Dear Soyew,

Yes, you can obtain the Myopter from Donal Rehm at:

http://www.myopia.org/

Best,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "soyew7" <soyew7@...> wrote:
>
> Ok i've the read some part of the book and to my understand that
> people need "THE MYOPTER" inorder to recover their vision. Is there
> anyone selling this instrument? if yes plz tell me whenre i can
> purchase it from. thx
>

Ok i've the read some part of the book and to my understand that
people need "THE MYOPTER" inorder to recover their vision. Is there
anyone selling this instrument? if yes plz tell me whenre i can
purchase it from. thx

Re: Emmetropia, the "normal" eye, and "correction"

Subject:  The statement of "standard theory" (Donders-Helmholtz --
1865)

Here is the full statement.  This is a " V " concept of
the natural eye's refractive states.  It disrespects
the fact that the fundamental eye proves to be dynamic.
The " V " theory INSISTS that the only NORMAL eye is
one with a refractive STATE of EXACTLY ZERO.  This is
idealized to the point of being un-reasonable, and
NOT supported by scientific data.  But let us just
call this the majority-OPINION of the refractive states
of the eye, and the dynamic-eye concept the second-opinion.

Here is Judy's statement of this obsolete theory:


Judy>  The science community defines emmetropia, myopia and hyperopia
with
the qualifier "accommodation at rest".

Otis> No, the "scientific community" does not do this.
It is true that majority-opinion medical people WISH
this were true.


Judy>  Without it, the terms are
meaningless as all eyes could be called myopic and all hyperopic eye
could be called emmetropic if accommodation is exercised while
viewing at distance.

Otis>  This is just plain simplistic bull shit.  The natural
eye has MEASURED refractive STATES that can be positive (in
a long-term open environment) and negative (in a long-term
near environment.)

Judy> Perhaps you would accept Theodore Grosvenor's definition from
his
1984 textbook "Clinical Optics":

Otis>  Simply a endless repeat of the misconception
stated by Donders-Helmholtz 120 years before.  They
keep on repeating this mantra forever -- because
the want to BELIEVE it.

Judy> An emmetropic eye is "one in which, with accommodation at rest,
infinity and the retina are conjugate points."

Otis> This is simply a matter of "freezing" the living
eye into a "dead" eye -- to FORCE it into the
box camera concept the Judy was taught in OD school.

Best,

Otis


Judy



--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@...> wrote:
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:14 PM, drjudy65 wrote:

Judy> Otis's problem comes from thinkng that emmetropia is a
definition of "normal". Emmetropia has a precise meaning: light from
an object at optical infinity comes to a focus on the retinal plane
when accommodation is at rest. The value does not define the range of
refractive errors in eyes that don't need glasses, nor does it
define "normal" eyes, it is what it is, one point on a curve.

Alex> Otis's problem? I don't think it is Otis's problem.

Alex> The idea that the emmetropia means a condition of being "normal"
in the sense of "as nature intended" or "without need of
correction," seems to be a pretty universal notion. Right or wrong,
the idea of "when accommodation is at rest" seems to be an arbitrary
addition to the definition to the word, judging by the way the word is
actually used and defined.

Dear plus-prevention friends,

If you are using the plus, then
I would suggest reading this book:

http://www.preventmyopia.org/ebook/

to truly understand why you must assume
this responsibility.

Otis

Dear Plus-prevention friends,

I accept that plus-prevention is difficult, and
depends completely on the insight and motivation
of the pereson himself.

I take the NATURAL eye as having negative or positive
refractive STATE DEPENDING on your average visual
environment.

You will encounter the words "emmetropia" and "ametropia".

I think these are words from a "failed" theory of
the eye.

Thus positive refractive STATES mean (with no medical problems)
20/20.  And positive refractive STATE are of value.

The Donders-Helmholtz theory sketches the refractive
states of the eye as a " V ".  Where the point
of the " V " is emmetropia (zero diopters) and
all other refractive STATES are errors, or "ametropia".

A positive refractive STATE of the natural eye is
described as "ametropia", or "hyperopia", or
hypermetropia.  Thus, if you are not aware of this
stilted language you begin to think that what
is normal and VALUABLE is "error" or defective.

Here is a discussion of this issue of word-assumptions
prepared by Judy and Alex of i-see for your enjoyment.

Otis

++++++++++++++=

On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:14 PM, drjudy65 wrote:
>
> Otis's problem comes from thinkng that emmetropia is a definition
> of "normal". Emmetropia has a precise meaning: light from an object
> at optical infinity comes to a focus on the retinal plane when
> accommodation is at rest. The value does not define the range of
> refractive errors in eyes that don't need glasses, nor does it
> define "normal" eyes, it is what it is, one point on a curve.

Otis's problem? I don't think it is Otis's problem.

The idea that the emmetropia means a condition of being "normal" in
the sense of "as nature intended" or "without need of correction,"
seems to be a pretty universal notion. Right or wrong, the idea of
"when accommodation is at rest" seems to be an arbitrary addition to
the definition to the word, judging by the way the word is actually
used and defined.

So how do others define and use the word?

http://www.bartleby.com/61/37/E0113700.html

  (American Heritage
Dictionary)
emmetropia. The condition of the normal eye when parallel rays are
focused exactly on the retina and vision is perfect.

http://www.pendletoneye.com/errors.htm

Everybody wants to be normal, and if your eyes are normal then you
are said to be emmetropic.

http://www.fpnotebook.com/EYE111.htm

Emmetropia (normal vision)

http://vision.about.com/od/glossary/g/emmetropia.htm

Definition: Emmetropia is the state of an eye that requires no
refractive correction.

http://www.pixi.com/~gedwards/eyes/normeye.html

In the Normal Eye (emmetropia), light rays from a distant object are
focused on the retina.

http://www.siepser.com/anatomy.htm

What is referred to as "normal" vision, or emmetropia, happens when
light rays focus precisely on the retina

http://www.siepser.com/anatomy.htm

Emmetropia - Normal condition of the eye when light focuses correctly
on the retina

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=hstat6.section.3211

The goal is to reduce or eliminate the refractive error, to attain
emmetropia (normal vision).

http://www.henryhull.com/ref.htm

EMMETROPIA (normal eye) is a condition where light is focused at a
point on the retina. This eye does not have hyperopia or myopia
because it has a spherical shape and correct size and length.

Dr. Judy:
> "Normal" with respect to most biological measures is usually a range
> of values. So yes, "normal" vision, if defined by the 25th to 75th
> percentile of the range of refractive error in a specific population
> of non diseased eyes will encompass a number of values; for
> caucasian North Americans it may be from about 1D of myopia through
> to 2D or 3D of hyperopia and will include emmetropia.

[ ... ]

> The normal range of refractive error in
> a population of 3 year olds will be plano to +3, for Chinese 20 year
> olds it may be -3 to -6. Emmetropia does not define normal range.

Look, when eye doctors go about "correcting" vision, the assumption
is that the eye is not "normal"; it needs to be "corrected" -- it
doesn't matter what age or ethnicity the person is. And "correction"
always means bringing the eye to "emmetropia".

The way the word is used commonly, "emmetropia" means the condition
of being able to see objects clearly, particularly at the distance,
and this has always been understood to be "normal" both
demographically and functionally. When, in the 19th century, good Dr.
Snellen defined the ability to see 9mm-high letters at 20 feet as
normal, yes, that was "normal" for children and young adults in the
demographic sense. Since then, standards have had to be lowered all
across the globe.

It is only in the last 100 years that the two senses of "normal" with
regards to the vision of young adults have started to conflict.

If the majority of entire young adult populations can't see well in
the distance, that is a problem, and redefining what is "normal" will
not help.

--Alex

Ethic4.txt

Dear Engineering friends,


Subject:  Long-term use of the plus for prevention -- is essential

Re:  I consider this absolutely necessary -- and must be started
      when the child is "emmetropic".

Re:  Then how do you "persuade" the parents to "accept" the need
      for their child to AUTOMATICALLY put a +2.5 diopter lens on
      -- when the child's vision is 20/20 (but the refractive state
      is zero, and certain to go down at -1/2 diopter per year if
      no preventive actions are taken.)

Re:  When I was 7 years old my medical doctor told my parents that
      "your son is going to be myopic".  Now how did he know that?
      Easy, my refractive STATE was ZERO at that time.  It would be
      nice if the "bifocal" data were available at that time, and I
      had been offered the preventive-plus.  But that is history,
      and my vision is so much spilt milk -- so much water over the
      dam.

Re:  This responsibility must be put on the parents and child AT
      THAT POINT.  If they do not like monitoring their Snellen,
      and clearing their vision when necessary, then it will be
      stair-case myopia with a 96 percent certainty.

Re:  I do not like those odds, and would prepare myself to either
      accept the plus, and work on my distant vision to keep it, or
      just forfeit it -- permanently.

      It is now over 100 years later (from the Printer's Son), and
the situation IS EXACTLY THE SAME.

      Only now we know for certain that if the plus lens IS NOT
USED, the child's eyes will certainly start that "stair case" ride
DOWN.

      In other words, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

      I still think that ONLY the optometrist who understand this
issue can ONLY help his own children.

      For despite what Alex says, the public is AFRAID OF THAT PLUS
LENS.

      And the majority-opinion ODs are going to "play" on that fear
-- and we have seen this on sci.med.vision again and again.

      In any even these post are designed to help people THINK!

      Best,

      Otis

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

Here is Alex's understanding of "preventive" ethics.


      I'm not sure Otis got the point.  Here's my commentary.

      I sent Otis a post from the "optometrysucks" yahoo group
where one doctor said the kid was "normal" and did not need the
$7000 vision therapy recommended by another other doctor.  I don't
think either doctor was going to recommend plus lenses, or advise
against minus lenses.  The point I was trying to make is that it's
hard to make money as an honest O.D.  because a lot of the time,
their services just aren't needed.

      This isn't about the public's resistance to plus prevention,
or even about minority vs majority treatment theory and practice.
This is about the pressure doctors get to prescribe something,
anything, in order to make a living and to perpetuate the idea
that they are needed.

      We've seen it happen over and over.  Some little girl comes
in with "problems" and a distance acuity of 20/40.  One doctor
will prescribe -2.0D or worse minus lenses thinking "it can't
hurt." The other doctor will say "wait and see...  your child does
not need my services."

      I repeat, the public is not the problem.  Otis, you can say
that and think that you will gain O.D.'s sympathy, but I think you
are going to turn off more of the "public" than you will ever win
over optometrists with that line.  As a matter of fact, there are
no limits to what parents will accept when it comes to treatments
for their children:  uncomfortable orthodontic appliances, painful
shots, psychoactive drugs, to name a few.  I wish you would stop
blaming the victim here.

      Parents would love to hear that their children are normal.
They would love to hear that their children might be able to grow
out of their problem with a little more fresh air and sunshine,
and perhaps some "cool" reading glasses.

      It's the schools and doctors infusing the parents with fear
about school performance ("gotta see the blackboard") and impaired
visual development ("blur causes myopia").

      Doctors play on their anxiety and give them treatments
whether or not they need them. In the case of minus lenses,
doctors are completely ignorant that they might even be doing some
harm.  That is the real tragedy.

      I'm fine with O.D.'s giving unneccessary treatments -- as
long as they're safe.  There's much to be said for the placebo
effect.

--Alex

P.S.  Otis you have my permission to post my comments to your
      MyopiaFree2 group.

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

Otis Brown wrote:

Subject:  What are the ethics of plus-prevention?

      Some ODs consider that their "business" is to ONLY do what
the public will "accept".

      And the ignorance of the public will reject plus-prevention
-- when it COULD BE EFFECTIVE.

      And doctor who attempts to do "more" than the minus lens,
encounters this intellectual "block" in the person.

      All of us must make a living -- as a professional.

      How do you resolve this issue?

      For many the plus seems "in-effective".  For others,
un-necessary.

      How then would it be possible to introduce plus-prevention
unless the person himself had good knowledge of the NECESSITY of
it.

      It was my purpose to "enhance" second-opinion ODs like
Raphaelson to get the public to understand and work WITH these 21
century ODs -- that must be the wave of the future.

      For me, "ethics" is determined by what a parent will do for
his own children (since no money is involved).

      Thus if a optometrist "protects" his child's vision with a
plus, then it follows that he will be able to protect the
intelligent-public with a plus -- if the "public" will ALLOW IT.

      The professional should be paid his standard rate for his
time.

      But the parent should go off and do his own research -- based
on the SUGGESTION of this preventive method.

      Here is the nature of that "ethical" issue.

      Best,

      Otis

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



Subject:  Ethics, profession and choice.

Re:  The ethics of offering the plus for prevention -- by a
      professional.

      I advocate plus-prevention in the sense of using
ear-protection in a "high-noise" environment.

      I consider long-term close work to be the same thing, and
that the plus (optically) performs the same function as ear-plugs.

      I also think the person himself will have to think-through
these issues -- and reach his own conclusions.

      Here is a discussion of "OD Ethics" for your review.

      (Names changed.)

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

Subject:  I KNOW how difficult plus-prevention is.

Re:  Why you had to keep your vision clear -- under YOUR control.

      This man is indeed ethical.

      And Raphaelson was ethical.

      (Assuming 20/40) The "problem", is that the public wants:

1.  Very, very sharp vision -- and I do MEAN NOW, and

2.  Prevention, and NOT stair-case myopia.

      In the sense of "medicine", then these men are caught between
a rock and a hard place.  I recognize that issue -- ALWAYS.

