Dear Friends,

It depends on what you mean by "improvement".

A "pin-hole" reduces the size of a aperture.  That has
the effect of making an image sharper (on a box-camera)
eye.  If "sharper image" means "improvement" then
an small aperture "improves" the acuity on the retina.

But a pin-hole does not create a change of refractive
state for the natural eye.

Only a minus lens can do that.

Tested on a scientific (not medical) level, where
you measure the refracitve state of a population
of natural eye.

Best,

Otis

Dear Friend,

It is my personal opinion that you could have avoided the
"nearsighedness" you now have -- if you had been
offered the use of a strong plus lens -- when you
were at 20/30 or 20/40.

The problem?  The "public" REJECTS effective
use of the plus -- at that point -- and DEMANDS
the minus lens.

The result is, of course, that you develop
stair-case myopia.

Some of this "responsibility" must rest with
us -- that we learn to us the plus at
that critical point -- or else.

This is clearly the thesis of Steve Leung OD,
and we should begin to learn from him
and other prevention-minded ODs.

www.chiinamyopia.org

Read for enjoyment and knoweldge -- and understanding.

The suggests "shared responsibility" where the parent
and child learn of the necessity of using the plus -- even
when the child has 20/20 -- but a refractive state of zero.

Best,

Otis

________________________

WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?

Re: Why the plublic rejects true-prevention.

With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you
would think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or
ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and effective method of
solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly that in the following
example -- with the following result:

THE PRINTER'S SON

"It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting.
She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave her
my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit him with
a pair of spectacles.

"She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was a
printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for the
next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she should
bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles. I
told her that she could pay for them when her husband returned home.

"She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his
vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a pair
of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her husband
came back home.

"In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She
stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the glasses.
He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and near, and
had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes. In fact, she
said, the boy could see even better without the glasses than with them.

"I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that
quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to
bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well
with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his
vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good
eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

"I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the
mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor
vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that
vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses
for a few weeks?

"My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for
exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on
children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to
investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself nearsighted.

"On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in
doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly, did
not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses without
the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or diseased
eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be under medical
attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the medical profession.

"To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the
following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any
form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter and
nothing more. Second, I charged a reasonable price for the spectacles I
sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I gave. I did not
advertise about this special work. I just did it as a matter of routine
whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity.

"Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship of
the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept it
up, and will continue to do this work as long as I continue to have the
incentive and capability.

"Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair of
plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to the
naked eye could be restored to children whose eyes have a negative
focal state? This was true in 1904, and it is also true now, in this
decade of 1950." (It continues to be true in this decade of 2000 --
Otis Brown)

SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION

With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a profound
and adverse effect, you would think that it should be possible to
develop scientific verification for this characteristic of the normal
eye. You would be correct. The testing and verification is impeccable
-- if we restrict our attention to the normal eye's behavior.