It means four years of college, then four more years of graduate school.

-MT

OK. I used the wrong word. Sorry. Should have been "enabled", and that's
done by replying to his moronic posts.

Two years of his BS and no one here seems to get it.  Don't engage him
(or that other one). Just post a daily (or so) warning for newbies---the
rest of us are well aware of what is rational and civil discussion,
whether we agree or not.

--LB, OD

Dear Neil,

Subject:  Publication Review -- and intellectual
blindness of OD Boards and publications

Neil>  I'm a believer now. Call the Review of Optometry. Tell them to
hold the
lead story in the upcoming issue.

Please don't worry about scientific facts
concerning the dynamic behavior of
of the natural eye under test -- and
its implications for optopmetry.

The boards are staffed by the likes
of Jan, who states (up front) that
the concept of prevention "...must be
DESTROYED".

No, you will never find scientific
truth about the natural eye's
behavior in such publications,
and you would be foolish to
look for it there.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

Therefore, he is a troll, by the standard definition.

DrG

Dear RM,

Re:  Please provide data demonstrating that the natural
eye "moves negative" in a four year college at a
specific rate.

Please enjoy reading the following SCIENTIFIC
reports.

But again, you are going to insist that enviroment
has no effect on the refractive status of the
natural eye.  Oh Yeah!

Where is your exerimental data concerning the
behavior of the natural (not defective) eye?

Where have you PROVEN that the minus lens
is even safe.

You haven't produced any yet.  Let us see
it on an "input" versus "output" basis.

What will be your rationalization now?

Best,

Otis
Enineer

Dear Prevention minded friends,

This is some more detailed information on Dr.  Hayden's
publication on the fact that the natural eye goes "down" at a rate
of -1/4 dipter per year at the U.  S.  Naval Academy.  Please
remember that ALL students were REQUIRED to have 20/20 on entry at
the time this paper was published.

Hayden published -1.0 diopters per four years.

Gmelin published -1.3 diopters per four years.

Some more commentary on this -1/4 diopter per year.  I just
received this from "RM-OD" on sci.med.vision.

If you wish to know WHY I fear these ODs, then this describes
the reason.

I maintain that I want this information presented to me -- at
the threshold -- about what is going to happen to my vision in a four
year college.  Specifically:

_________________________________

Otis> The ODs report that the eye goes "down" at a rate of -1/2
diopter per year.  In college the "down" rate is about -1/3
diopter per year.  Therefore you can expect this downward
rate (which you have already confirmed) to continue, so that
4 years from now, you can expect your eyes to go further
negative by -1.3 diopters (on the average).

RM >  Where is this result documented.    This OD (RM) would not tell
any patient what you just said.

Comment

This is exactly the problem!  I personally would INSIST that
I be informed of the above in a clear, logical manner.    That way I
could make an intelligent decision about prevention -- either "up"
or "down".  RM thinks he is justified in restricting this type of
information.  Why?

Further he asks, "...where is this result documented." I have
spent the last 6 months presenting exactly this information on
sci.med.vision.

1.  The -1/2 diopter per year is documented in the bifocal
studies!  Is this RM daft?

2.  The -1/3 diopter per year is documented in two studies at the
Naval Academy and at West Point.  And after all this -- he
asks "...where is this result documented"?

This is beyond belief.  But you should form your own scientic
judgment -- of course!

Enjoy the following -- because I must laugh, otherwise I
would cry!  Does this RM have a clue?

Best,

Otis

________________________________________

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 3 2005 9:17 pm
From: "RM"

Otis> 1.  The traditional answer -- nearsighedness is caused by
heredity -- and there is nothing you can do about it.

RM >  Sorry, but myopia is more complex that just being due to
genetics.

Otis> The ODs report that the eye goes "down" at a rate of -1/2
diopter per year.  In college the "down" rate is about -1/3
diopter per year.  Therefore you can expect this downward
rate (which you have already confirmed) to continue, so that
4 years from now, you can expect your eyes to go further
negative by -1.3 diopters (on the average).

RM >  Where is this result documented.    This OD (RM) would not
tell any patient what you just said.

[For any intelligent person I would START by telling him the
above.  If he "faces facts" entering a four year college --
then he MIGHT take prevention seriously.    But when you
"hide" facts -- he has no chance to make an intelligent
decision or choice.  This is the worst of the worst.  OSB]

RM >  Everything is just black or white for you Otis.  For example,
you think ALL eyes will go down by an average amount, or
that ALL pilot-engineers who attend a 4-year college and are
intelligent can reverse their myopia.  It is only so simple
to someone who doesn't have any experience.

[I have a great deal of experience dealing with this combiation
of
arrogance and ignorance.    Why do you think we are still
using the traditional minus lens -- put in use 400 years
ago?  OSB]

RM >  To the layperson, Otis is not a trained eyecare expert.  He
has a bias toward a particular theory of myopia prevention
that has limited merit.  See an eye doctor and follow his
advise.