      But then I recognize the machinations of our Dr.  J.  H.
Perfidy

      Then I realize that I can never "fight" with Nat.

      And I pity Nat if he is ever called before a medical board
run by Dr.  Perfidy.

      I just must do it myself. Because there is no other
possibility.

      Best,

      Otis

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

From:  Nat

Subject:  VT (Visual Training) patients are undeserved

      I will chime in on this.  I recently did an exam on a 14 year
old patient with good grades.  His dad wanted a second opinion on
his extropia and amblpyopia that would cost $7,000+ (4 times a
week for four months). Statements by the dad were "The other OD
looked me in the eye and said that he was surprised my son could
catch a ball with visual skills like these." " If I need to borrow
money on my house to fix my kid, I'll do it, but I really got the
idea it was all about the money."

      I did a full work up and found nothing.  No XT.  No
ambylopia.  No exophoria.  No suppression.  No accom.  Insuf.  No
oculumotor dysfunction.  And I looked hard.  You could argue that
his vergence ranges were a little low, but he was asymptomatic.

      I told the dad to work on the other problems his son is
having, and that I'd like to keep in touch and watch out.  Not
brushing him off, and not starting VT.

      Now I don't talk negatively about anybody to patients.  I
just had different findings.  Is it possible that this other OD
has test that are signficantly more senative than mine.  Maybe.
Was the kid having a bad day on the first test and a great day on
Friday?  Maybe.  Was the doc having a bad day when he presented
the case for VT?  Maybe.

      The point is - I could have charged this guy $4,000 for VT
and it would have seemed like a bargain to him.  But I'm an
ethical guy - like most ODs and most VT ODs - I called it as I saw
it.

-Nat

PS:  I once had a dentist tell me I wasn't flossing enough and
      that I needed $2,000 worth of "deep cleaning." I take pretty
      good care of my teeth.  I got a second opinion and this
      dentist (and every oter one) said my gums were fine.  Point:
      Again, it really doesn't matter what profession you are in,
      it is ALL about how ethical you are.

RunArgu.txt

Subject:  Running "arguments" that go on for decades.

Re:  Ultimately you have to sort out what is important to YOU, and
       make a choice for plus-prevention -- or not.

      Here are some "running" arguments with Alex Eulenberg
(i-see) and David Granet for your interest.

      One way to resolve this issue is to ask if some ODs
"wake up" to plus-prevention -- and insist that their
own children wear the plus for all close work.  Since
I know that some ODs deal with their own children in
that way, then that is what I call a second-opinion OD.
But equally, there are ODs who are convinced that the
minus lens is "perfect" and prevention is not
needed or required.  THOSE ODs put their own
children in a strong minus (and of course they
get stair-case myopia from it).  But this is
one method of sorting out the difference
between "experts".

      In effect, Alex argues that the conventional majority-opinion
(minus-prescription) has a "problem" with it -- and David Granet
insists that a minus lens is "perfect" and no one should question
the whole concept of minus-lens prescriptions. In other words,
the conventional method of the last 400 year should continue and
no one should ask pointed questions about it.

      Here is the discussion from 1995:

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

On sci.med.vision, David Granet (MD) said (flame-bait and other
       non-sequiturs deleted):

Granet> Once again it is noted that Alex's Rx progressed after NOT
       receiving any glasses.

Alex> I never denied that nearsightedness can increase without
       glasses. My question, which you continue to evade, is:
       what can glasses do to either reverse or accelerate this
       trend?

Alex> In my research at the Indiana University optometry library,
       have unearthed a diverse group of authors [1] -- most of them
       eye doctors -- who claim that

A.  minus-diopter lenses, the kind ordinarily prescribed for the
       nearsighted, make myopia worse, and

B.  plus-diopter lenses, which force the patient to focus farther
       into the distance, can be extremely effective at both
       preventing and reducing myopia, nearly always providing
       complete cures for low degrees caught early.  Such glasses
       are prescribed by the eye doctors I refer to for near-vision
       tasks or self-administered therapeutic sessions.

      I'm still waiting for a straight answer:  what do today's eye
doctors know about the effect of lenses plus and minus on the
human eye?

      Yes, myopia can increase without minus glasses, but by how
much compared to the rate at which it increases with minus
glasses?

      If something can be done between the time when a small amount
of myopia is first detected and the time glasses are deemed
"necessary", shouldn't it?

      If plus lenses can be used to counteract the myopic trend
(e.g.  by using them for near work), why aren't they?

      If all those eye doctors I refer to were proven wrong, when
were they and how?

--Alex

[1] Bibliographies (and more) available at
       http://silver.ucs.indiana.edu/~aeulenbe/i_see.html

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

From:

David B. Granet
Date: 1995/07/08

Subject: Re: Glasses that ruin/improve your eyes

(Alex Eulenberg) wrote:

> If all those eye doctors I refer to were proven wrong, when were
       they and how?

Granet> Well here we are back at the "please teach me" level.

      Alex reading a few articles about vision on Spring Break does
not make you an expert.  There are good Universities for studying
vision science.  I won't be your personal tutor - I wonder who
will choose to do that.  May I suggest someone at the school you
attend ?

      David

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

===========

ariadna a solovyova

>In article <aeulenbe.805148137@silver>,
       aeule...@... Alex Eulenberg) wrote:

>> If all those eye doctors I refer to were proven wrong, when
       were they and how?

> Well here we are back at the "please teach me" level.  Alex
       reading a few articles about vision on Spring Break does not
       make you an expert.  There are good Universities for
       studying vision science. I won't be your personal tutor - I
       wonder who will choose to do that.  May I suggest someone at
       the school you attend ?

> This is an extremely weird response. As I understand, people
       can ask for references to books and articles on Usenet
       newsgroups.  If a person knows any references, he should
       give them; if not, he should say so (if asked directly) or
       remain silent.  Telling someone to go get a personal tutor
       is not a proper kind of answer.

      Am I wrong?

      Ari

Alex Eulenberg

From: aeule...@... (Alex Eulenberg)
Date: 1995/07/09
Subject: Re: Glasses that ruin/improve your eyes


      >OK if you just want a response about how lenses affect the
eyes it is my opinion they simply do not.That is what a lot of
very different people with different backgrounds and viewpoints
have been trying to tell you.

Alex> Let's review who's said what.  Optician Dick Claiborne said
       that in "certain cases" wearing lenses can affect your
       ability to see unaided, but did not elaborate.
       Ophthalmologist David Granet, though he continues to post
       follow-ups on this thread, has steadfastly refrained from
       taking a stand on this issue.  Optometrist Robert-Michael
       Kaplan says outright (on s.m.v.  "increasing prescriptions")
       that there are cases when the "full minus prescription will
       contribute to the person becoming more myopic".  Optometrist
       John Warren has claimed that certain glasses can cause
       "temporary" myopia, but he did not say how long this
       temporary effect lasts, or whether it can ever become
       permanent.

Alex> Actually, it seems most eye doctors think glasses CAN affect
       the capacity of the eyes to see. Now the question is, to
       what extent?  Is it purely psychological?  Are there
       physiological effects as well?  According to what I've read,
       the effects can be much more serious and far-reaching than
       people are usually led to believe.  But I'd like to hear
       about the research that supports the "conservative" view, if
       it exists.

      --Alex

      For references to research that suggests a radical reform of
the way glasses are prescribed, offering hope for better naked-eye
vision to millions of people with nearsighted and astigmatic eyes,
see the "Alternative Eye Science" bibliography at


      http://silver.ucs.indiana.edu/~aeulenbe/i_see.html


David B. Granet    View profile
Date: 1995/07/09
Subject: Re: Glasses that ruin/improve your eyes

(ariadna a solovyova) wrote:

      > This is an extremely weird response.  As I understand,
people can ask for references to books and articles on Usenet
newsgroups.  If a person knows any references, he should give
them; if not, he should say so (if asked directly) or remain
silent.  Telling someone to go get a personal tutor is not a
proper kind of answer.


      > Am I wrong?

      Ari

Granet> Of course your blanket statement above is generally
       correct. Only in this specific situation - with Alex
       repeatedly making definitive statements and advising people
       and then asking why he's wrong - it doesn't hold.  The
       rhythm is, of course, to learn first, study a topic (for
       more than just over summer break) and then after having been
       shown to be a reliable expert give advice.

      I know you would not want a graduate student to be your
surgeon so why accept him here ?  As to asking for references it
becomes overdone when the smv group become his private tutoring
ground over many months.

      I notice you and Alex hail from the same University.  You
have terrific Ophthalmology and Optometry centers there.  When
next you see him say "hi" and send him in their direction.

      Best Regards-

      David

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


*Keeping an Eye on our future  ;-) *


Yossi Gil    View profile
Date: 1995/07/10
Subject: Re: Glasses that ruin/improve your eyes

      As a scientist and an expert in my field, let me join Ari in
expressing the disgust resulting from the patronizing approach
that Mr.  Granet repeatedly takes in this newsgroup.  True, the VT
supporters are non-professionals, and their views and attitudes
are many times below the standards of normal academic disucssion.
So what?  In any normal academic profession this would not have
lead to such furious (and may I add stupid) flames by the experts.

      Medicine is unique in adopting "proof by authority" methods.
I guess this is the result of the structure of the health care
system in which "the Doctor" (whisper the title with awe please as
your read this) does not, and indeed, probably should not, go into
normal academic discussion with his inferiors: patients, nurses,
and even interns.

Joseph (Yossi) Gil
Technion -- Israel Institute of Technology
Technion City, Haifa 32000, Israel


David Wooding
Date: 1995/07/10
Subject: Re: Glasses that ruin/improve your eyes

      I guess you had to be here.  I would imagine you have not
been reading the list for very long.  What Dr.Granet is exhibiting
is plain, old-fashioned exasperation.  Alex has not spent as much
time in the field (which is fine), but his style of argument has
always lacked any respect for people who might actually have
gained some useful knowledge from years of practice or research.
That is not fine.  It is not the way to *discuss* scientific
ideas, nor is the way to treat a fellow human being.  Alex fires
spurious references, hearsay and folklore (as well as personal
testimony, which is the most acceptable part of his argument), and
when people respond he cries conspiracy.  This is no basis for a
good exchange of views, and people are understandably fed up with
him.  I believe you would be too, if you attempted to explain a
point of view which he disagreed with. There is no room for
disagreement with Alex.

      I wrote at length on this around a week ago, and have no
interest in wasting any more time on him.  Nobody has a God-given
right to an answer on a newsgroup, least of all someone who
repeatedly abuses those others on the group.

      As for your analysis of what is taking place on this group, I
would respectfully suggest that, as Alex, you need to read for a
bit longer.

      No flame intended, just fed up with the situation,

      Dave.

P.S.  I am a scientist too.  I wouldn't claim to be an expert in
       my field!

ahh kenny's email address doesn't work. anyone knows
if he has another one???
--- "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:

