"Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote in news:fbBsc.25442$zO3.7043
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

The one I found is:

Flitcroft DI. The lens paradigm in experimental myopia: oculomotor,
optical and neurophysiological considerations. [Journal Article]
Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics. 19(2):103-11, 1999 Mar.

To quote from that paper, near the end (excuse the poor cut and paste--
its tough from acrobat)

"Lack of clear evidence for lens effects in man
Although the ability of the human eye to grow
towards emmetropia in the first few years of life is well
documented (Atkinson et al., 1996; Saunders et al.,
1995), there is a remarkable absence of data indicating
that lenses can alter the pattern of ocular growth. In
part this reflects the fact that refractive correction in
humans is intended to correct pre-existing refractive
errors rather than impose them as occurs in lens rear-
ing studies. Correction of refractive errors should have
the effect of preventing emmetropisation. A single study (Ingram et al.,
1991) that prospectively evaluated
the effect of prescription of lenses for hyperopic chil-
dren demonstrated a suppressive effect of lens wear on
emmetropisation. This effect only reached statistical
significance when the groups were analysed on the
basis of compliance with treatment rather than on the
basis of intention to treat. Other studies have failed to
demonstrate such an inhibitory effect of glasses in
hyperopic children (Atkinson et al., 1996). Although
animal studies can provide information that could not
be obtained in a clinical setting, it is clearly imperative
that appropriate studies are undertaken to directly test
the hypothesis that the growth of the human eye can
altered by spectacle lenses. As yet the case remains
unproven (Stone et al., 1996), but the implications of a
clear demonstration of this hypothesis in humans will
require a major re-evaluation of prescribing patterns."

So, Flitcroft presents his side, addresses the criticisms of this area of
research, points out inconsistencies in the literature in a fairly good
literature review, addresses the clear difference between adaptation
during development and adaptation in the developed eye, admits that the
human case is yet unproven, doesn't assert that what he wishes to be fact
is fact, and calls for more studies.

In other words, Flitcroft is a scientist, and not a zealot.

Scott

1.  I respect a person's right of "informed choice".

2.  I respect Dr. Jacob Raphaelson, Dr. Steve Leung,
and all other optometrists who will discuss the
POSSIBILITY of prevention when their vision is
at 0.0 to +0.25 dioters.  Certainly, at
-1/4 to -1/2 diopters an intelligent pilot
should be provided with a review of the possibility
of prevention at that point.

3.  Dr. Francis Young was also qualified as an
optometrist and I have the GREATEST repect for him.

Excellent.  When I talk about the natural eye changing
its refractive status (as the visual enviroment
is changed) you have no argument with
me about the proven nature of the natural
eye.  I have intentionally used the neutral
word "refractive state" to separate what you
measure from what you interpert.  Seperates
pure-scientific facts from optometry and saves
unnecessary fighting.

Remember Rishi agreese with YOU -- that a plus lens
must NOT be used for the prevention of nearsightedss.

If fact, all the "Bates" people choke at the thought
of using the plus for prevention.  So the concept
of prevention is not "Bates" in origin or character.

It is Dr. Jacob Raphaelson's concept -- and
the conept of Professor Dr. Gronvenor (Houston)
as the second opionion.  

It is indeed difficult to implement properly.

I guess it depends on how you define your subject matter.

Best,

Otis

_______________