I understand your misery.

Fortunately I have nobody to treat, I just share session of
self-treatment.

I watch the eyechart, my friend watches the eyechart.

Just a community of friends, nobody that treats anybody.

But you could start by treating yourself.

When you have to read your papers and you fail, without glasses, try
the black point.

It may work, it may not work.

If you do it well, it will work.

There are no exceptions!

(says Bates)

I am simply doing my work of licensed journalist and publisher!

What do you want?

I think I have the right to say what I want.

I do not earn money treating patients.

I just collect facts and disseminate them.

What do you want???

You understand nothing about myopia, otherwise you should be able to
cure it.

Please, mind your own business.

Dear Mike,

You "cojecture" is that the natural eye
is NOT DYNAMIC, and you can
ASSUME you can represent
the eye as a FROZEN box camera.

This was ACCEPTED 140 years ago,
because it was so simple.  But
today there is a mass of direct,
objective SCIENTIFIC (not medical)
proof that the eye is dynamic.

You will find the complete report on

www.myopia.org

Under:

www.myopia.org

Please remember, it is VERY DIFFICULT
to deal with young children.  Very seldom
do they do what you ask them to do, and
their parents -- the same difficulty.

Even so, Francis Young demonstrated
that a "high plus" add to a minus had
the effect of stopping further movement
into nearsighteness.

What this suggests is that it is
very important that the parent be
informed of this effect, and this
study makes it imperative that the
parents so undertand that the plus
MUST be used before the minus -- and
they have that right to understand the
issue on that level.

Also, the Houston study used a
"low, small segment" and it is
doubtful that the kids even looked
through it.

Further, Francis Young requested
that his name be REMOVED from
that study since he was not consulted,
not involved.  Further, he was not
supplied with reports of both
reports -- a direct insult to him.

He has no idea who put his
name on the Houston study.

Here is the abstract:

Best,

Otis

_______________

Authors:
Kenneth H. Oakley, MD.
Bend, Oregon
and
Francis A. Young, Ph.D.
Primate Research Center
Washington State University
Pullman, Washington

ABSTRACT
Forty-three Native American bifocal wearers grouped by yearly age
levels from 9 to 15 with a mixed group of 6 to 8 year olds are matched
on beginning age, sex, beginning refractive error and ending age with
104 Native American control subjects. Similarly, 226 Caucasian bifocal
wearers are matched on the same criteria against 382 control subjects.
Although the comparisons are made on each age group, the average annual
rate of progression for the bifocal Native American subjects is -0.12
and -0.10 diopters in the right and left eyes respectively against a
comparable rate of progression of -0.38 and -0.36 diopters for the
control subjects These differences are significant but not as
significant as those found on 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 meaning of these differences is discussed.

To: R  Izaac" <pdizaac@singnet.com.sg>

Subject: Vision clearing from -2.75 diopters by "Mike"

Re:  In clearing your vision with the plus, you go through
20/40 -- on the way to 20/20.

Re:  This takes strong "will-power" and good judgment,
by "Mike" who did it successfully -- following a
review of Francis Young's Scientific study of
the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye.

___________________

Dear Roland,

It is a time-honored approach to agree the the development of a
"second opinion".

This  often developes because of a dissatisfaction with the
"traditional"
method.

Steve Leung OD, has developed an opinion that a negative refractive
state
of the natural eye CAN BE PREVENTED.  This is obviously not
a "cure" and not "therapy".

Steve Leung has at least 12 years in practice.  He uses the minus lens
--
same
as you.  And indeed, I agree that he has little choice but to follow
the
tradition of the last 400 years -- because the plublic will not
"accept" the necessity of using a strong plus "correctly".

But Steve is strongly using the plus on his own child, who
has 20/20, but a refractive state of zero.  We both agree
that "prevention" in this sense is very difficult -- and
depends on the "wisdom" of the parents to accept
the necessity of it.  Not an easy task at all -- and
the decision rests with the parents -- and not with Steve.

----- Original Message -----

by the highly qualified optometrist Steve Leung,
and described at

Steve is a full professional optometrist.  He qualifications are the
same
as yours.

use of an over-prescribed minus lens -- at the threshold -- when
prevention can be effective.

found
that they could pass the "Standard Snellen", by reading 1.8 cm letters
at 6
meters.
i.e., the pass the driver-license without glasses -- and do not require
a
minus lens.

When they are "measured" in a dark room with a "projected" Snellen,
they
are being measured for "night time" vision.  This takes a -2 diopter
lens
to clear to 20/20 or even 20/15.

I would say that a minus lens that is not required legally -- is over
prescribed.

Ultimately, Mike, who established this fact, continued with a very
strong
plue and cleared to 20/20 -- thus the 20/40 stage was an intermediate
step.

Best,

Otis