 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2005Question on Improving my Eyesight
Hi there, I have been researching Natural Vision Improvement, and I thought this would be a good place to search for a professional opinion. Much of what I have found seems unproved and basically a con, tempting people to spend $50 on an ebook and/or pinhole glasses or plus lenses. What methods are approved by the professional opthalmic health community, for improving eyesight without contact lenses, glasses, or laser surgery? >From what I have read it is clear to me now that my myopia (-2.25 and -1.75 astigmatism in each eye) was caused by close work from an early age. Then I was given glasses for distance, and told to wear them all the time, which brought that close work focally closer, and my myopia progressed to where it is now. My idea, is to reverse the damage to my eyes by wearing lenses that put my computer screen focally as far away as my eyes can focus. I spend 12 hours a day on my computer, so I hope it won't take more than a few months for my eyes to adjust. Is there anyone here (apart from Otis, who I have corresponded with already in another forum) who thinks this might work? Magnus >Hi there, I have been researching Natural Vision Improvement, and I >thought this would be a good place to search for a professional [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Is there anyone here (apart from Otis, who I have corresponded with >already in another forum) who thinks this might work? I think you're new here. Please review. Good luck: Dear Reader, Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown (otisbrown@pa.net) writes, I invite you to review all of his previous posts. Not only is there no scientific data on humans to support his fantasy, but there IS plenty that proves him wrong. Otis gets the basis of his warped, disproved ideas from concepts written a century ago and one study done on CHICKENS! Any of you folks chickens ? Otis Brown is more than simply bizarre. He's wrong. See the weekly (Mondays) "welcome to sci.med.vision" for information on how to block his ramblings. If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof of the efficacy of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression of myopia in humans then, by all means, follow his advice, but do so only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist. "Scientifically accepted proof" results from experiments conducted within the "scientific method" explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Otis's posts tend to fall into the category of anecdotal (or made up): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence Otis's posts can be reviewed at: http://snipurl.com/e77s http://snipurl.com/fe3d The results of clinical trials of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression of myopia can be found at (hint: it did not work): http://snipurl.com/fij0 http://snipurl.com/fimq http://snipurl.com/fimr The details of a proper, controlled test have been proposed and can be reviewed at the following site, beginning with Page 40, Section 7(A) and continuing through Page 42: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/40.html The remainder of this text (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html) provides significant information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory. Much, in fact, directly contradicts it. Dear Magnus, Neil is not a "doctor" nor am I. If you wish the "majority opinion" then: 1. Please continue wearing that minus lens. 2. Keep it on all the time -- including during the 8 hours you spend on your computer. 3. Stop asking questions. The man who put you in a strong minus lens did it in good faith. He will simply inform you that the minus lens "works" and ask why would you want anything else. Fair enough. You can expect the normal "explosition" of denial to follow. As always, enjoy our pleasant discussions about the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye. Best, Otis >Neil is not a "doctor" nor am I. But I base my assertions on science; Otis bases his on faith and wishful thinking. That's the bottom line, Magnus. Tread cautiously. Ask the doctors on this site with whom they agree. > You can expect the normal "explosition" of > denial to follow. Explosition. Did you make that word up to go along with your made-up preposterous concept that you push on unsuspecting nearsighted people? You might think that after nearly three years of being continually bashed and belittled, your concepts completely and scientifically trashed that you'd give up and crawl under a rock somewhere. Geez. > Dear Magnus, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Otis Well put. The more the strain, the more the vision degradation, the sooner you get tested (more appointments) and the faster you replace your corrective lenses. I'm not saying there's a conspiracy on the optical industry but if an eye doctor directed his patients to do things a little differently and some of them didn't need their glasses anymore and others kept their glasses for many years before replacment, it wouldn't be very good for their economic bottom line. Hey - the ultimate doctor would only have a patient once! By being great, he'd lose all his patients! The irony. I think most medical specialists are great and mean well and are not in it for the money and really care. But the system is just not setup well for input from the "field"(patients). So you could have the cure for cancer, but who would take you seriously? Its hard