>
> WokeUP.txt
>
>      Here are some remarks of a person who "woke up"
> to the need
> for the preventive plus -- after it was too late to
> use it
> correctly.
>
>      If you are at 20/40 to 20/60, and get "tired"
> of
> using the plus-for-prevention, then keep Kenny's
> statement in mind.
>
>      It is EASY to suggest plus-prevention.  But
> would Kenny have responded to advocacy for
> plus-prevention when he was 20/60 (and -1.5
> diopters)?
>
>      We will never know.
>
>      Otis
>
>      ++++++++++++++++
>
> Subject:  CURE YOUR MYOPIA WITH READING GLASSES
>
>      Hello!  My name is Kenneth.  Kenny for short.
> I will be your
> guide to curing your myopia.  I'm Chinese.  There
> are links on the
> bottom, which is where I learned all of this
> valuable information,
> which is worth billions of dollars, literally.
>
>      Here are my thesis statements.
>
>      Myopia is not genetic.
>
>      Negative concave glasses make you even more
> nearsided.
>
>      You should buy some low power reading glasses
> at walgreens
> for around 10 dollars.
>
>      Myopia is not genetic.  10,000 years ago we
> used to hunt and
> gather.
>
>      There was no such thing as reading or homework.
>  And believe
> me even the Chinese were not nearsided.
>
>      Ask your eye doctor, "why am I nearsided?"
>
>      They will answer an abrupt, "genetics"
>
>      This is white supremacy.  The is Ku Klux Klan.
> This is Nazi,
> and Neo-Nazi.  Chinese civilization is 5,000 years
> old.  During
> this time, Social Darwinism made it so that if would
> be beneficial
> to be nearsided, and, through natural selection,
> people who could
> become myopic became a larger part of the
> population.
>
>      But did you know that these people are NORMAL?
> That's right.
> They are the conformists.  They do what they are
> told. And to
> their teachers, their bosses, and their coworkers,
> they are
> normal.  They do their work.  In fact, they often
> encourage others
> to do work like them.
>
>      They do what society tells them and they get
> punished because
> they have a gift.  What is that gift?  It's the
> ability to focus
> on things upclose for long periods of time.
> Farsided people
> cannot do this, although it's strange that we were
> all born
> farsided.  We are about 2+ when we are born.  Then
> our families
> teach us to read, and at first it is really hard to
> focus, not on
> the topic, but on the book's letters themselves.
> And this is how
> we destroy our farsidedness and become nearsided.
>
>      I don't care if my eye doctor is a PHD.
> Glasses were
> invented in the 1700's by a French guy who looked
> through a
> telescope, which obviously screws up ur eyes.
> Instantly, after
> looking through a convex lenses, he founed that his
> vision was
> instantly cured.
>
>      But as we all know, Americans and the new world
> is impatient
> and always look for a quick fix.  Short term, it is
> okay.  Long
> term, it would be better if the problem were not
> treated in the
> first place.  It's called Homeopathy:
>
>      "A method of treating disease with small
> amounts of remedies
> that, in large amounts in healthy people, produce
> symptoms similar
> to those being treated."
>
>      Anyway, wasn't standford made in the 1700's.
> You know, in
> the 1700's I bet you they didn't know that glasses
> your eyes
> dramatically worse.  Most people didn't give a shit.
>  People today
> don't give a shit.  I try to save their eyes.  But
> they are like,
> "dude can you please stop talking about glasses?".
> But I care.
> Why do I care?
>
>      Here's my story:
>
>      I was 7 years old and I just bought some
> garfield books.  I
> read it on my bed because we didn't have a sofa.  If
> we had a sofa
> I would have put it farther away from my face
> because of the back
> support and arm rests. But being the intense
> perfectionist and
> mainly left brained thinker, I put my face hella
> close to the
> page.  If it were a boring book I would not have
> done so.  In fact
> it would be torture.  But this was Garfield.  I
> truly recommend.
> Do not ever buy books, ever, at all.  They will be
> the death of
> you.  Especially the entertaining ones.  If you
> wanna read, you
> MUST use reading glasses which you can buy at
> walgreens without a
> prescription.  The power you want is up to you.  To
> help you
> decide.  Consider this.  Wheny ou put something 6
> inches away from
> your face your eye becomes 3.5+ diopters.  About one
> foot away
> your eyes accomodate 1.25+ diopters.  So your eyes
> becomes more
> convex.  If you get some damn reading glasses, they
> do the
> accomodation for you, thus reading becomes like
> looking far.  And
> as we all know looking far is relaxing, and reading
> is a constant
> accomodation of the eyes.
>
>      Anyway, my eye doctor made me wear glasses.
> Glasses make
> your eyes bulge and makes you have bags under your
> eyes.  I now,
> at the age of 16, look like I'm 40.  The only
> difference is that
> when I'm forty, I'll be bald.  I only remember
> things in my life
> at the age of 4 and up.  So that was three years,
> and then WHAM I
> had to wear glasses at the age of seven.  The eye
> doctor told me
> to wear them all the time to break them in.  And
> when they gave me
> the eye test they told me not to squint.  So I
> assumed squinting
> was bad.
>
>      Teachers see squinting in the classroom, and
> it's a red flag.
> They secretly send reports to your parents that you
> need glasses.
> I do not believe that at that age I could think on
> my own..  I
> KNOW I couldn't think of my own.  So I continued to
> live my life,
> playing basketball and football with glasses on.
> And lord it
> sucked like fucking hell.  Every other game the ball
> would hit my
> frames in b-ball.  When I played football, my friend
> Justin asked,
>
=== message truncated ===




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Now that's room service!  Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel to find your fit.
http://farechase.yahoo.com/promo-generic-14795097

OD7000.txt

Subject:  Ethics, profession and choice.

Re:  The ethics of offering the plus for prevention -- by a
       professional.

      I advocate plus-prevention in the sense of using
ear-protection in a "high-noise" environment.

      I consider long-term close work to be the same thing, and
that the plus (optically) performs the same function as ear-plugs.

      I also think the person himself will have to think-through
these issues -- and reach his own conclusions.

      Here is a discussion of "OD Ethics" for your review.

      (Names changed.)

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

Subject:  I KNOW how difficult plus-prevention is.

Re:  Why you had to keep your vision clear -- under YOUR control.

      This man is indeed ethical.

      And Raphaelson was ethical.

      (Assuming 20/40) The "problem", is that the public wants:

1.  Very, very sharp vision -- and I do MEAN NOW, and

2.  Prevention, and NOT stair-case myopia.

      In the sense of "medicine", then these men are caught between
a rock and a hard place.  I recognize that issue -- ALWAYS.

      But then I recognize the machinations of our Dr.  J.  H.
Perfidy

      Then I realize that I can never "fight" with Nathan.

      And I pity Nathan if he is ever called before a medical board
run by Dr.  Perfidy.

      I just must do it myself. Because there is no other
possibility.

      Best,

      Otis

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

From:  Nat

Subject:  VT (Visual Training) patients are underserved

      I will chime in on this.  I recently did an exam on a 14 year
old patient with good grades.  His dad wanted a second opinion on
his extropia and amblpyopia that would cost $7,000+ (4 times a
week for four months). Statements by the dad were "The other OD
looked me in the eye and said that he was surprized my son could
catch a ball with visual skills like these." " If I need to borrow
money on my house to fix my kid, I'll do it, but I really got the
idea it was all about the money."

      I did a full work up and found nothing.  No XT.  No
ambylopia.  No exophoria.  No suppression.  No accom.  Insuf.  No
oculumotor dysfunction.  And I looked hard.  You could argue that
his vergence ranges were a little low, but he was asymptomatic.

      I told the dad to work on the other problems his son is
having, and that I'd like to keep in touch and watch out.  Not
brushing him off, and not starting VT.

      Now I don't talk negatively about anybody to patients.  I
just had different findings.  Is it possible that this other OD
has test that are signficantly more senative than mine.  Maybe.
Was the kid having a bad day on the first test and a great day on
Friday?  Maybe.  Was the doc having a bad day when he presented
the case for VT?  Maybe.

      The point is - I could have charged this guy $4,000 for VT
and it would have seemed like a bargain to him.  But I'm an
ethical guy - like most ODs and most VT ODs - I called it as I saw
it.

      -Nat

PS:  I once had a dentist tell me I wasn't flossing enough and
       that I needed $2,000 worth of "deep cleaning." I take pretty
       good care of my teeth.  I got a second opinion and this
       dentist (and every oter one) said my gums were fine.  Point:
       Again, it really doesn't matter what profession you are in,
       it is ALL about how ethical you are.

StevPlus.txt

Some optometrists have developed and
support plus-prevention.

They realize the tragic effect of
wearing an over-prescribed minus
lens on the natural eye -- and insist
that their OWN CHILDREN
begin wearing the plus as SOON as their
refractive state is zero.

I consider this wise, and about the only true and effective
method to "solve" the problem of a natural eye with a negative
refractive STATE.

      Enjoy,

      Otis

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

      From:  Steve I. H.LEUNG Optometrist

      Hong Kong, SAR, China , May 2003

Subject:  An optometrist's personal experience or MY
	   AWAKENING

Dear Myopic Folk,

      I am a practicing optometrist working in the field of optics
for more than 16 years.  During these years I faced an excessive
high rate of children developing nearsightedness (myopia).  It is
very hard to resist the obvious need to use a minus lens (concave
lens) for these children.  I deeply appreciate that we all value
clear distant vision for life. Achieving this goal would be of
great value for all of us.

      Everyday, a great many people are developing the vision
problems of nearsightedness, farsightedness, aged vision -- as
well as crossed and lazy eyes. These people come to my office and
require immediate vision correction.  They all need glasses.

      Among the visual problems, the case of myopia correction
bothers me greatly.  It is a dilemma and tragedy of using a
"correcting" lenses, which in fact these glasses eventually become
a crutch for life.

      In the early years of practice, I was not aware the long-term
bad effect that a minus lens has on the eye.  This is because
neither the curriculum textbooks nor the professors pointed out
the ultimate side effect that a minus lens has on the eye --
during my many years of doing course work in optometry.

      After graduation, I practiced the full scope of optometry,
from refraction to fundus eye examination, and vision correction
by optical means.  But once these means are removed, the vision is
neither improved nor restored.

      The minus lens is merely an aid to vision, i.e., compensation
by external means.

      In the majority of cases, naked-eye vision gets worse with
the traditional minus lens correction.

      The children will need stronger power glasses in the
following years.  It is a matter of treating the symptom -- but
does not achieve an effective cure.

      I have been mulling over in my mind -- to think about
alternative and better methods to manage myopic eyes, because I
also am nearsighted.

      With my accumulating experience, I am well aware that
constant wearing of minus lens glasses are harmful especially the
full power ones.  However, there is no choice but to use a minus
lens if the child cannot see well in his class.

      At times, the best that I can do is to emphasize that the use
of (minus lens) glasses be restricted to chalk board, and always
must be removed after class.  This is the first step in goal of
avoiding the glasses' side effect.

      But being myopic is unfortunate and inconvenient. At times
it seems that none of us can escape the use of a minus lenses to
restore clear vision.

      I have been driven into deep thinking about a way of, "how to
restore clear vision from myopic and how to maintain distant
vision for life."

      As a father and an optometrist, I felt a strong commitment to
protect my own child's vision.  It was because my child (age 4) in
her curiosity asked me, "Dad, why do you always wear glasses?  Why
are the kids I play with in school wearing glasses?"

      Her statement had a serious impact on me, and I woke up to
the fact that a child should not be fitted with minus lens glasses
-- if there are means to doing so.

      Why?  The earlier age you begin wearing the minus lens, the
faster vision deteriorates.  The minus lens can make vision worse
all by itself! Many scientists, engineers and health workers have
formed this opinion -- that the minus lens is definitely harmful
to young kid's long-term vision.

      Because I was sensitive to both the requirement to use the
minus lens, but also understood the secondary effect (vision
deteriorates )I began much broader research into the subject
matter.  This included the judgment of engineers and scientists
(and some ophthalmologists )who "object" to the use of the minus
lens.

      Fortunately, I met several enthusiastic engineers, physicists
and scientists via internet in 2001 by chance. They provided
excellent postings in their web sites where I got a deep insight
about the development and management of child's acquired myopia --
to include the potential of preventing it in the first place by
wise use of a (reading) plus lens.  They are Donald Rehm, Otis
Brown, James Arthur, Dr.  Stirling Colgate and Alex Eulenberg.

      In fact, researchers such as Dr.  Jacob Raphaelson and Dr.
Francis Young had conducted pioneering work to determine the
cause, effect, and remedy for myopia acquired in school.  As early
as 1904, Dr.  Jacob Raphaelson had used the plus (convex) lens to
effectively cure a child's myopia.  Further, Dr.  Francis Young
has revealed the true cause of acquired myopia with his large
number of insightful experiments and scientific publications in
the 1960s.  All the above mentioned scientists advocate that
preventative measures be instituted to help children avoid getting
into myopia in the first place.

      In view of their spirit and fortitude, I felt that I bore a
responsibility as an optometrist if I did nothing to assist in the
prevention of myopia.

      I regret that I became part of the system (use minus lens)
that was put in place long time ago -- and that this system has
not changed in any significant detail since its inception.

      My goal is to look to the future and begin preventive methods
which can be effective for the child who is on the threshold of
myopia.  Today, I make it clear that my mission and task is to try
my best to discuss the alternate opinion on the therapeutic use of
the plus lens -- instead of the compensatory use of minus lens.  I
do everything in my power to explain the long-term effect that the
minus lens has on the eye's refractive status, and I encourage
parents to review this issue for themselves.

      I have supported several hundred children with the plus lens
since 2001.  The long term effect of the lens is developing, and
results will become better as the use becomes more complete.  Most
of the children retain their current refractive (focal) status and
few of them achieved significant vision improvement.  Although it
is unusual, there have been several cases of complete vision
recovery!  I also felt that making this commitment is a matter of
my personal integrity, and is necessarily part of my work and
career.

      Steve Lung OD

10DWorst.txt

      Subject:  The world's worst over-prescription (part 2)

      Re:  I can not BELIEVE that any OD or MD would do this!

      This 3 year-old had confirmed 20/50 to 20/60 vision.
(Typically, children do not develop 20/20 vision until five or
older -- although there are variations.)

      The second-opinion here would be to provide information and a
choice to the mother.  There is no pressing need for a
prescription, although the situation should be monitored.

      The child is being taught to read (and holds the book at 5
inches (-8 diopters).

      What was done by a majority-opinion doctor?  He prescribed a
-10.5 diopter lens and insisted the child wear it ALL THE TIME.

      Even today I can not BELIEVE that anyone would do that to a
child with 20/60 vision.  But here is the story told by the
mother.

      I must admit that I am horror-stuck with this casula
over-prescription of a minus lens on a child so young.

      I can not "explain" why a child at 20/50 to 20/60 would be
"measured" so badly.  There is mention of an auto-refractor, and a
"second-opinion" that says "...don't do it".  But the monther
seems to be convinced that that -10.5 diopters is NECESSARY.

      Read this an make your own judgment.

      Otis

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

Parent> My daughter, who just turned 4, went in for another follow
	 up.  I am happy to say that she was seeing a whole line
	 better on the vision chart.  She saw 20/40 with the left
	 eye(and a little on the 20/30 line) and 20/50 consistantly
	 with the right.  Her perscription has not changed.  She
	 has been a -10.50 in both eyes for over a year now.  The
	 year before her lenticular myopia doubled.  I am hoping
	 the doctor is correct that there is a chance that because
	 her perscription is so high it might not get worse.  I
	 don't know if anyone is reading this anymore but everyone
	 was so helpful before I just want to keep everyone
	 informed on the progress.  Just for the record she still
	 sees alot better without her glasses than her perscription
	 suggests but definately likes wearing them.

      ==========

Dear Concerned Parent,


Otis> Thanks for your post on your daughter's progress.