[Always remember the concept of "the second opinion".  I am
certain this man BELIEVES he is right.  That belief does
not make him right -- but he wants to dictate the use of the
minus lens -- without ANY consideration of the preventive
alterative.  As far as "...see your eye doctor", please
remember that a smaller number of eye-doctors ADVOCATE
prevention with the plus -- as the second opinion.  I have
learned how damaging RM's "attitude" is to all of us.  OSB]

______________________

Subject:  Clarification of the -1/4 diopter per year statement for
the natural eye at Annapolis and -1/3 diopter per year
at West Point for the normal eye.

Re:    DR.  HAYDEN STATES THAT EMMETROPIA IS NOT NORMAL FOR THE
FOLLOWING REASONS

Re:    "...As is well known, the emmetropic eye is for practical
purpose an abnormal eye -- the great majority of persons
with so-called normal vision being actually
hypermetropic.  Those candidates, then, whose refraction
was of the plano (emmetropic -- focal status exactly
zero OSB) had borderline conditions definitely on the
way to myopia.  For all practical purposes, experience
here has shown that patients with +0.25 diopters of
hypermetropia are in the same class." Dr.  Hayden

Re:    [This is why I use the word "focal state" to define what we
measure, rather than implying "defect" for what is in
fact refractive states that are completely normal.  OSB]

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

You asked for background information on the behavior of the
normal eye at our military colleges.

I stated specifically, that the "downward" rate for all these
eyes was approximatly -1/3 diopters per year.  This is the average
value for ALL eyes.

Some eyes went "down" at a faster rate, and some showed a
rate of zero diopters.    But the AVERAGE of all NORMAL EYES was
-1/3 diopter per year, and obviously -1.3 for four years.

Since you doubt these statistics, I am posting statements by
Dr.  R.  Hayden about various issues concerning these fundamental,
base-line statistics.

In general, I simply report objective facts.  Others can put
their own "spin" on them if they like.

It is often claimed that no one knows anything about
the rate that eye develops nearsighedness.  This is a false
statement.  The "standard" statement is that no one can "predict"
the development of a negative focal status for the eye for a
person entering college with 20/20, 20/25 or 20/30 vision.

If a pilot enters a four year college with 20/20, but a focal
status of zero (sometimes called "emmetropia"), it is virtually
certain that he will not be 20/20 at graduation.  The statistics
show that his vision will be -1.0 to -1.3 diopters with a visual
acuity of 20/70 to 20/100.  No one ever bothers to tell any pilot
about these statistics.  If they only knew they MIGHT be able to
take effective action for prevention.

Here are the records and statment about the eyes movement
from a positve value to a negative value at the Naval Academy.

When we attempted to institute a "preventive" method at the
Naval Academy we got nothing but "stone-walling" of the type you
have seen from sci.med.vision.

When I asked you to use the plus for prevention at college, I
was well-aware of these statistics.  It is very hard to miss the
point -- but it seems many people manage to do so.

Best,

Otis

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

Re:  Dear Otis -- If a person is not myopic by the time they reach
college (USAF Academy) what are the chances of becoming
myopic from the required reading load?  Has the USAF run
any experiments to find out what causes myopia in their
personnel?  -- Bill

________________________________________

If you know the refractive state of an "entering" student can
you predict the resultant refractive state after four years?

If you check the person's focal status, and find it to be
"zero" or "plano", then the probability the person will retain his
20/20 is about one percent -- as stated by Dr.    Hayden.

Note: Refractive state is determined by using a trial-lens kit.
It is first established that the pilot (or entering
student) has 20/20.  The next step it to use a sequence
of stronger plus lenses to establish the student's
refractive state as having some positive status.

REFERENCES

1.  Reynolds Hayden, M.D., "Development and Prevention of Myopia at
the United States Naval Academy", Volume 25, (old series
Volume 82), Number 4., Copyright, 1941, The American
Medical Association.

2.  Gmelin, Maj.  Robert T., MSC, USA, "Myopia at West Point:  Past
and Present." Military Medicine, 141 (8) 542-3, August
1976.

Here is the information I have on your question about
"base-line data" concerning the behavior of the natural and
healthy eye at the Naval Academy.

SYNOPSIS

For years, since 1879 in fact, studies of military cadets in
the United States have shown that their vision changes over the
years of their academic work.  Records reveal that a large
percentage of the cadets (39% of those at the U.S.  Military
Academy in 1956) [2] became nearsighted and needed negative lenses
by graduation.

Further, of those who developed 20/25 vision, only one
percent recovered to 20/20 over the four years, [1].  (They were
not provided with plus-lenses, and for this reason had no chance
to recover.)

In early years their degraded vision was blamed on the fumes
of gas lighting, and later, on any number of factors, but the
upshot of the studies was that none of these circumstance were
really behind the cadet's loss of visual acuity.  The myopia
(change of focal state) was a result of the fact that the natural
eye controls its focal state to its average visual environment.
Roughly, that is looking close, studying, reading, looking at
books, for long periods of time -- rather than at distant objects.

SELECTED STATEMENTS FROM DR.  HAYDEN

"...For many years the high incidence of myopia which
apparently developed among midshipmen after admission to the
United States Naval Academy with supposedly normal vision was a
cause of serious concern to all those interested."

