Dear Jan,

Since you declared that the concept that the
natural eye is dynamic "...must be destroyed",
I would suggest that it would be impossible
to have any type of conversation with you
were true-prevention was the goal.

Further you don't seem to understand the
concept of PREVENTION.  This meand
that the person himself must make
the decision to use the plus PROPERLY
BEFORE the minus lens is used.

If he reviews the scientifc facts concerning
the natural eye's behavior, and chooses
to reject forceful use of the plus -- then
than ends the possiblity of effective
prevention for that person.

Once he starts using the minus, then
as per the bifocal studies, he can
expect his visoin to go down by
about -1/2 diopter per year.
You insisted that BOTH the
groups go donw at that rate.

I am never going to "fight" with an
individual about this issue.  If he
chooses YOUR minus lens -- that
is the end of the possiblity of
effective prevention -- and his
choice.

And prevention with the plus is difficult -- since it requires
BOTH self-motivation and persistance.  Any you
can never "prescribe" these qualities in a person.

To further reply (accepting your hostility to the concept.)

Does it mean your plus lens therapy is useless for adults who already
are
myopic?

Otis>  If a fully informed pilot (at 20/25) entering a four year
college chooses to reject the use of the plus for prevention,
then he can expect his vision to go "down" by about
-1.3 diopters in four years.  Once he makes that
choice, there would be no furter point in using
the plus -- now would there.  The man has
made he decision -- and has accepted the
consequences.  I certainly would make
no further attempt to help him.  How could I,
when he will not help himself.  Think about it.

Then whe make progress!

Nature, I think.

Otis>  Yor biased opinion.  But I fogot -- you don't
look at any direct scientific facts concerning
the behavior of the natural eye -- under
direct test.  I would think that a pilot
who valued his distant vision would take
scientific facts more seriously than
you do.  But yes, the concept that
a person could have some "smarts"
about this issue --' ";...; must be destroyed".

Again, does it mean your plus lens therapy is useless to adults?

Otis>  I NEVER use the term "therapy".  Futher, as
stated, the pilot at 20/25, entering a four year
college will have to take your attitude
under consideration in making his choice
betwee neglect, and motivated use of the
plus -- when it can be effective.

Best,

Otis

Engineer

Dear Allen,

Please go back to sleep.

Yes, everything you believe is true.

Scientific truth, research, intelligent
understanding of the dynamic nature
of the fundamental eye -- well,
you are never going to understand
any of it.

But some engineers and scientists
like Stirling Colgate, Steve Leung
and Francis Young have published
results that are significant
and challenge the traditional
minus-lens method of the
last 400 years.

It is time for a change my friend -- even
if you can not be part of it.

Best,

Otis
Engineer