Parent> My daughter, who just turned 4, went in for another follow
	 up.  I am happy to say that she was seeing a whole line
	 better on the vision chart.

Otis> Is this naked eye -- or is it with the -10.5 diopter lens on
	 her face?

Parent> She saw 20/40 with the left eye(and a little on the 20/30
	 line) and 20/50 consistantly with the right.

Parent> Her perscription has not changed.  She has been a -10.50
	 in both eyes for over a year now.

Otis> Has she been wearing the -10.5 diopter lens all the time?

Parent> The year before her lenticular myopia doubled.

Otis> What do you mean by "doubled".  Is her lenticular myopia -10
	 diopters, or -5 diopters?

Parent> I am hoping the doctor is correct that there is a chance
	 that because her perscription is so high it might not get
	 worse.

Otis> I assume you mean that her refractive STATE will move to -15
	 diopters in a few years.

Parent> I don't know if anyone is reading this anymore but
	 everyone was so helpful before I just want to keep
	 everyone informed on the progress.

Otis> We are all interested in her vision improving.

Parent> Just for the record she still sees alot better without her
	 glasses than her perscription suggests but definately
	 likes wearing them.

Otis> In other words her Snellen is better with no -10.5 diopter
	 lens on, than it is with that minus lens on?

Otis> Thanks in advance for your reply.


Otis

      =======

Subject:  Re:  another follow up for 20/60 but -10.00

Parent> The vision test was done with her glasses on.  She wears
	 them full time.  When she wakes up in the morning she
	 doesn't even ask for them unless she starts watching
	 television.  My daughter definately perfers wearing them.
	 What I meant about how she still sees better than her
	 perscription suggests is that when she does not have the
	 glasses on she sees better than I think she should.  An
	 example is that on saturday we had a bithday party for
	 her.  I took off her glasses because her face was getting
	 painted.  When her friends came in the front door (about
	 15 feet away) she would say their names before anyone else
	 did.  I was a -4.50, I know I would not be able to tell
	 who was walking through the door at 15 feet especially the
	 face of a 4 year old(because they are smaller).

Parent> When I said she doubled she was about a -5.00 the year
	 before.  We did not believe it so we waited a year
	 unfortunately so she could tell us what she sees.  During
	 that year she became -10.50.  I still don't understand how
	 she saw originally 20/60 at one doctor's office and 20/80
	 at another with no glasses and still be a -10.50.  For
	 this reason we thought the doctor's were crazy for telling
	 us she needs such a strong pair of glasses.  But I believe
	 they were right and everything is goin well.

=====

Dr.  Leukoma

DrL > The human optical system is capable of much more complexity
	 than can be described by the comparatively simplistic
	 system of refraction that is commonly used.

DrL > The entire system is based upon everything being a simple
	 concave or convex lens with or without a cylindrical
	 (astigmatic) component.  In other words, we are REDUCING
	 this complexity to a very simplistic paradigm and
	 discarding the rest of the information.

DrL > Wavefront aberrometry breaks the system down into much
	 greater detail, and one can readily see the differences in
	 optics from one person to another.  Some people have
	 optical systems that may be very nearsighted within the
	 central 2 millimeters, becoming less nearsighted out in
	 the periphery.

DrL > Therefore, the refraction can change as the pupil becomes
	 larger or smaller.  Since mainstreaming this technology
	 into my practice, I don't know how I did without.

DrL > Has anybody suggested having a wavefront refraction done on
	 your child?  I suggest contacting a university teaching
	 hospital or school of optometry and have this done.  I'm
	 certain that once you describe the situation, they would
	 jump at the opportunity.

DrL

========

From Parent>


Parent> We took her last year to Bascom Palmer Institute in Miami.
	 I am not sure what tests they did.  I know the one doctor
	 did an ultrasound on her eyes. The other doctor took
	 pictures of her eyes that were of the inside of her eyes.

Parent> I remember the photograph being red and I believe it was
	 from behind the eyes.  After the picture was taken I
	 remember the doctor saying the reflex was good (I don't
	 know if that helps tell you or not the type of test).

Parent> I know she also looked into a machine that gave them
	 measurements.  She looked into another machine that had a
	 picture that gave them her perscription.

Parent> Back then I asked him if something like that was occuring
	 because we noticed that the darker it was the better she
	 seemed to see.

Parent> He said with the retinoscope he did see that she was very
	 nearsighted in the middle and not as much on the outer
	 part.  Her other doctor (who is a very well respected
	 pediatric opthalmologist and friend of the Basolm Palmer
	 doctor) seemed to think that it was a bunch of bull.

Parent> I believe it was you who brought up the posssability of
	 being lenticonus last year.

Parent> Both doctors did not see it when they looked into her
	 eyes.  The Bascolm Palmer doctor thought he possibly saw
	 the start of a cataract in her eyes where the other doctor
	 thought that was a bunch of bull saying that it would be
	 easily seen.

Parent> I know Bascolm Palmer is world respected but I feel most
	 comfortable with the other doctor.  I will definately look
	 into your suggestion and appreciate your time.

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

Otis commentary:

      I know that people "trust" there doctors.  And that if fine
with me.

      But in this case I think that a child with 20/60 naked eye
should be given every opportunity to consider other alternatives.

      Since 20/60 is functional, there is not explained reason for
the "rush" into a -10.5 diopter lens.

      Further the child is being taught to read at age 3 -- with
her reading distance of 5 inches (-8 diopters).

      Yet there is no discussion with the mother about this issue
at all.

      I think the child should be issued a white cane, along with
that -10.5 diopter lens, because that is how she is going to be in
about 15 years.

      (I truly hope I am wrong about this.)

WokeUP.txt

      Here are some remarks of a person who "woke up" to the need
for the preventive plus -- after it was too late to use it
correctly.

      If you are at 20/40 to 20/60, and get "tired" of
using the plus-for-prevention, then keep Kenny's
statement in mind.

      It is EASY to suggest plus-prevention.  But
would Kenny have responded to advocacy for
plus-prevention when he was 20/60 (and -1.5 diopters)?

      We will never know.

      Otis

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

Subject:  CURE YOUR MYOPIA WITH READING GLASSES

      Hello!  My name is Kenneth.  Kenny for short.  I will be your
guide to curing your myopia.  I'm Chinese.  There are links on the
bottom, which is where I learned all of this valuable information,
which is worth billions of dollars, literally.

      Here are my thesis statements.

      Myopia is not genetic.

      Negative concave glasses make you even more nearsided.

      You should buy some low power reading glasses at walgreens
for around 10 dollars.

      Myopia is not genetic.  10,000 years ago we used to hunt and
gather.

      There was no such thing as reading or homework.  And believe
me even the Chinese were not nearsided.

      Ask your eye doctor, "why am I nearsided?"

      They will answer an abrupt, "genetics"

      This is white supremacy.  The is Ku Klux Klan.  This is Nazi,
and Neo-Nazi.  Chinese civilization is 5,000 years old.  During
this time, Social Darwinism made it so that if would be beneficial
to be nearsided, and, through natural selection, people who could
become myopic became a larger part of the population.

      But did you know that these people are NORMAL?  That's right.
They are the conformists.  They do what they are told. And to
their teachers, their bosses, and their coworkers, they are
normal.  They do their work.  In fact, they often encourage others
to do work like them.

      They do what society tells them and they get punished because
they have a gift.  What is that gift?  It's the ability to focus
on things upclose for long periods of time.  Farsided people
cannot do this, although it's strange that we were all born
farsided.  We are about 2+ when we are born.  Then our families
teach us to read, and at first it is really hard to focus, not on
the topic, but on the book's letters themselves.  And this is how
we destroy our farsidedness and become nearsided.

      I don't care if my eye doctor is a PHD.  Glasses were
invented in the 1700's by a French guy who looked through a
telescope, which obviously screws up ur eyes.  Instantly, after
looking through a convex lenses, he founed that his vision was
instantly cured.

      But as we all know, Americans and the new world is impatient
and always look for a quick fix.  Short term, it is okay.  Long
term, it would be better if the problem were not treated in the
first place.  It's called Homeopathy:

      "A method of treating disease with small amounts of remedies
that, in large amounts in healthy people, produce symptoms similar
to those being treated."

      Anyway, wasn't standford made in the 1700's.  You know, in
the 1700's I bet you they didn't know that glasses your eyes
dramatically worse.  Most people didn't give a shit.  People today
don't give a shit.  I try to save their eyes.  But they are like,
"dude can you please stop talking about glasses?".  But I care.
Why do I care?

      Here's my story:

      I was 7 years old and I just bought some garfield books.  I
read it on my bed because we didn't have a sofa.  If we had a sofa
I would have put it farther away from my face because of the back
support and arm rests. But being the intense perfectionist and
mainly left brained thinker, I put my face hella close to the
page.  If it were a boring book I would not have done so.  In fact
it would be torture.  But this was Garfield.  I truly recommend.
Do not ever buy books, ever, at all.  They will be the death of
you.  Especially the entertaining ones.  If you wanna read, you
MUST use reading glasses which you can buy at walgreens without a
prescription.  The power you want is up to you.  To help you
decide.  Consider this.  Wheny ou put something 6 inches away from
your face your eye becomes 3.5+ diopters.  About one foot away
your eyes accomodate 1.25+ diopters.  So your eyes becomes more
convex.  If you get some damn reading glasses, they do the
accomodation for you, thus reading becomes like looking far.  And
as we all know looking far is relaxing, and reading is a constant
accomodation of the eyes.

      Anyway, my eye doctor made me wear glasses.  Glasses make
your eyes bulge and makes you have bags under your eyes.  I now,
at the age of 16, look like I'm 40.  The only difference is that
when I'm forty, I'll be bald.  I only remember things in my life
at the age of 4 and up.  So that was three years, and then WHAM I
had to wear glasses at the age of seven.  The eye doctor told me
to wear them all the time to break them in.  And when they gave me
the eye test they told me not to squint.  So I assumed squinting
was bad.

      Teachers see squinting in the classroom, and it's a red flag.
They secretly send reports to your parents that you need glasses.
I do not believe that at that age I could think on my own..  I
KNOW I couldn't think of my own.  So I continued to live my life,
playing basketball and football with glasses on.  And lord it
sucked like fucking hell.  Every other game the ball would hit my
frames in b-ball.  When I played football, my friend Justin asked,
Kenny can't you take off your glasses.  I tried it, and I could
see.  But I also though it was hella bad for my eyes.  The truth
was that taking off my glasses and playing football on the green
green grass outdoors was the best thing that I could do for my
eyes.

      Anyway, my main life consisted of games.  In the summers of
6th grade to 11th grade I would play starcraft, counterstrike,
diablo, diablo 2, and their expansions accordingly ( not
counterstrike ) for ten hours a day.  My dumbass grandfather taped
up my windows so that no one could look inside.  Apparently I
couldn't look out either.  And also, I wore glasses while doing
nearwork.  Because I, at the time, was a passive non-aggressive,
non assertive person, I did what I was told without question.
Every second of my life was fear, I had no power, and was weak.
To this very day, I am weak.  My legs are the skinniest I have
ever seen.  People like me, were bred to follow directions, by
method of Chinese Social Darwinism.  Nine years later, here I am.

      -9.0 left eye -7.5 right eye.

      I cannot BELIEVE how irresponsible my parents have been.  I
could seeing twenty twenty or better if they only got me some
reading glasses.  When I talk about this to my mom, she thinks I'm
crazy. She finds it hard to believe that if a patient is given
farsided glasses and then they do a bunch of nearwork they will
become farsided, and if a patient is given nearsided glasses, they
will become nearsided. Gosh mom, arn't my eyes proof enough.  My
own grandmother remarked about my bulging eyes, you think MY mom
would get a clue.  But she's absolutely clueless...  This is why I
hate women.  They don't think, and they can't think for
themselves.  I mean, IT'S A SIMPLE CONCEPT REALLY.  I'm living
proof. You think my eyes got this bad all on their own?  If I
never got glasses in the first place my eyes would have stabilized
at the distance my face is from my computer so that my eyes
wouldn't have to accomodate at all.  Now I can't even see the
computer without my glasses.  Fucking stupid idiot.  Stupid
parents.  Stupid everyone.  We know how to make nuclear weapons
and clones.  But we don't know how to save our eyesight.  It
doesn't make sense.  Can someone explain this to me?

      Here is a fact.  96% of the kids in juvenile hall have a
problem with focusing on near objects. These are the people that
cheat on tests.  I would wonder, why are you cheating? Now I
know.  They can't look at close things for long periods of time.
They are 20-20 though. And farsided glasses can help treat 50% of
these kids.  Please bitch, cancle that NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND NCLB
BULLSHIT.  Please.  Don't waste your 1.5 billion dollars.  Give us
1.5 billion dollars for free lunch jackass, or teacher's wages.
The bitch that promoted NCLB wasn't nearsided I'll tell you that.

      You know, I was searching a website.  It promoted negative
lenses.  I couldn't find an author.  It was anonymous, probably
made by an optemetrist.  It was disgusting.  It's one of those
kiddy sites that don't really tell you anything and just say a
bunch of crap like, we are all different

we all change

we are all unique

life is good

      wearing glasses will not make you depressed or affect your
social life everything will be all right if you follow our advice.
But we're not really giving you advice, we're just spewing a bunch
of bullshit because there is nothing here in this load of crap
that you can actually follow.  There's no tangible advice here.
The only tangible evidence here is wear your glasses.  Our site
also has no future, because we don't tell you what will happen if
you continue to wear glasses (BLINDNESS).