(Extended "rest" was offered, as stated by Dr.  Hayden)

"...and by retaining may of them (who became nearsighted) in
the Naval Academy for one to three years in the hope that their
vision would improve."

"...In the vast majority of cases their vision did not
improve, and the midshipmen was forced to leave the naval service
after two to four years in the Naval Academy.  Experience showed
that only about one percent of such men had 20/20 on their final
physical examination."

[Summary -- if their focal status became even SLIGHTLY
negative (20/25) they had virtually no chance of clearing their
distant vision to 20/20.  OSB]

"...Furthermore, an excessive number of junior line officers
were being retired because of defective vision, and the records
showed that the vision of 3/4 of these had become defection
defective (vision less than 20/20 for each eye) at the Naval
Academy."

[Dr.  Hayden then reviews the statistics on a class by class
basis -- to long to type up.]

"...Any candidate, however, who if found to have any degree
of myopia following the use of a cycloplegic, even -0.12 or -0.25
diopters is rejected."

NECESSITY OF HYPEROPIC RESERVE

(For young health men with 20/20 -- A
Positive focal state of the eye.    OSB)

PARAPHRASE

Review of the refraction of the eye of candidates at the time
of preliminary physical examination showed that the great majority
of candidates whose refraction was of the plano-type, including
+0.25 diopters.  At the first year their examination would show
that they had myopia.

Occasionally a candidate who showed as much as +0.5 diopters
"hypermetropia" on preliminary physical examination was found to
have -0.25 diotpers of myopia in the first year.

[EMMETROPIA IS DEFINED AS NORMAL OR PERFECT BASED
ON THE DONDERS-HELMHOLTZ CONCEPTUALIZATION -- OSB]

DR. HAYDEN STATES THAT EMMETROPIA IS NOT NORMAL FOR
THE FOLLOWING REASONS

"...As is well known, the emmetropic eye is for practical
purpose an abnormal eye -- the great majority of persons with
so-called normal vision being actually hypermetropic.  Those
candidates, then, whose refraction was of the plano (emmetropic --
focal status exactly zero) had borderline conditions definitely on
the way to myopia.  For all practical purposes, experience here
has shown that patients with +0.25 diopters of hypermetropia are
in the same class."

[This is why I use the word "focal state" to define what we
measure, rather than implying "defect" for what is in fact natural
an normal.  OSB]

"In view of the experience at the Naval Academy during the
past three years as described, it is evident that a reserve of
preferably 1 diopter and at least 1/2 dipoter is necessary at the
time of preliminary refraction to be reasonably sure that the
candidate will pass his physical examination for admission."

"Furthermore, in order to be reasonably sure of being
visually qualified for a commission in the line of the Navy after
four years at the Naval Academy -- it is necessary that the
student have a hyperopic reserve of at least one diopter of
hypermetropia at the time of admission."

"Of course, an occasional candidate will +0.25 to +0.5
diotper of hypermetropia at the time of admission admission will
survive visually and receive a commission, but this is
exceptional."

DR.  HAYDEN THEN DISCUSSES ATROPINE A CYCLOPLEGIC

He details the loss of people in various classes who were
"emmetropic" (focal state zero) on entry, using various drugs and
percentage mixtures.  It was hoped that using different drugs
would produce better results and these emmetropic eyes could be
"saved".  However:

In one case (c, d) the loss was 70 percent after three years,

In another case (c, d) the loss was 85 percent at 2 years.

THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF ILLUMINATION LEVELS
AND EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THESE LEVELS

CONCLUSIONS

"It is considered that during the past three years the Naval
Academy has definitely proved the necessity of midshipmen having a
"hyperopic reserve" of at least 1 diopter at the time of admission
to the Naval Academy, and of their meeting the present visual
requirements if the visual standards of the Naval are to be
maintained."

"...Any candidate having less than 1/2 dipoter of
hypermetropia at the time of a preliminary ocular refraction
should be informed that, while visually qualified at the time, he
has a borderline condition which may progress to a low degree of
myopia by the time he takes his physical examination for admission
to the Naval Academy, and may therefore be rejected."

"Any candidate having from +0.5 to +1.0 diopters of
hypermetropia at the time of a preliminary ocular refraction
should be informed that, while he should pass the physical
examination for entrance to the Naval Academy, he stands no better
than an even chance of visually obtaining a commission in the line
of the Navy on graduation."

____________________________________

Note 1:  All these men had healthy retinas.  All retinas had the
capability of resolving 5 minute-of-angle targets at 20
feet.    Their natural eye's behaved as expected.  The eye
controlls its focal state to its visual environment.  For
this reason an "undesired" focal state does not indicate
an "organic defect", "error" or words to that effect.
That is the reason I use the term "focal state" so their
is no confusion about that point.

Note 2:  The words emmetropia and ametropia were introduced by
Donders.  Donders took the focal states (other than 0.0
diopters) of the natural eye to be DEFECTS or ERRORS of
the eye.  Any non-zero focal state of the eye was, by
definition, a defect (ametropia).  A focal state of
EXACTLY zero was defined as "normal".  Under this
definition, very few, if any, primates -- monkey or human
-- have eyes that are normal!