with this analysis please make a statement to
that effect.

      If you disagree, please let me understand WHY you don't agree
with these significance levels.

      In order to plan for FUTURE studies, (with motivated pilots,
for instance) it truly necessary that they understand the real
implications of this type of scientific test, and verification of
the significance of these results.

      That is why selecting engineering students who know what they
are doing is so essential.

      If we ever were to propose this type of study to the National
Eye Institute, then this would be the "core" of the argument to
support a preventive study or effort.


      Best,

      Otis

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


*** Significance levels, from the text book.

"Areas Under the Normal Probability Curve"

Z is the horizontal.  The probability is the area under the curve.


Z    Probability, or significance

Z= 2.33  P= 0.01
Z= 3.08  P= 0.001
Z= 3.61  P= 0.0001
Z= 3.86  P= 0.00001

After one year, given the number of eyes involved, the
results, in terms of science, were indeed off the map.

By Alex Eulenberg:

Subject:  Here's a simple method I divised to keep from straining your eyes.

First, relax your face. Then place the tip of each thmub on the lower
central part of the bony orbit of the respective eye, or in other
words, the top of each cheekbone. Each thumb should almost but not
quite be touching the lower eyelid, right below the pupil. Now
interlace your fingers forming a kind of a "visor" and lay your index
finger flat across your eyebrows. You can "flip up" this visor so that
your fingers are more or less resting on your forehead. But however
you hold the rest of your hand, your bottom index finger should be
lying across your eyebrows, and touching the skin right between them,
above your nose.

Now as you hold your fingers in position notice that if you raise your
eyebrows or squint the slightest bit, you can feel it. Try very
slightly raising your eyebrows or very slightly squinting. If
necessary, reposition your thumbs or index finger so that you can
detect the slightest motion.

Now look around at various hard-to-see-clearly objects and see if you
can catch yourself narrowing your eyes or furrowing your brow.

Can you keep from moving the skin under your fingers as you look from
object to object? Blinking is OK, but don't do it too hard: remember
to always keep your facial muscles from moving the skin under your
fingers.

Try it out and let us know how you cope. I have some more tips but I'd
like to hear what you all come up with first.

Then take your hands off your face and remember how it felt. Are you
now more aware of the muscles around your eyes? Is it easier for you
to keep from straining?

--Alex