      All I remember from that site was this one line, "the problem
is that the younger kids keep pulling [the minus lenses] off of
their faces".  Well, tell me, what is the PROBLEM?  I know you
arn't referring to the kid losing their glasses.  Since there is
such a PROBLEM, in which direction will my myopia progress?
negative or positive?

      See, that's the bullshit I'm talking about.  They just say a
bunch of vague crap you'll eventually forget, because they know if
they go into detail, they'll be exposing more and more little
pieces of the truth, the truth that they are trying to keep from
people.

      I read something on a website once or a book it went
something like...

      "It took a Civil war that almost tore a country apart to
prove that African's destiny was not slavery, and it will take an
even bigger war to prove to the optometrists the dangers of minus
lenses, if it even happens at all, ever..."

      Now suppose you cannot use reading glasses for close work.
Suppose you are like me, very nearsided.  You can't even see
clearly 6 inches away. Reading glasses will make it even blurrier
because it's just false accomodation.  Well, it's time to dig up
your old pairs or put reading glasses on top of your current
glasses.  Think about it, 2 pairs of +3 lenses will be 6+, so it's
definitely possible.  It sounds crazy. But doesn't the idea of
coercing a whole generation to go blind sound crazy too?  Which
sounds more crazy.  You decide.  Either get some negative lenses
and religiously wear them until you go blind, or get some positive
lenses and attain better than normal vision.  The choice is yours.
I don't care about you.  No, go blind, get Lasik, wear contacts,
get permanent contact implants, read books one inch away from your
face, go ahead, I don't care.  Why don't you just go die?

      2-27-05

      A little while ago, I was depressed and suicidal. My
psychologist said I was depressed.  She didn't wear glasses.  She
was white.  But she had big nostrils like me.  It was kind of
weird. She could be mixed.  Back on topic.  If you ask an
optometrist, "why am I nearsided?" They will say it's 85% genetic
(other sources say 15%, the exact reciprocal!).  After saying it's
85% genetic they will also comment that reading in dim light,
sunglasses, and nothing you do affects your eyes.  They will say
that's its all genetic, and it can only get worse, and it will
eventually stabilize.  So basically they're saying, there's no
hope, you're screwed, you're blind, and your asian.  Tell me, how
can one not be depressed in this situation.

      Oh yeah, a little while ago I was cruising another bullshit
site.  It went something like...  glasses are convenient, and with
them you can play sports!  I, having first hand experience with
sports teams, know that is is a heap of collosal bullshit made by
another optometrist.  I have had my frames smashed to a bloody
pulp from basketball.  Oh, yeah, and if your asian, I'm not sure
glasses will be fashionably "convenient", unless you're like super
goodlookiing.

      I've seen girls who I was totally obsessed over lose all of
their attractiveness when they put on their gold circular frames,
which are the worst kind to get.  Always get rectangular frames.
Because then you can put reading glasses on top of them.  Getting
back to sports, I couldn't play tackle football, and all my
buddies had to go hella easy on me, it was pathetic.  I tryed to
do wrestling, and over there I had the highest prescription.  I
had to put my glasses on just to see the moves.  It was gay.  Then
I tried to do fencing, but it was so troublesome putting the
helmet over my frames. You couldn't even move your head sideways
without them hitting the frames.  Sure I could've worn contacts,
but they were so strong, they made me bulge my eyes, further
malling my appearance. Also contacts are a bitch.  Putting them
on is so hard. I feel depressed doing it, doing something that
NORMAL people wouldn't have to do.  And these NORMAL people are
actually people who cannot do nearwork for a long time because of
intense pain.  Apparently this is what I get for being able to
develop myopia, I get punished.  This is the last time I'm going
to do anything conformist.

      And in regards to Bates method, Pinhole glasses, eye
exercises to improve vision, I've tried them, and I don't like
them.  I have heard my old fencing coach tell me that the Japanese
on World War Something looked through pinholes and their vision
got hella good.  But since my vision is so bad, I don't even wear
the pinhole glasses because it's still hella blurry, I can't even
read with them.  Furthurmore I fail to see how they help your
accomodation.  Thus I recommend reading glasses and putting them
on top of your old glasses.

      See I wonder why the optometrists don't preach the method of
farsided glasses.  I think it's like an argument where they always
win.  They have the credentials, and if you tell them it's not
genetic, blah blah blah, they will come back at you with some type
of argument, like you were born with a slight refractive order, or
twins have the same amount of myopia.  But, picture this.  Twins
LOOK the same right.  And I know that the people who LOOK outgoing
ARE outgoing.  So if the two twins were SHY, then they both would
stay INSIDE and read THINGS for ENTERTAINMENT. Am I right or am I
wrong?

      I take off my glasses, and I KNOW that this is not genetic.
I also KNOW that my ancestors did a lot of NEARWORK.  But I also
KNOW that my ancestors didn't have the "great" invention of
glasses.  WANNA KNOW WHAT ELSE I KNOW? I know that in China, they
give kids eye exercises and it reduced myopia. I know that in
some places in China, 90% of kids wear glasses, and myopia is the
leading cause of blindness and or detatched retina.

      my contacts, and I know no one will ever try to contact me
but...

      AIM:  ValerieSLanYee

      EMAIL:  youidi...@...

      The most amazing websites in the world, you will not be able
to stop reading them, they are a heck of a lot better than mine,
and there is no profanity.  But this is a very emotional subject,
mainly because no one will believe what I say. They'd rather
believe the optometrists, who don't give a shit about their
patient's eyes, and tell their patient's that there is no hope and
that they are going to be blind.

      http://www.nearsightedness.org/

      http://www.preventmyopia.org/

      http://www.myopia.org

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

I think all who are at 20/40 to 20/60 should
have a discussion about these issues.

It is well known that the un-protected eye
goes DOWN at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year
in school, and -1/3 diopter per year in college.

Best,

Otis

Emmetro.txt


Subject:  Accepted theory of the eye's errors -- and the
           required refractive state for it to be normal

      The current concept of the eye was developed by Donders and
Helmholtz.

      They proposed that all refractive states of the eye be called
errors, and that a exclusively a refractive state of exactly zero
was normal.

      Thus positive refractive states from zero to +3 diopters with
20/20, are referred to has being "defective" or having errors, or
our seriously hyperopic.  This is very misleading and gives many
false impressions.

      So theory requires a refractive state of zero to be normal.

      But most measurements have some variation, to the term
"emmetropia" must be expanded to include at least a few eyes.

      Here is the practical defining of the refractive state an eye
must have to be normal.

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

      Paper:

      Ocular Component Analysis by Vergence Contribution to the
Back Vertex Power of the Anterior Segment

      By George A.  Leary

      March 1980

      Abstract: "Refractive errors as essentially the expression
of a dysfunction in a dynamic system of light vengeances...."

      "For purpose of this study, emmetropia was taken to include
+/- 0.5 diopters using ocular refraction resolved into the
vertical meridian."

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

      This is the closest to a formal PRACTICAL quantitative
definition of MEASURED emmetropia that I have been able to find in
the literature.

      The word ametropia, means all non-emmetropic eyes.

      A positive refractive state that is normal, from +0.5
diopters to +3 diopters, is referred to as "ametropic", or
hypermetropic, thus leading to the belief that normal refractive
states are organic defects.  This is a very confusing situation
caused by a poor picture of the natural eye.

      A refractive state of from -0.5 diopters or less is called
myopia, nearsightedness, or ametropia.

      This could be called an "error" with some justification, but
it is easier just to call it a negative refractive state of an
auto-focused camera -- that is closer to the truth.

      To avoid any confusion, just refered to the measured
refractive states of the eye as plus or minus, rather
than calling them "errors".

      Best,

      Otis

Dear Masterman,

Subject: What "I" would do if I were
20/40, and wished to keep my distant
vision through high school and college.

I would:

1.  Always read my own Snellen.  I would
check outdoors with a printed Snellen.

2.  I would read of the success of others
on my site.

3.  I would try to make this "easy" within
reason.

4.  I would try to find a "balance" between
the intrusion that a "plus" is in my life,
versus my desire to keep my Snellen clear
for life.

5.  I would be knowledgeable of the DOWN
rate of the un-protected eye, of -1/2 diopter
per year in school, and -1/3 diopter per
year in college.  This is the number
you must beat.

To further reply:



--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "masterman8000"
<masterman8000@...> wrote:
>
> yes, i think I will get a +1.25 for computer and +2.50 for reading.
I
> have trouble seeing the computer with +2.5 and need to stick my neck
> out. Do u second this?

Otis> Rather than making it complex, I would simply get
a +2.0 diopter lens as a compromise.

Otis>  ASSUMING that you choose to proceed, what
you will find out is that the +2.0 becomes
too weak (after several months) and you
can "move" to a stronger plus.

Otis>  You will not find this out, until you
start the effort.

Your choice, my friend.  It is your visual
future.

Best,

Otis



>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Masterman,
> >
> > Subject: The OD's desire to impress you with their "product".
> >
> > Re:  The OD's DEFENSE of the over-prescription policy.
> >
> > I asked you to read your Snellen.  If you
> > did it correctly, your eyes are 20/40,
> > and NOT -1.0 diopter.
> >
> > A -1.0 diopter will make your distant vision
> > very, very sharp.  No argument from me about
> > that issue.  It is profoundly easy.  Then
> > why should I argue "against" it?
> >
> > This is the same argument I made FOR using
> > ear-plugs in a high-nose enviroment.  You
> > do not preceive any effect -- except
> > you do not become stone deaf at age 40.
> >
> > These plus-prevention (bifocal) studies
> > show that the un-protected eye goes
> > DOWN at -1/2 dioper in high school, and
> > -1/3 diopter in college.  You can
> > choose to ignore these facts as you wish.
> >
> > With 20/40 CONFIRMED on you Snellen, it would
> > take about -1/4 to -1/2 diopter to clear the
> > 20/20 line -- NOT -1 diopters.
> >
> > As Alex has stated, the amount of plus you
> > can use must be determined by YOU -- by
> > actually testing these "readers" by
> > reading through them.
> >
> > You can not do this based on and ASSUMED -1
> > diopter perscription.
> >
> > As Alex said, he can use a +3.25 dipoter
> > and read OK.
> >
> > Given your 20/40, (about -1/2 diopter)
> > you should have no problem using a +2.5 diopter
> > for all computer and reading -- making
> > sure to read at the approximate "blur point".
> >
> > You have a choice to make.
> >
> > The "plus" is not "fun", and is like
> > "ear plugs".
> >
> > Very few wanted to use them AT ALL.
> >
> > But over time, the smarter ones finally
> > "converted" to the idea of deafness-avoidance.
> >
> > I hope you understand this nature of the
> > preventive second-opinion, obviously by
> > your judgment and under your control.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Otis
> >
> > Re: Base in Prism or not for Plus lens reading glasses
> >
> >
> > --- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "masterman8000" <masterman8000@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Guys,
> > >
> > I
> > > am looking for a good pair of reading glasses at about +2.0 to
+2.5
> > > for long term reading of up to 3 hours at a time.
> >
> > With your 1D of myopia and a +2.5 lens you will need to hold
reading
> > material at 11 to 12 inches for it to be clear. Will this be
> > comfortable for your arms?
> > >
> > > So far, I might buy another pair from eyebuydirect.com. Are
base in
> > > prism good or not for preventing problems like double vision? I
got
> > > mixed responses for this earlier.
> >
> > There is no doubt that if you experience double vision due to
> > divergence while wearing plus at near, then base in prism will
> > eliminate it. The "mixed responses" earlier were more about
whether
> > it was likely or unlikely that you would have the double vision
> > problem. While wearing plus you will have about double the
> > convergence demand than when not wearing plus.
> >
> > The visual system does not like double vision and in the face of
it
> > will often choose blurred vision. This means that if the medial
> > recti are unable to sustain convergence while you are wearing
plus,
> > the visual system may trigger some accommodation to gain
> > accommodative convergence and you will have near blur or find
> > yourself holding the reading material closer
> >
> >
> > > the plus lenses give a prismatic effect that is coincidentally
> > similar to
> > > a base-in prism. Since my PD is 64.5 (right 32, left 32.5),
would
> > it
> > > be wise to get a pair of glasses with a PD of 64 to get the
desired
> > > prismatic effect similar to a base in prism?
> >
> > The formula for calculating the prismatic effect is
> >
> > Prism power = decentration in cm x power of lens
> >
> > so changing pd to 64mm will give you 0.05 x 2 = 0.1 prism
> >
> > Pd 54 (10mm) gives 2BI, pd 44 (20mm) gives 4BI.
> >
> > > my PD was not measured by converging on a book (at a distance
like
> > the
> > > link belows say you should), but converging on the binocular-
like
> > > gizmo that the optician used. Would converging at a distance
> > measure a
> > > greater pd than converging at a point nearby.
> >
> > The gizmo can be set for far or near, usually pd is specified as
two
> > numbers far/near and written as 64/60. You will have to ask your
> > doctor if 64 was the near or far pd.
> >
> >
> > > Would the convergence reducing effects of a base in prism and
the
> > > accomodation reducing effects of a plus lens be desirable for a
> > pair
> > > of reading glasses for an avid reader? I will probably also be
> > using
> > > them to do my homework (I am in high school).
> >
> > Well, this is the question that will generate mixed responses. It
> > depends on whether you believe that accommodation alone,
convergence
> > alone, both together or neither causes myopia progression.
> >
> > Judy
> >
>

yes, i think I will get a +1.25 for computer and +2.50 for reading. I
have trouble seeing the computer with +2.5 and need to stick my neck
out. Do u second this?

