Dear Friends,

Mike (on his own) determined to quit the minus lens
cold-turkey at Easter.  (His decision -- not mine.)
He researched "Bates" and many other issues.
After contacting me, I suggested that he
read the commentary by Jon -- and review his
decision to quit cold-turkey.  I suggested
that he read his own eye chart.  I also
suggested that he have a "review" with an
OD -- which he did.  His vision is currently
20/30.  He was following your discussion on
"pseudo-myopia" and I guess he has cleared
most of it away.

This is only for your reading pleasure -- so
enjoy -- and think for yourself.  Also read
the site:

www.chinamyopia.org

for the "second opinion".

Best,

Otis
Engineer

_______

Mike:  Two types of myopia (and thoughts about it).

Mike> There are two types of myopia.  One in which the lens goes
     into spasms which Jon defeated and another, an elongation of
     the eyeball which I must defeat.

Otis> My opinion is slightly different.  I would suggest that when
     you first start seeing "blur" on the eye chart (say 20/60),
     then that is "accommodation myopia".  When you start wearing
     a strong minus lens, the "accommodation myopia" is converted
     into eye-length myopia.  In any event, the method of
     prevention is the same -- to get you "near" environment as
     far from your face as possible -- for the long-term.  There
     are obviously many opinions on this subject.

Mike> I have read information on what the extra-ocular muscles
     role in vision.

Otis> This concept has a long history, were "blame" was placed on
     either the extra-ocular muscles or the accommodation system.

Mike> Some people thought that they played the role of focusing
     light which we now know is the lenses job.

Otis> It is possible that both play a role, where "accommodation"
     could be 80 percent the "lens" and 20 percent the
     extra-ocular muscles.

Mike> But I think that they did have a point.  If you look at the
     anatomy of an eye you will see four extra-ocular muscles
     attached to the eye.  I think that they control the shape of
     the eye itself.

Otis> Possible -- but no good way to resolve this question.
     There are two additional muscles -- for rotation of the
     eye.

Mike> If all four contracted at once then the eye would be pushed
     on the back of the eye socket and force the eye to get
     shorter on the x axis.

Otis> No objection.  I consider that "accommodation" is what the
     complete eye must do to maintain sharp focus on the retina.
     Thus if it must change BOTH lens shape AND length together
     the result is still a clear image on your retina.
     (Within the stop-to-stop travel of the said accommodation
     system.)

Mike> If they were all relaxed then the only force acting on the
     eye itself is gravity and that would force the eye to get
     longer on the x axis.

Otis> This concept had some currency many years ago.

Mike> If you don't quite get what I am talking about I will be
     happy to explain it again because I think I am onto
     something.  I may be the first person to ever reverse
     elongation of the eye.

Otis> You are the SECOND young person to "push" very hard with
     that plus lens.  The first person was Jon.  You are part of
     an exclusive "club" in this effort.  That should tell you
     how difficult this preventive work really is.
     However, Dr. Colgate did it successfully -- so you
     should follow his lead.

Mike> I thought of this because I noticed that when my vision was
     the best my extra-ocular muscles were VERY tense.  And when
     I read a something without my plus my extra-ocular muscles
     were very loose.    I can tell the tension because of how hard
     it is to move my eye up and down and side to side.  I have
     begun to do eye exercises and my vision is getting better.

Otis> While I do "push" the plus concept, I have no objection at
     all to other methods.  Indeed David De Angles strongly
     supported the "exercise" part of prevention.  This is
     something you must work out for yourself

Mike> I am NOT saying that the plus is obsolete and that eye
     exercises will get you better vision but simply stating my
     theory on how eyes get longer on the x axis and how to
     reverse it.

Otis> The analysis of the eye as you describe it was started by
     Johann Kepler in about 1610 or so.  He did an excellent
     optical concept -- and it remains a good "conceptual"
     approach.  But there are some "problems" with the concept,
     and while I respect the "model", and will use it for many
     discussions about the eye -- it does fail when you test the
     concept as representing the dynamic behavior of the
     natural or fundamental eye.

Otis> And indeed THAT takes some "explaining".  But as long as you
     understand that the plus-for-prevention is the second
     opinion, and always exceed the 20/40 line -- then you are
     doing the "right thing".

Otis> This issue is highly "personal", in that only you can make
     the type of decision and take the actions that you judge are
     necessary.

Otis> In any event, I was very pleased when you reported 20/50 to
     20/70 (when we first talked) even though you said you had a
     -2.75 diopter lens.  Fighting your way out it is indeed
     difficult.  I am happy that you stuck with it -- and that
     Jon helped you with his own experience -- and are
     now at 20/30.

Best,

Otis

Thanks

Mike