Mike>  Please show us where this effect is "proven" in humans. You
never seem to
get around to that. We must conclude that the evidence doesn't exist
and
you're lying about it.

Dear Mike,

Proof is a delicate thing.  It often depends on the naturel of the
questions you LEARN TO ASK about the dynamic
nature of the natural eye.

The person who reviews these issues, like Jon and Mike
and listens to your bom-bast agains a logical
appreciation of the natural eye's behavior can
eventually reach his own conclusion about
scientific proof concerning the natural eye
as a dynamic system.  This is pure-scientific
testing where you test on an "input" versus
"output".

The input being the average-visual environment in
diopters, and the "output" being the refractive
status of the eye.

But you do not like the consequences of a logical
understanding an appreciation of the natural
properties of this sophisticated eyd.

A person, educated in this basic science, can
study this, and other issues where leaders
like Stirling Colgate recognized the same basic
truth about the eye's behavior -- and applied
the concept to himself.

So, Mike, Jon and John (a pilot) just followed
the recommendations of the second-opinion made
by Steve Leung, Francis Young, Theodore Grosvenor,
and others who recognize the falicy and blindness
of using a minus lens.

It is indeed DIFFICULT.  You normally get into it
(from a confined enviroment) at a rate of about -1/2 diopter
per year.  So, you can expect that "clearing" will be
equally slow, about +1/2 diopter per year.

Because this takes so much persistance, it is obvious
that true-prevention CAN NEVER BE PRESCRIBED,
nor can it be reduced to a MAGIC PILL, which
is what you are demanding.

But they are smarter than that.  As a result, they
in fact cleared their visoin to 20/20 -- and will
keep it their -- if they wish.

In fact -- I do not know what they will do in their
future.  But that will be a matter of their
free will, and judgment about the relative
value of their distant vision to them.

Since they are young, 14 and 15, and will
enter a four year college, they know that
the "down" rate is -1/3 diopter per year,
or -1.33 diopters in four years.  They
know that the "spread" is from -1.1 diopter
to  -1.6 diopter in those four years.

Thus they know that the "un-protected" eye
will go "down" by that amount.

As far as "proof" is concerned, this issue is more
a "second-opinion", since the minus lens was
put it to use -- simply because it works "instantly",
and had very little "science" behind it.

Ultimately, it will be optometrists like Steve Leung,
who keep their own children's vision clear, that
POTENTIALLY can help parents with this
PREVENTIVE process.

Equally, as I stated, if I were in YOUR position, and
had to deal with the general public walking in off the
street, as well as "conform" with the same process
my OD peers are using -- I probably would do
EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

Futher, since you will put your own children in a minus
lens, I simply can not expect you to do anything
else -- except to continue this tradition of the
"quick fix".

But for the people who have the insight, and motivation
for it (granted the difficulties) it is possible to
keep your distant vision clear -- when
others will see their vision going down
at the (experimentally established) rate of
-1/2 diopter per year.

The real developement of a "true" second opinion
will be established by the optometrists who recognize
the falicies of the minus lens, and can
"control" their own children -- in a way
that they CAN NOT CONTROL THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

But as always, enjoy our intellectual
analysis of the natural eye
as a sophisticated system.

Best,

Otis

A small piece of drivel from that site: "It is estimated that there are
over 1,000,000,000 myopic people in the world. Most of them face
deteriorating vision CAUSED by their EYE DOCTORS for the sake of
profits! The NEI, together with the eye doctors and optical companies
truly forms an AXIS OF EVIL."

Geez, if only my family knew I was part of an "axis of evil" !! It is
amazing their level of fanaticism- my only suprise is that the site
didn't
go any farther. I can see the headlines "Crazy person attacks local
family
Optometrist with a pair of glasses" (subline " As the perpetrator is
hauled away he rants-"You don't understand, the doctor is evil and I
must stop him!"). I'm only half kidding here.

frank

Dear RM,

You asked ME who created this web site.

Can't you read?

Can''t you do your own reaseach?

The man has the right of "free speech" -- even if you
do not agree with what he presents.

Best,

Otis

As I previously stated, I rely on DIRECT experimental
data -- to form a judement of the natural eye's behavior.

a person who wishes "prevention" will have to
understand this basic choice -- and PERSONALLY review
this primate data -- and what is means.

So far, you have "bad mouthed" prevention with the plus,
but I believe your position is that it "won't work", because
there is no relationship between the refractive state
of the primate eye -- and its average visual enviroment.

Since you insist that a plus (used on the threshold) has
"no positive effect", you can have no objection to
people (like Stirling Colgate) from their use
of the plus for prevention -- as well as
pilots who MUST keep their distant vision clear.

As before, I presented this information (specificlly
Jake Raphaelson's analysis) to my sister's kids.

They took it seriously, particularly the West Point
study by Gemlin (where all records are maintained)
and realized that if they wished to keep their
distant vision clear -- it was either use the
plus (to keep the accommodation system at
infinity) or experience the same "down" rate
of betwee -1.1 to -1.6 diopters per year.

Since they always passed the legal requirment for
vision -- they solved this problem for themselves.

But equally -- it is difficult for most people to
do this work correctly.

Steve's work is along these lines, and if you
prefer to attack the "second opinion" then
that reflects on you, and the need
to begin a process of change.

www.chinamyopia.org

Best,

Otis