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Masterman,
>
> Subject: The OD's desire to impress you with their "product".
>
> Re:  The OD's DEFENSE of the over-prescription policy.
>
> I asked you to read your Snellen.  If you
> did it correctly, your eyes are 20/40,
> and NOT -1.0 diopter.
>
> A -1.0 diopter will make your distant vision
> very, very sharp.  No argument from me about
> that issue.  It is profoundly easy.  Then
> why should I argue "against" it?
>
> This is the same argument I made FOR using
> ear-plugs in a high-nose enviroment.  You
> do not preceive any effect -- except
> you do not become stone deaf at age 40.
>
> These plus-prevention (bifocal) studies
> show that the un-protected eye goes
> DOWN at -1/2 dioper in high school, and
> -1/3 diopter in college.  You can
> choose to ignore these facts as you wish.
>
> With 20/40 CONFIRMED on you Snellen, it would
> take about -1/4 to -1/2 diopter to clear the
> 20/20 line -- NOT -1 diopters.
>
> As Alex has stated, the amount of plus you
> can use must be determined by YOU -- by
> actually testing these "readers" by
> reading through them.
>
> You can not do this based on and ASSUMED -1
> diopter perscription.
>
> As Alex said, he can use a +3.25 dipoter
> and read OK.
>
> Given your 20/40, (about -1/2 diopter)
> you should have no problem using a +2.5 diopter
> for all computer and reading -- making
> sure to read at the approximate "blur point".
>
> You have a choice to make.
>
> The "plus" is not "fun", and is like
> "ear plugs".
>
> Very few wanted to use them AT ALL.
>
> But over time, the smarter ones finally
> "converted" to the idea of deafness-avoidance.
>
> I hope you understand this nature of the
> preventive second-opinion, obviously by
> your judgment and under your control.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
> Re: Base in Prism or not for Plus lens reading glasses
>
>
> --- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "masterman8000" <masterman8000@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> I
> > am looking for a good pair of reading glasses at about +2.0 to +2.5
> > for long term reading of up to 3 hours at a time.
>
> With your 1D of myopia and a +2.5 lens you will need to hold reading
> material at 11 to 12 inches for it to be clear. Will this be
> comfortable for your arms?
> >
> > So far, I might buy another pair from eyebuydirect.com. Are base in
> > prism good or not for preventing problems like double vision? I got
> > mixed responses for this earlier.
>
> There is no doubt that if you experience double vision due to
> divergence while wearing plus at near, then base in prism will
> eliminate it. The "mixed responses" earlier were more about whether
> it was likely or unlikely that you would have the double vision
> problem. While wearing plus you will have about double the
> convergence demand than when not wearing plus.
>
> The visual system does not like double vision and in the face of it
> will often choose blurred vision. This means that if the medial
> recti are unable to sustain convergence while you are wearing plus,
> the visual system may trigger some accommodation to gain
> accommodative convergence and you will have near blur or find
> yourself holding the reading material closer
>
>
> > the plus lenses give a prismatic effect that is coincidentally
> similar to
> > a base-in prism. Since my PD is 64.5 (right 32, left 32.5), would
> it
> > be wise to get a pair of glasses with a PD of 64 to get the desired
> > prismatic effect similar to a base in prism?
>
> The formula for calculating the prismatic effect is
>
> Prism power = decentration in cm x power of lens
>
> so changing pd to 64mm will give you 0.05 x 2 = 0.1 prism
>
> Pd 54 (10mm) gives 2BI, pd 44 (20mm) gives 4BI.
>
> > my PD was not measured by converging on a book (at a distance like
> the
> > link belows say you should), but converging on the binocular-like
> > gizmo that the optician used. Would converging at a distance
> measure a
> > greater pd than converging at a point nearby.
>
> The gizmo can be set for far or near, usually pd is specified as two
> numbers far/near and written as 64/60. You will have to ask your
> doctor if 64 was the near or far pd.
>
>
> > Would the convergence reducing effects of a base in prism and the
> > accomodation reducing effects of a plus lens be desirable for a
> pair
> > of reading glasses for an avid reader? I will probably also be
> using
> > them to do my homework (I am in high school).
>
> Well, this is the question that will generate mixed responses. It
> depends on whether you believe that accommodation alone, convergence
> alone, both together or neither causes myopia progression.
>
> Judy
>

DwnRate2.txt

Subject:  The DOWN rate of the natural eye in a school
           environment.

      I always like to present the facts themselves concerning the
natural eye's dynamic behavior.

      That way you can look at them and personally decide what you
wish to do about them.

      The first study was conducted by Dr.  Francis Young.

      The others by Dr. Judy.

      The last are studies conducted in China about myopia studies.

      If only ONE study showed that -1/2 diopter per year, you
could call it a "fluke".  But when almost all of them show -1/2
diopter per year DOWN, you MIGHT take plus-prevention more
seriously.

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

Dear Scientific friends,

Subject: The average DOWN rate of the
control groups in these plus (or bifocal) studies.

      I have this report by Oakley-Young.

      The group using a single-minus went down at a steady rate of
-1/2 diopter per year.

      If you have the published rates of these comparable studies,
could you please post them.

      I will collect and publish them.

      Here is an example of one study:

Authors:
Kenneth H. Oakley, MD.
Bend, Oregon

and

Francis A. Young, Ph.D.
Primate Research Center
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington


ABSTRACT

      "...Similarly, 226 Caucasian bifocal wearers are matched on
the same criteria against 382 control subjects..."

      "...the Caucasian subjects of -0.02 and -0.03 diopters right
and left eyes against -0.53 and -0.52 diopters for the
controls..."

+++++++++++=

      The study was conducted over a period of four years.

      I am not looking for "cause", or the "test group", only to
establish the down rate in terms of numbers in the control group,
and the length of time the study was conducted.

      I am also not looking for an "argument" about these issues.

      Best,

      Otis

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

      Dr. Judy's report on -1/2 diopter per year
for students:

1.  In the COMET study (children) 3 year data:

      Single vision:  -0.49D/yr

      Bifocal group:  -0.42D/yr

5 year data

Single vision, two myopic parents:    -0.51D/yr
Single vision, one myopic parent:     -0.40D/yr
Single vision, no myopic parents:     -0.36D/yr
Bifocal group, 1 or 2 myopic parents: -0.40D/yr
Bifocal group, no myopic parents:     -0.36D/yr

2.  Fulk et al, children with esophoria 30 months

      Single vision:  -0.49D/yr

      Bifocal group:  -0.40D/yr

3.  Parssinen (age 9 to 11) 3 yrs

      Single-Vision Dist only, SV near and far, Bifocal:  -0.48D/yr

      Lin et al (young adult medical students) 5 years

      -0.14D/yr

4.  Kinge et al (engineering students average age 20) 3 years

      -0.19D/yr

      Dr.  Judy

========

5.  A recent study in Hong Kong showed what other studies have
     shown - wearing less than a full correction will slow the
     progress of the myopia.  Children selected for the study were
     between the ages of 9 and 12.  All were nearsighted, with 1.00
     to 5.00 D of myopia.  The children were separated into three
     groups.  Each group was given a different type of eyeglasses
     to wear for the two-year period of the study.  The first group
     wore single vision lenses with a full correction; the second
     group wore progressive lenses with a +1.50 add; the third
     group wore progressive lenses with a +2.00 add.  All children
     were examined at 6-month intervals to check the progression of
     their myopia.  Sixty-eight children completed the study.  As
     expected, more undercorrection meant slower myopia
     progression.

Minus vision lenses: 	    - 1.23 D increase (2 years)
				      -0.625 per year

Progressive lenses with +1.50 add:  - 0.76 D increase (2 years)
				     - 0.38 per year

Progressive lenses with +2.00 add:  - 0.66 D increase (2 years)
				      -0.33 per year

Source:  Leung JT, Brown B.  Progression of myopia in Hong Kong
Chinese schoolchildren is slowed by wearing progressive
lenses.  Optom Vis Sci 1999; 76:346, 354.  Published 10/07/00.

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

The results of the natural eye "adapting" to
12 to 16 years in a "school" environment:


	    MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 90 PERCENT
		      FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS


Re: Changes in ocular refraction and its components
     among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
     Vis.  Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
     National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
     prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%!  over the five year
     period.

		        ******************


1)  In Singapore, the vision of 421,116 males between the ages of
     15 and 25 was examined.  In 1974-84, 26.3% were myopic; in
     1987-91, 43.3% were myopic.  Both the prevalence and severity
     of myopia were higher as the level of education increased.
     The prevalence rate was 15.4% in males with no formal
     education and increased steadily through the education levels
     to reach 65.1% among the university graduates in 1987-91.  The
     authors state that their findings confirm indications from
     other sources that the association between the prevalence and
     severity of myopia and education attainment is real (M.T.
     Tay, K.G.  Au Eong, C.Y.  Ng and M.K.  Lim, "Myopia and
     Educational Attainment in 421,116 Young Singaporean Males,"
     Ann Acad Med Singapore, 1992, Nov;21(6):785-91).

2)  Regarding the prevalence of myopia in Asian countries, Lam and
     Goh (Lam, C.S.  and Goh, W.S., "The incidence of refractive
     errors among schoolchildren in Hong Kong in relationship with
     the optical components", Clin.  Exp.  Optom., 74:97-103, 1991)
     found that in 383 school children from ages 6 to 17 years, the
     prevalence of myopia increased from 30% at ages 6-7 years, to
     70% at ages 16-17 years.

3)  Lam and Yap (Lam, C.S.  and Yap, M.  "Ocular dimensions and
     refraction in Chinese Orientals", Proc.  Int.  Soc.  Eye Res.,
     6:121, 1990) found that in a group of optometry students at
     The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the prevalence of myopia
     was 75% in females and 69% in males.

4)  Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S.  and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive
     trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39
     years," Ophthal.  Physiol.  Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that
     in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong,
     the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%.

5)  Lin et al (Lin, L.-K, Chen, C.J., Hung, P.T., and Ko, L.S.,
     "National- wide survey of myopia among schoolchildren in
     Taiwan, Acta Ophthalmol.", 185:29-33, 1988) found that in a
     national survey of children in Taiwan, the prevalence of
     myopia was over 70%.

6)  Lin et al (Lin, L.K., Shih, Y.F., Lee, Y.C., Hung, P.T., and
     Hou, P.K., " Changes in ocular refraction and its components
     among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
     Vis.  Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
     National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
     prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8%!  over the five year
     period.

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

      My remarks:

      ALL these studies were blind.

      No instructions were given to the children.  The kids will
tend to "pull" the work closer, and not read at the "blur-point"
thus negating a lot of the effect of the plus.

      Even with these difficulties, the plus had a certain effect,
of prevention at the threshold.

      All of this suggests that the situation should be "caught" at
no later than 20/60 level (about -1.5 diopters), and the person
himself review these issues and facts.

      Based on these DOWN rates, it is clear that this situation
must be slowed and stopped at the 20/60 level, when the person can
work witn ho minus lens.

      And, provided the person has the MOTIVATION, he has some
potential to alway keep the vision he has actually measured on his
Snellen -- and KEEP IT THEIR through four years of college.

      Best,

      Otis

Dear Masterman,

Subject: The OD's desire to impress you with their "product".

Re:  The OD's DEFENSE of the over-prescription policy.

I asked you to read your Snellen.  If you
did it correctly, your eyes are 20/40,
and NOT -1.0 diopter.

A -1.0 diopter will make your distant vision
very, very sharp.  No argument from me about
that issue.  It is profoundly easy.  Then
why should I argue "against" it?

This is the same argument I made FOR using
ear-plugs in a high-nose enviroment.  You
do not preceive any effect -- except
you do not become stone deaf at age 40.

These plus-prevention (bifocal) studies
show that the un-protected eye goes
DOWN at -1/2 dioper in high school, and
-1/3 diopter in college.  You can
choose to ignore these facts as you wish.

With 20/40 CONFIRMED on you Snellen, it would
take about -1/4 to -1/2 diopter to clear the
20/20 line -- NOT -1 diopters.

As Alex has stated, the amount of plus you
can use must be determined by YOU -- by
actually testing these "readers" by
reading through them.

You can not do this based on and ASSUMED -1
diopter perscription.

As Alex said, he can use a +3.25 dipoter
and read OK.

Given your 20/40, (about -1/2 diopter)
you should have no problem using a +2.5 diopter
for all computer and reading -- making
sure to read at the approximate "blur point".

You have a choice to make.

The "plus" is not "fun", and is like
"ear plugs".

Very few wanted to use them AT ALL.

But over time, the smarter ones finally
"converted" to the idea of deafness-avoidance.

I hope you understand this nature of the
preventive second-opinion, obviously by
your judgment and under your control.

Best,

Otis

Re: Base in Prism or not for Plus lens reading glasses


--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "masterman8000" <masterman8000@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Guys,
>
I
> am looking for a good pair of reading glasses at about +2.0 to +2.5
> for long term reading of up to 3 hours at a time.

With your 1D of myopia and a +2.5 lens you will need to hold reading
material at 11 to 12 inches for it to be clear. Will this be
comfortable for your arms?
>
> So far, I might buy another pair from eyebuydirect.com. Are base in
> prism good or not for preventing problems like double vision? I got
> mixed responses for this earlier.