to fund a study where there is no economic gain. "Studies" are very expensive so its understandable. That's just the way things are. (In my humble, untrained opinion of course.) > Well put. The more the strain, the more the vision degradation By "well put" you are telling us you share the same misconceptions as Otis. > kept their glasses for many years before replacment, it wouldn't be very > good for their economic bottom line. If you can tell us how to slow myopia, I will be one who jumps at the chance. Maybe you've found something I haven't. -MT >> Well put. The more the strain, the more the vision degradation > > By "well put" you are telling us you share the same misconceptions as > Otis. Its not a misconception if I have proved it for myself. No "evidence" can disprove my eyes feeling awful when using corrective lenses and relieved when using reading glasses to push the close focus area farther away. Of course if I choose to ignore my own reactions to my environment, that wouldn't be very bright would it? >> kept their glasses for many years before replacment, it wouldn't be very >> good for their economic bottom line. > > If you can tell us how to slow myopia, I will be one who jumps at the > chance. Maybe you've found something I haven't. Mike, its out there. But doctors just have closed minds. Minimum use of corrective lenses. Never use a 20/20 prescription. And absolutely never use corrective lenses when doing close work. If people can't feel the difference I won't worry about it. I could care less what a well trained professional says when their TRACK RECORD of morbidly increasing myopia in their patients says they are failing at eyecare for the public. I've known many people who wear glasses/contacts a minimum of the time. EVERY one has noticed the differences noted above. Its like cancer, heart disease, etc. Its all preventable. But the medical doctors don't have the courage to say to their patients NO junk food NO fried food NO salt NO animal products Etc. Nobody makes much money if people cure themselves. The only thing we'd need doctors for is trauma (accidents). In that field I salute them. They are true miracle workers. > Minimum use of corrective lenses. So you expect myopia to progress more slowly in those who don't wear glasses? Guess what... it happens just the same. > Never use a 20/20 prescription. So you expect people who are undercorrected to get nearsighted more slowly? Guess what... if anything, they get nearsighted *faster*. > And absolutely never use corrective lenses when doing close work. So you expect kids who remove their glasses to read will get nearsighted more slowly? Again... guess what happens in the real world? They get nearsighted just as fast as a control group who wear glasses full time. > medical doctors don't have the courage to say to their patients > NO junk food > NO fried food > NO salt > NO animal products OK. NO reading. NO writing. NO arithmetic. No myopia? -MT > Its like cancer, heart disease, etc. Its all preventable. But the > medical doctors don't have the courage to say to their patients > NO junk food > NO fried food > NO salt > NO animal products There you have it, folks, the recipe for immortality. Unfortunately, if you get NO NaCl, guess what happens? You DIE quickly. And guess what else. If you lead a totally healthy life style and get no "cancer, heart disease, etc.", YOU STILL DIE, but just a little bit later. Worse yet, some people who appear to be healthy are already brain dead. w.stacy, o.d. setup -> set up could care less -> couldn't care less Dear Georgeous, Subject: The "second-opinion" ODs agree with YOU! IS IT TRUE THAT THE EYE DOES CHANGE ITS FOCAL STATE WHEN PLACED IN A CONFINED ENVIRONMENT? The Health Profession's Response to "Problems With Poor Vision". By Dr. Robert Levy: I must strongly disagree with at least one "myth" about poor vision Dr. Jay Siwek mentions [Consultation]. He says doing close work does not harm your eyes and then goes on to talk about three sight- threatening diseases. While it is true that close work does not cause the kinds of blindness that glaucoma, cataracts and macular degeneration do, such fine focusing for extended periods can cause nearsightedness, a far more common occurrence. Day after day, year after year, I see patients who get more and more nearsighted from doing close work, particularly if they have been wearing a distance prescription while doing their close work. The vicious cycle is that you read and do your homework, become nearsighted, get distance [negative lens] glasses and when you go back to read and do your homework you become more nearsighted. People who take their glasses off to read (if they can) or who wear bifocals [plus lenses] to reduce the prescription for near focusing show a much slower progression into nearsightedness than those who read with distance glasses on. One study of an Eskimo village being taught to read showed that after two generations of reading, virtually none of the grandparents' generation needed distance glasses, about half of the parents' generation did and virtually all of the children's generation did. This is the best example of reading and close work causing nearsightedness >Dear Georgeous, Ok, Otis. You have a live one. You found a fly willing to step into the web. Gertrude: you've heard the caveats. If you two want to talk about this, talk about it all day and night, but please take it offline (correspond via direct e-mail). The rest of us are really, really tired of this. Thanks. > Ok, Otis. You have a live one. You found a fly willing to step into > the web. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The rest of us are really, really tired of this. > Thanks. If you're afraid of hearing the sucess of something that costs nothing, has no side effects and treats a condition that most of the country suffers from sooner or later I guess that is a testament to the open mind of the "scientific" community. And that is precisely why people like you won't bend on their viewpoint. Pride. > > The rest of us are really, really tired of this. > > Thanks. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of the "scientific" community. And that is precisely why people like you > won't bend on their viewpoint. Pride. What I'm really tired of are myopes (and I was one myself) who think that everybody else is a myope also. Both my wife and my daughter wear plus lenses. Why? To prevent myopia? NO! Because they are farsighted. > By Dr. Robert Levy: > People who take their glasses off to read (if they can) or who wear > bifocals [plus lenses] to reduce the prescription for near focusing > show a much slower progression into nearsightedness than those who read > with distance glasses on. Where does Dr. Levy get this conclusion? Several major publications contradict him. One study of an Eskimo village being taught > to read showed that after two generations of reading, virtually none of > the grandparents' generation needed distance glasses, about half of the > parents' generation did and virtually all of the children's generation > did. This is the best example of reading and close work causing > nearsightedness WHY CAN'T YOU GET IT? WE KNOW READING AND CLOSE WORK CONTRIBUTE. WE ALSO KNOW YOUR PLUS LENSES DON'T STOP IT. Ostrich. -MT Dear Georgeous, Subject: Taking over "control" and clearing from -2.75 diopters (Believe it or not.) Some people "wake up" to the implication of the scientific work of Francis Young -- the prevention is possible on the threshold. If the person is willing to "start" the preventive process while he still retains "working" distant vision, the a certain degree of "clearing" is possible. The following supports the work of Steve Leung OD, and many second-opinion optometrists who have pointed out the risks of wearing an over-prescribed minus ALL THE TIME. As always enjoy our pleasant scientific analysis of the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye. Best, Otis _________________ Subject: Mike's work on effective prevention. Re: The over-prescription by a -2.0 diopter lens. (Passed 20/40 line.) Re: Information for people currently working with the plus for prevention -- to clear to the 20/40 level. For a long time I suspected that the minus was "over-prescribed" -- but I did not know how much -- or why. MIKE'S DECISION TO GO "COLD TURKEY" AT AGE 15 From reports of Mike who contacted me, I found that: 1. When he decided to go "cold turkey", he discovered that a. His prescription was for -2.75 diopters. (a 1 diopter lens =~ 20/70, this would mean a visual-acuity of 20/200 -- approximately, or close to legal blindness -- if he broke or lost that minus lens.) But Mike chose to function without the minus lens. (His choice -- not mine.) b. When I asked him to read a standard eye-chart, he reported a "blurry" 20/70. The Florida DMV standard is 20/70 -- believe it or not. 2. Since he was already working without the minus lens, I stated that he had to "clear" to 20/40 (1.8 cm at 6 meters) to truly reject the requirement for a minus lens. How and why was Mike so seriously over-prescribed? a. The public "loves" over-prescription, so the ODs prescribe for 20/20. However, adolescent and children's eyes can "do better" that 20/20. According to Stacy OD, he will keep on "cranking" until he gets to 20/10. This probably adds -1/2 to -1.0 diopter to a prescription. b. Thus a child that has 20/40 vision and has no rational need for that minus -- gets a -1.5 to -2 diopter lens, and worse, is told to "wear it all the time". 3. It was a lot of work (following Colgate's method) but Mike gradually cleared to 20/40 and slightly better, i.e., passes the legal standard for driving a care. At his mother's request he went back to the OD. a. The OD puts him in a darkened room, with a low-illumination Snellen, and "cranked" on that minus lens, and insists that Mike's prescription is -2.0 diopters. Why this conflict? b. As far as I am concerned, a person who PASSES all legal visual-acuity standards that apply to him, is over-prescribed by the prescription -- which is not necessary, i.e., -2 diopters. 4. I believe that a -2 diopter lens will totally PREVENT vision-restoration -- if it is worn all the time -- and particularly when there is no legal need for it. (A -2.0 diopter has the effect of moving all distant objects in to 20 inches.) 