Interesting that you should say that.
You did mean "prevent nearsightedness"?

Do you realize that with his high prescription he would need to accomodate
more at near as compared to his spectacles. If YOUR THEORY is correct, this
should make matters worst.

Roland J. Izaac

My wise chinese friend,

Subject:  Wearing glasses for prevention
as suggested by your contact-lens
post.

After taking with Jacob Raphaelson OD -- it was clear
to me that the "family" would have to provide major
support for true-prevention.

My nephew, Keith, was prescribed a strong minus lens
(to obtain 20/15 vision) at age 14. I explained to
him that when a strong minus lens is placed on the
primate eye -- that eye goes "down" at a fairly rapid
rate, and wearing a minus should be the last resort.

I also explained (from the available bifocal studies)
that the eye that is not protected with the plus
goes down at a steady -1/2 diopter per year -- as
soon as you begin to wear the minus lens all the
time. (In fact some ODs recommend that you do
wear the minus lens all the time -- even though
it is only required for distance.)  I describe
the standard -1/2 diopter per year produced
by BOTH the continued confined enviroment
AND the minus as "stair-case" myopia.

In any event, Keith maintined the use of the plus
through high school and college. He is athletic
and appreciates his clear distant vision.

He is now 40 years old -- and has children of
his own, and intends to help them with the
plus when there refractive state moves
from a positive value to a negative value.

If intellectually prepared, other parents
(supported by Steve Leung OD) could accomplish
the same result.

Best,

Otis

__________________________________

Uncle Otie,

Keith> I've been using the plus more intensely lately and am
reminded of general physical changes.

Otis> Your understanding of "work" to run the Ironman was
supportive of your use of the plus-for-prevention. Each
person has to make that decision. I acknowledge that as a
"kid" I did some "dumb things" with my eyes -- and I have
"kicked" myself ever since -- when I "woke up" to what
Raphaelson had to say about it. I have exhaustively
reviewed the direct experimental data -- which says the same
thing. Some things in this life you must "figure out" for
yourself, and prevention with the plus is one of them. I
congratulate you on your success.

Keith> I've noticed my eyes occasionally feeling like I've done
something with my eyes. Some people I could see would
conclude it's a mild head / eye ache of short duration but
to me it feels like the way other body parts feel, like
muscles after exercise, when you push them beyond what is
currently their normal condition.

Otis> It is VERY DIFFICULT to communicate with a person on this
score. The "plus" is the only solution that actually works
-- and you can verify it by checking your eye chart. The
other methods (Bates) simply have no measurable effect. But
this issue of "mild headache",

1. Concerns the person.

2. Is used by the ODs to "scare" the person from wearing the plus
correctly.

3. Most people simply have no interest in "protecting" their
distant vision -- so they "quit" after a day or two.

Otis> Prevention is indeed "difficult" but it beats the
alternative -- once you understand it. The "un-protected"
eye goes "down" by 1.3 diopters (range -1.1 D to -1.6 D in a
four year college). Since you were "nearsighted" at age 14,
you most certainly would be about -2 to -4 diopters now. It
is very difficult to make that point with most people. But
that is the truth of it. Only your persistent use of the
plus in college enabled you to always pass the DNV-Snellen
test (or better).

Keith> It's not something bad but again what I would call a normal
feeling when making changes to body parts. With the
knowledge that the average person no longer knows what it
feels like to be exhausted after a day of physical work, I
could see how some people might think there's something
wrong with the feeling - just FYI.

Otis> I have gone over this time-and-time again. I would NEVER
advocate anything for you unless:

1. It was as safe as possible.

2. You know the consequences of NOT using the plus properly.
(This is a situration of "true wisdom" where you learn of the
"mistakes" of others -- and resolve not to repeat them.)

3. You are strong enough to trust your own judgment on this
issue.

Otis> This is a true trade-off.

Otis> If people became "nearsighted" in one or two days after
"close work" then perhaps some could figure it out.

Otis> But it takes about 1.5 to 2 years to become "nearsighted"
from refractive status of zero.

Otis> It seems that no one is willing to make the "connection".
Or the person who makes this "connection" figures out how
to "clear" under his own control. This becomes a
personal decision.

Otis> When you do so -- then prevention is possible. But this is
like "body" work-outs. You either have the motivation for
it or you do not have it.

Otis> Attempting to "prescribe" anything in this circumstance is
virtually impossible.

Otis> When your kids start getting into it -- as most "educated"
kids do -- then at least they will have the benefit of your
long-term efforts and understanding.

Otis> The fact that an optometrist, Steve Leung OD, has "woken up"
to the necessity of it, and put his own kids into a plus (at
refractive status of zero) is a good indication as to why we
would call true-prevention the "second opinion".

Otis> I have fought very hard for this "right" to be understanding
of this preventive alternative. I hope we do better in the
future.

Otis> I always believe that a man should "stand and fight" -- if
he believes that he is helping others. If that "attitude"
is not understood then I regret it.

Otie

Keith

Not really. Just a teenager with raging hormones.
Leave it to you to deduce something different.

frank