There is no doubt that if you experience double vision due to
divergence while wearing plus at near, then base in prism will
eliminate it. The "mixed responses" earlier were more about whether
it was likely or unlikely that you would have the double vision
problem. While wearing plus you will have about double the
convergence demand than when not wearing plus.

The visual system does not like double vision and in the face of it
will often choose blurred vision. This means that if the medial
recti are unable to sustain convergence while you are wearing plus,
the visual system may trigger some accommodation to gain
accommodative convergence and you will have near blur or find
yourself holding the reading material closer


> the plus lenses give a prismatic effect that is coincidentally
similar to
> a base-in prism. Since my PD is 64.5 (right 32, left 32.5), would
it
> be wise to get a pair of glasses with a PD of 64 to get the desired
> prismatic effect similar to a base in prism?

The formula for calculating the prismatic effect is

Prism power = decentration in cm x power of lens

so changing pd to 64mm will give you 0.05 x 2 = 0.1 prism

Pd 54 (10mm) gives 2BI, pd 44 (20mm) gives 4BI.

> my PD was not measured by converging on a book (at a distance like
the
> link belows say you should), but converging on the binocular-like
> gizmo that the optician used. Would converging at a distance
measure a
> greater pd than converging at a point nearby.

The gizmo can be set for far or near, usually pd is specified as two
numbers far/near and written as 64/60. You will have to ask your
doctor if 64 was the near or far pd.


> Would the convergence reducing effects of a base in prism and the
> accomodation reducing effects of a plus lens be desirable for a
pair
> of reading glasses for an avid reader? I will probably also be
using
> them to do my homework (I am in high school).

Well, this is the question that will generate mixed responses. It
depends on whether you believe that accommodation alone, convergence
alone, both together or neither causes myopia progression.

Judy

Dear Friends,

I always advocate that you do your own
research on prevention.

Here is a book I think you should read:

http://www.preventmyopia.org/ebook/

It might give you a different and perhaps
a better perspective on the need
for plus-prevention.

Best,

Otis

EarPlug.txt

Dear Thoughtful friends,

Subject: When is it "medicine", and when is it scientific advice?

Re: Ear plugs to avoid deafness -- a metaphor.

When I was in the National Guard when I was young -- required
when I was that age -- I did some competitive shooting, at our
rifle range in the 1960s. Many of the older instructors (50 years)
were hearing impaired. Very few if any wore protective eye plugs.

Eventually, a recommendation was made to the effect that
noise over 100 dBs -- continued for years on end, would produce
deafness at age 50 or greater.

Today, jet mechanics, and anyone working in high-noise
environments almost automatically will wear muffs the reduce the
noise by 30 to 40 dBs.

There was no "blind study" about this issue.

Just good scientific common sense.

In our natural environments are ears never encountered this
level of noise.

I would suggest that the same situation is true for our
normal eyes. Only in the last 100 years have we encountered
prolonged confined environments lasting 12 to 16 years.

I would also suggest that it would be wise to use a
preventive-plus in the same manner -- and for the same reason.

There are some who will complain that an ear plug will "cause
disease" and will refuse to wear them.

There are some people who will think that wearing a
preventive plus, will cause their eyes to "go bad" -- using the
same logic.

Even today you can not PROVE that wearing ear-muffs prevents
deafness 30 years later.

It is also true that the ear-plugs will not "cure" deafness
when the man is 50 year old.

It is also true that a plus will not "cure" myopia after you
get it from NOT using the plus.

But eventually common sense prevailed.

Perhaps that is the way we should consider the plus for
prevention.

If I make the recommendation that you wear ear-plugs when you
fire a rifle -- is that a MEDICAL recommendation?

Some will say yes -- other will say no.

Some will say that you can fire a high-power rifle as much as
you like, week by week, year by year, and it will not reduce the
quality of your hearing. (The majority-opinion).

Others will say BE CAREFUL, and wear ear plugs. (The
second-opinion).

It comes down to the person himself to decide:

1. Is this recommendation a MEDICAL recommendation? (Wearing
preventive ear plus, wearing a preventive plus).

2. Or is it s SCIENTIFIC recommendation -- in BOTH cases?

Even today, it is not 100 percent PROVEN that high-noise
environment RESULT in deafness at age 40 and higher.

So even today, the suggestion that you do not "need"
ear-plugs for working on Jets has some validity -- if you ignore
the know risks of it.

Perhaps we should learn from the high-nose analogy and think
about protecting our children's eyes -- even though it does not
require medical "control" to do it.

Otis

Discussion:

Primates in the wild have positive refractive STATES
from zero to +3 diopters.

Primtes in cages and confined environments have
refractive STATES from -6 to +1 diopters.

The issue is habitual reading distance of
YOUNG children, and how they "pull" the
work in close -- with normal eyes.

Remember, their eyes do not "become defective",
their refractive STATE simply changes from
a positive value to a negative value.

This is a characteristic of a dynamic control
system.

The natural eye controls its refractive STATE
to its average visual enviroment -- offset
by +1.5 diopters.

Enjoy,

Otis

++++++++++



Alex:
> Let's say that sustained reading at 25cm (ten inches), or 4
diopters of accommodative demand, is sufficient to induce a myopic
shift in a particular individual. That individual, at -3D of
myopia, would still be able to induce a myopic shift by reading at
14cm (five and a half inches).

Dr. Judy:
> I think you are stretching here, how many people would do near
work, like reading or computer use at 5.5 inches!

Neil:
> Cause and effect are garbled here, too. Maybe kids who choose to
read at very short distances ARE manifesting myopia. Any data?

In my paper, "The Case for the Preventability of Myopia," I tell of
how American Optometrist Jacob Raphaelson did a survey of the vision
and reading distances of schoolchildren. He examined the eyes of over
500 students and found among them practically none -- only 1% --
with myopic refraction. He also observed how they held their eyes in
relation to their reading matter. While nearly all of them started
out at a "normal" distance, after a minute or two, 66% of the
children ended up reading at a distance of from 3 to 6 inches, and
19% at a distance of 3 or less. Note that reading at 3 inches without
glasses is gives you the same accommodative demand as putting on a
-13.00 D lens.

3 in = .0762m = 1/.0762 D = 13 D

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

This is the only survey of its kind that I am aware of.

--Alex

Dear Friends,


Subject:  Getting access to, and understanding a preventive
           second-opinion.

      This is a discussion of the legal aspects of the preventive
second-opinion.

      But, so far, it is my judgment that the person must teach
himself how to avoid entry into nearsightedness (a negative
refractive STATE of the fundamental eye.) Here is the summary of
the legal issues.  (Refernce from herbal alternative "medicine" or
Herbalists rights, legal and historical basis.)

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

		   Summary

      In summary, the judicial history of prosecution of
alternative health care providers reveals the overwhelming
reliance of the courts on the manner in which a defendant
describes his or her own practice, and the specific words used.

      The rights of alternative practitioners to practice their art
has rarely been questioned by the courts.  Rather, they have often
been prosecuted for using words and language reserved by the
medical profession to exclusively describe their business to the
public.

      There is much logic in this approach, which is an extension
of the statutes governing fraud and misrepresentation. It has
always been considered unethical and unlawful for one to lie to
the public about one's training and abilities.  The problem is
that, while the legislatures and courts claim that their only
purpose is to prevent the public from being deceived as to the
qualifications of health care workers and to establish high
standards for a complex profession responsible for people's life
and health, in reality, economic and political forces have
subverted this goal and have maneuvered public health policy to
ensure increased profits.

      These nefarious forces subvert the legislative and judicial
processes by legal trickery and word games.  The lives and
livelihoods of many honest and well-meaning alternative health
practitioners have been destroyed by such trickery.  On the other
hand, many alternative practitioners have fallen for the
temptation of enhancing their status in a patriarchal,
authoritarian society by awarding themselves titles such as
"doctor".  It is the intent of the author to educate alternative
health providers about the true and valid purpose of the law, to
point out to them the nature of their rights, and to overcome the
power of the word tricksters and political con men by deflating
their games.

      There will always be those who believe in the unlimited
powers of an authoritarian government to protect people from abuse
by unqualified or unscrupulous practitioners and by outright
charlatans.  History, however, reveals a different story:  the
abuses of government regulatory bureaucracies often greatly exceed
the abuses by individuals.  The potential abuses of herbal
products will be with us as long as plants and fallible people
coexist on the earth.  Experience has shown that this problem
cannot be regulated away.  People throughout the world will
continue to use herbs, even when their rulers decide to outlaw or
restrict the use of herbs.  Instead, it seems best to follow the
advice of Thomas Jefferson:

      I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the
society but the people themselves:  and if we think them not
enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform
them.

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

      Reference from:

http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html#protect

ShowFutu.txt

Dear Friends,

Subject:  We believe the way we use are eyes is UN-LIMITED!!!

Re:  People REFUSE to believe there are LIMITS to our use of our
       eyes at near, and they need no plus-protection.

      We now know, from about five bifocal studies, over the last
thirty years, that the un-protected eye goes DOWN at a rate of
-1/2 diopter per year, and in college -1/3 diopter per year.

      Thus you can tell an OPEN MINDED, intelligent pilot (who
potentially has the motivation) what his vision is going to look
like after 4 to 6 years in college (if he is slightly nearsighted
at entry.) (Assuming graduate school.)

      He may not believe you, but you can show him what his distant
vision will look like after four years in college.  The eye goes
DOWN by between -1.1 diopters to -1.6 diopters (average -1.3
diopters) at West Point.  Why the hell not have the pilots (with
20/50 vision) examine these SCIENTIFIC FACTS.  The worst he could
do is to discredit them and ignore the consequences.

      I realize the public is pretty damn STUPID about this issue,
and that self-motivation is the critical issue.  You must couple a
person's INTELLIGENCE, with his MOTIVATION.  If you can not do
that (or HE CAN NOT DO THAT) then there is no prospect for
successful PREVENTION in a four year college -- or in the future.

      Here is how you show a person what is vision will "look
like".

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

      Suggestion to a high school student with a -1 diopter
"prescription".


Otis> Most people, who have had their vision destroyed by a minus
       lens would LOVE to have 20/40 naked eye vision or better!

Otis> Take your +2 diopter lens.  Now look at distant objects
       THROUGH that plus 2 diopter lens.  Very blurry, right?

Otis> That is what your distant vision will be like in six years
       if you:

1.  Do two more years in high school (-1/2 diopter per year),

2.  And college, at -1.1 to -1.6 diopters in four years.

3.  -2 diopters myopic, is about 20/140 vision on the Snellen.

Otis> As always, just think about these issues for now.

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

      So what happens?  A person like Neil Brooks (a layman with NO
medical qualifications) tells this (-1 diopter) poor person that
"...if you wear a plus, you will get double vision.  Do you want
that?"

      And that ends this person's work at plus-prevention, because
his is now afraid to use the plus correctly.

Question:  Do you want to be a victim of someone else's ignorance,
       or do you what to keep your distant vision clear under YOUR
       control?

Best,

Otis

Fibs.txt

      Subject:  The Importance of Being Earnest

      Dear Alex,

      As you know, I think it is impossible to deal with the
general public -- walking in off the street.

      I also accept PERSONAL responsibility for the CONSEQUENCES of
my actions, i.e., reading as I described it.

      There is a process where you look a person IN THE EYE -- and
TELL HIM THE TRUTH!

      Practically no MD or OD wants to do that!

      And I mean SCIENTIFIC TRUTH (dynamic eye behavior), versus,
political or "medical" truth.

      So the public WANTS TO HEAR FIBS, and these ODs want to believe
their own fibs.

      These "fibs" seem to be interlocked.

      No OD wants to check a kid's reading habit (kid with nose at
4 inches) at tell the parent -- YOU MUST STOP THE CHILD FROM DOING
THAT.  USE EVERY METHOD TO STOP HIM.  FORCE HIM TO READ AT GREATER
THAN 13 INCHES, AND IF AT ALL POSSIBLE 18 INCHES.

      The state AS SCIENCE the effect that a -3 diopter lens has on
the refractive STATE of all natural eyes.

      The explain to the parent the consequences if the child does
not STOP this non-sense of putting that nose on the book.

      But, no, these ODs NEVER WANT TO SAY ONE WORD ABOUT THIS
ISSUE.

      Why is that?

      Because they have this office "myth" that the eye is not
proven to be dynamic, and that YOU CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT WITH
YOUR EYES -- WITH NO RESTRICTIONS.

      That is the "myth" the public wants to hear.

      Some of this is the public's responsibility to LEARN ABOUT
THIS ISSUE.

      We used to work in high noise environments.  Everyone thought
that "muffs" were a big JOKE.

      Until 20 years later -- massive stone deaf people.

      But no one could make the "connection".

      We seem to be in EXACTLY the same thing with "public
knowledge" on this subject.

      I would like to be PRESENTED with this information by a
PROFESSIONAL.  But who is that "professional"?  Dr.  Granet? Dr.
Judy?

      Would I listen?  Would you listen?  Would you act on
preventive advice?

      The public only "listens" to majority-opinion doctors.

      Who wants to hear this non-sense about the dynamic eye and
the preventive plus?

      As far as I am concerned we must LEARN to empower the
second-opinion OD to help us -- at the 20/60 level, and understand
the "or-else" part of the warning and necessity
of plus-prevention.

      I rest my case!

      Otis

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

I am supportive of all methods that work for
you.

Here is the commentary:

+++++++++++

> Dear Otis

Subject: today's snellen

> I checked my vison on the IVAC snellen tonight and I was 20/15,
both eyes.

> Jon

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

Dear Jon, (Name is changed)

EXCELLENT!

That is the final capability of your retina.

My remarks about Ortho-K it that it is good, but to be
careful with it.

Checking for a positive refractive STATE, is simply
a good idea -- now that you know how to do it.

I wish I could get the concept of Ortho-K, connected
to plus-prevention, because I think both are good
in their own way.

Keep on posting your remarks.

Best,

Otis

Subject: Testing Red-dye #2

Some years ago, a red food color was
on the market. It seemed harmless.

Then the FDA (I think) ran a study were
they said that it caused cancer in
mice.

There was considerable objection to that conclusion because:

1. Humans are not mice.

2. The concentration was 50 times what any
human would be exposed to.

However, based on that test they removed
Red-dye #2 from the market.

When I suggest testing the SAFETY of a minus
lens on the natural eye it is necessary to

1. Use a stronger minus (3 diopters) TO SEE THE EFFECT
on the refractive STATE of the natural eye,
and

2. Use a primate-monkey and not a primate-human
to get this basic data.

And this does indeed show that the refractive
STATE of the natural eye FOLLOWS the applied
-3 diopter lens by changing by -2 diopters
in six months. And I do not draw conclusions
about any "errors" or "defects" of any
eye by this proof of the natural eye's
responsiveness.

I only argue that this must be a consideration
before a minus is applied, and that
other methods (while the eye is 20/60 or better),
like Bates or the plus should be considered
as the second-opinion.

Just one man's opinion on prevention.

Best,

Otis

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

Otis> When I suggest testing the SAFETY of a minus
lens on the natural eye it is necessary to

Otis> 1. Use a stronger minus (3 diopters) TO SEE THE EFFECT
on the refractive STATE of the natural eye,
and

Neil>  That's ludicrous, and is a classic example of why engineering
DOESN'T
transfer well to biology.

Neil> "Safe when used as directed" is the goal. Establishing margins
of
error ("safety factors") may have particular uses, but ... you're
taking them wayyyyyy out of context.

There is a concept in pharmaceuticals known as the LD50. That is the
dosage of the drug at which it is lethal in 50% of all cases.

Aspirin has an LD50 of approximately 400mg/Kg.

For a 175 pound adult, then, it would require approximately 31,750mg
of aspirin to be lethal in 50% of cases.

If we're talking about your standard, OTC Bayer here, then you'd have
to swallow about 100 aspirin to give a 50/50 chance of lethality.

ASPIRIN ARE EVIL, LETHAL, AND OVER-PRESCRIBED!!!!!!!! ALEX? QUIT
WASTING YOUR TIME WITH MYOPIA! DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW MANY DOCTORS
ARE PRESCRIBING ASPIRIN EVERY DAY?!?

The more we can drag out FACTS here ... the more we can get people to
COME FORWARD WITH the ASSUMPTIONS on which they base their CONCLUSIONS
(should be hypotheses, but ... why quibble over details??) ... then
the better informed the reader can be.

Minus lenses: "Safe when used as directed" for over 400 years.

> 2. Use a primate-monkey and not a primate-human
> to get this basic data.

I've said it a thousand times and will say it again--oh, why bother.
Here. It's all right here:

http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

[remainder was yet another pound of the same old red herring, so it
was snipped.]

Neil D. Brooks  (Posting on I-see as "Eyeballs)

MedMind.txt

      Dear Friend,

Subject: The difference between engineering-science,
and the medical "mind".

Re: Why there is a need to understand this issue,
and the "anger" that developes in the medical person.

      You and I are engineers.  We can examine objective
facts -- and reach logical conclusions.

      I can now accept the fact that as a child I did
some "dumb" things with my eyes -- and paid the
"price" for it.  (As do an incredible number of
children.)

      What I CAN NOT ACCEPT is the type of (majority-opinion)
medical ignorance and arrogance we see so much of.

      There is a "right" place for a medical opinion, and a wrong
place.

      One medical person (DR. X) has caused me a number
of problems -- including filing false charges against
me.  I have posted on my site that I advocate that
you be informed of the preventive second-opinion, and
by guided by such a optometrist.  Attacks on me,
are not justified.

      Here is my opinion of Dr. X for your interest.
He exceeds his authority when he attacks a
person's right to freedom of speech and
prevention advocacy.

      Otis

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

Subject:  The "medical mind".  But some times it exists in
	   total intellectual blindness.

      Remember this:  I have friends in both optometry
and ophthamology.  We have no problem, since I respect
them, and the fact that they can only supply a
quick-fix in five minutes.  But the real issue
is to look for a solution that is not that
instant solution, and required motivation to
be successful.

      Dr X's credentials are indeed impressive.

      I appreciate that when you are dealing with life-and-death
situations, you must be cock-sure of everything you are doing. To
be anything less than this would be gross incompetence.

      This is the world of the MD.  I accept it that way and do
not argue about it.

      But sometimes that cock-sure attitude leads to profound
blindness towards scientific facts and truth.

      And when that happens, these majority-opinion ODs keep on
asserting that WHAT THEY WERE TAUGHT IS ALWAYS TRUE FOR ALL TIME.

      And that cock-sure attitude will not allow them to consider
ANY OTHER POSSIBILITY. Even when the subject matter (the dynamic
behavior of the natural eye) has NOTHING TO DO WITH MEDICINE!!!

      And that is the true failure of this well-meaning MDs.

      But they are also in "control" of the National Eye Institute,
so that any suggestion of a preventive study is knocked down
before it is seriously considered on its merits -- because of this
cock-sure attitude.  That is the real problem of the N.E.I not
discussing preventive methods -- that encourage the parent and
child to think for themselves!

      But that is the true difficulty with these "medical" people.

      Best,

      Otis

Dear Friends,

I am a man who accepts personal responsibility.
When you teach a child to read at a very young
age, it tends to be a "habit" for the child to
pull the work very close to his eyes.

Here is the statement of the "habit" of some
children.

Otis

+++++++++


7. Reading at 14cm (5.5 inches) -- not uncommon at all

     By: "Alex Eulenberg"

Alex:
> Let's say that sustained reading at 25cm (ten inches), or 4
diopters of accommodative demand, is sufficient to induce a myopic
shift in a particular individual. That individual, at -3D of
myopia, would still be able to induce a myopic shift by reading at
14cm (five and a half inches).

Dr. Judy>  I think you are stretching here, how many people would do
near work,mlike reading or computer use at 5.5 inches!

Neil:
> Cause and effect are garbled here, too.  Maybe kids who choose to
read at very short distances ARE manifesting myopia.  Any data?

Alex>  In my paper, "The Case for the Preventability of Myopia," I
tell of
how American Optometrist Jacob Raphaelson did a survey of the vision
and reading distances of schoolchildren. He examined the eyes of
over
500 students and found among them practically none -- only 1%  --
with myopic refraction. He also observed how they held their eyes in
relation to their reading matter. While nearly all of them started
out at a "normal" distance, after a minute or two, 66% of the
children ended up reading at a distance of from 3 to 6 inches, and
19% at a distance of 3 or less. Note that reading at 3 inches
without
glasses is gives you the same accommodative demand as putting on a
-13.00 D lens.

3 in = .0762m = 1/.0762 D = 13 D

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

This is the only survey of its kind that I am aware of.

--Alex

Bias3.txt

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject:  What science says about the eye's behavior,
	   and what ODs do for their own children.

      I am reposting this statement.  For me, virtually everyting I
say depends on an expert helping his own children with the
preventive-plus.

      No man wishes to see his children's vision go "down", and the
child become permanently myopic.  Yet some optometrists truly
"believe" in that minus lens.

      But just remember, there are others optometrists who finally
realize that while the minus is quick, and effective, it truly has
a serious and bad secondary effect.

      The issue for you (and I hope you are not to deep into myopia
yet) is to know this, and at least consider the second-opinion as
presented here.


1.  Majority-opinion ODs put their own kids in a strong minus --
       and no problem is solved.  Their own kids vision goes DOWN
       from that point onward.  The rate is -1/2 diopters/year.

2.  Second-opinion ODs, seeing their child's vision at 20/40,
       (about -3/4 diopters) insist that they begin wearing a +2.5
       diopter lens for all close work. Their vision clears on the
       Snellen, and their refractive STATE moves positive.

3.  Pilots value their distant vision, and will put in the STRONG
       effort with a +2.5 diopter lens to clear their vision, and
       equally important will continue this process.

      I do not consider the goal of keeping my distant vision clear
for life, nor the science that supports is a "silly debate".

      This is an issue that you must decide for your self.

      Here is the discussion:

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

Otis> And I would suggest you re-examine your beliefs, that a -3
       diopter lens has no effect on the refractive STATE of all
       natural eyes -- on a scientific level.  Clearly, as a matter
       of pure science, the natural eye does change by -2 diopters
       in six months, when the experiment is conducted correctly.
       This suggests that great care (i.e., no over-prescription)
       should be considered, with the parent reviewing the relevant
       scientific facts.  The "un-intended" results of an
       over-prescribed minus lens will most probably be stair-case
       myopia -- which can not then be "reversed" by a plus lens.

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

DrG > Once again you have confused cause and effect.  People get
       eyeglasses because they are myopic, not vice-versa.

DrG > Now, let's put an end to this silly debate.

+++++++

      DrG is confused.  What I stated is that the natural eye's
refractive STATE FOLLOWS the applied minus.  There is no "cause".

      Keep the natural eye in the "open" and the refractive STATE
is positive and distant vision is clear.

      Place that SAME EYE, in a -3 diopter lens, or a long-term
NEAR environment, and the NATURAL EYE will simply change its
refractive STATE from plus-to-minus, and you will have blur at
distance.

      Thus the second-opinion OD gets is "right" for his own
children.

      But that is the true nature of a preventive second-opinion.

      Be wise about this.

      Otis

TomStudy.txt

This was the only successful myopia prevention
effort that I could find, written up by Tom.

It would be nice if there were a follow-up, using
Bates, the plus, or a combination.

But that does not seem to be possible.

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

Dear Majority-opinion Doctor,

Here's what I suggest you do. Click on the URL below.

http://central-fixation.com/batesmed/myopiaprevention.htm

There you will read about a very simple program which was used
to bring the eyesight of 1,000 pupils to normal in six public schools
in NYC. This article was printed in the NY Medical Journal for
August 30, 1913.

It is full of the names of real people, the
principals of the schools, the names of various teachers and of
various public officials.

This article was just recently uncovered by an
Italian gentleman. Yes, there is growing interest in Dr. Bates in
Italy, as there is in Germany.

Please don't tell me this is a fictitious report. There were libel
laws in those days, stronger than the ones we have today, and the idea
that Dr. Bates made up the whole business and that the NY Medical
Journal printed it without doing even a cursory check is absurd.

I will give you some background. Before a meeting of some 300
ophthalmologists was to be held in NYC, Dr. Bates wrote to each
of the doctors who were going to attend and informed them that
he was going to make a public challenge to them. The challenge
he was going to issue was as follows,

"Come with me any classroom in the City of New York and if there
is one child in that classroom whose eyesight I cannot improve
by rest, I will admit I am wrong about the whole business."

Not one of those doctors accepted the challenge, but somehow
an official of the Board of Education of NYC heard about it and
invited Dr. Bates to a school to show what he could do.

Dr. Bates showed up and, with a teacher observing, did his thing.
The teacher was dazzled, but suspicious, feeling that some sort
of trick was being played. She asked Dr. Bates to stay in the class-
room while she attended to some business.

What she did was go into another classroom and do what she
had seen Dr. Bates do. She got the same results and came back
convinced that no trick was being played. The rest you can read
about.

The next thing I suggest you do is buy a copy of "Better Eyesight"
which is a compilation of the eleven years of the little magazine
Dr. Bates published. It is about $18.00 on Amazon. It is a
huge book.

There you can read about a similar program which involved
six schools and 9,000 pupils in North Bergen, New Jersey.
This program was so successful in both preventing and correcting
refractive errors in the pupils that the superintendent of schools
compared it to the invention of radio!

It was not merely the improvement of the eyesight of the pupils,
it was the extraordinary improvement in their academic achieve-
ment that sent him into orbit. If this is too much trouble, I wrote
a posting about this program and its success which I will post
if I can find it.

While this report was published in Dr. Bates's magazine, again
you will note that this magazine is replete with names of
real people and the idea that Dr. Bates could publish a
fictitious report on what was going on in North Bergen, New
Jersey, confident that no one would ever know, does not
present itself to be as being a compelling idea.

If you buy a copy of a book called "Reprints," from
"healthresearchbooks.com" you can read about another
program successfully used in Grand Forks, North Dakota,
for a number of years, also published in some medical
journal. That article is not as detailed as the other two.

What I am suggesting is that there is an alternative to just
throwing up your hands in despair and saying what can we
do? The children have to function. I really don't see why
there is no interest in Dr. Bates's simple program. It would
cost next to nothing and take little time.

If you are going to suggest these reports have no value
because there was no control group, permit me to ask
was there a control group in the tests which led the
FDA to approve the various systems of refractive
surgery–Lasik and the others?

The above was written in haste, without the use of colons
or semicolons which are not functional on my keyboard
and is not meant to be argumentative, just informative.
I have no problem with you at all. You are more open-
minded than most.

Anecdotal Tom