5. I appreciate the idea that the OD believes that he is doing wonderful work when he "prescribes" this -2 diopter lens, but I think he has fallen in "love" with practice, and really has no idea of the long-term effect that the minus lens has on the refractive state of the fundamental eye. In my opinion, it is tragic that NO ONE raises this issue, BEFORE that first minus lens is placed on a child's eyes. Fortunately, Mike has understood these issues. Currently he reports 20/30 to 20/25, which is incredible considering his previous prescription of -2.75 dioters. I have no idea if Mike can reach 20/20, but I do know that the "last" step seems to be the most difficult. There is nothing "easy" about any of this. Further, Mike knows the facts of the eye's behavior at West Point, i.e., that the natural "unprotected" eye will go "down" by about -1.3 diopters (average) while working in a four-year college. Mike is to be admired for resolving a very difficult issue -- for his own personal advantage. > Dear Magnus, > > Neil is not a "doctor" nor am I. I *am* a doctor. Otis is a lune. Killfile him. At least that will save your eyes from reading his crap. T. Dear Dr. Tomato, (Doctor of Optometry?) Are you in the habit of refering to opinions that differ from yours "lunes" -- including ophthalmologists. That just suggests the total blindnes you have towards a scientifc understanding of the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. In fact, the pioneers (particularly in medicine) have ALWAYS been called names by the promoters of the status-quo. And you stand 100 percent with perpetuating the minus-lens method set up 400 years ago -- and has not changed one iota since then. This is "tradition" not science. And you do not understand the difference. Here is a clear statement. Do you refer to ALL MDs who do not "support" you as "lunes". I wonder. ________________ Remarks by Professor Romano -- Ophthalmologist Ophthalmologists, optometrists and research workers are responsible for the second opinion presented in this book, that nearsightedness (myopia) is as much, if not greatly more, due to environment (and avoidable) than heredity (unavoidable). The essence of avoiding myopia is using a plus lens (a mild magnifying glass, as in reading glasses required by older people) before the eye becomes seriously nearsighted. If the approach advocated in this book is to work properly, you must take full responsibility to develop a clear understanding of the normal eye's behavior. In addition, you must personally implement the practical method of prevention. In this situation we can only offer the student of science an accurate picture of existing practices, as well as an education about the fundamental behavioral characteristic of the normal eye. This approach will put you in full control of your visual welfare. The author has demonstrated a depth of understanding of the problems and limits that occur in existing health practice. With good judgment, and personal effort, it is highly probable that you can avoid nearsightedness. Paul E. Romano M.D., M.S.O. Professor of Ophthalmology, University of Florida, Gainesville > Dear Dr. Tomato, (Doctor of Optometry?) > > Are you in the habit of refering to opinions > that differ from yours "lunes" -- including > ophthalmologists. Is this a question? If it were, the answer would be "no". I was referring to otisbrown as a "lune". I actually meant "loon". > That just suggests the total blindnes you > have towards a scientifc understanding > of the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. Suggests to whom? "Dynamic behaviour" is a tautology. Ever heard of "static behaviour"? > In fact, the pioneers (particularly in medicine) > have ALWAYS been called names by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > is "tradition" not science. And you > do not understand the difference. Let's follow the logic: Pioneers have been called names. I have called otisbrown a name. Therefore otisbrown is a pioneer. This is the logic fallacy known as affirming the consequent. If "X was a pioneer" then "X was called names" "otisbrown was called names", bind otisbrown = X. Being called a lune does not make otis anything special... > Here is a clear statement. Do you > refer to ALL MDs who do not "support" > you as "lunes". No. > I wonder. > "Dynamic behaviour" is a tautology. Ever heard of > "static behaviour"? Certainly. Everybody here has posted until they turned blue in the face, agreeing with Otis that the natural eye exhibits dynamic behavior. Someone with a natural eye looks at something far, and the eye adjusts to focus on it. They then look at something near, and the eye adjusts to focus on it. My eyes are not natural. They exhibit static behavior. When I look at something far, it is in focus. I have had cataract surgery in both eyes, so when I look at something near with no correction, I see lots of blur. My eye works like a box camera, unlike a natural eye. > Is there anyone here (apart from Otis, who I have corresponded with > already in another forum) who thinks this might work? Nope. frank > Much of what I have found seems unproved and basically a con, tempting > people to spend $50 on an ebook and/or pinhole glasses or plus lenses. Or $345 for the "See Clearly" package. But wait... I think it's Iowa where the attorney general has brought suit against this most recent reincarnation. I got into optometry thinking I'd be doing this. I set out to find the techniques that work, and build on them. Unfortunately, after years of searching, I couldn't find a single method that reliably reduced nearsightedness, except the minor "functional" variety of nearsightedness caused by excess accommodation. "Favorable" results are attributed to pseudomyopia, placebo, and improved blur interpretation. -MT > > Much of what I have found seems unproved and basically a con, tempting > > people to spend $50 on an ebook and/or pinhole glasses or plus lenses. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -MT And for the record, I, too, spent much time working with so-called alternative and natural exercises/techniques to reduce myopia and prevent increasing myopia, especially in children. And likewise, after years of searching and prescribing these methods, it became very clear that, with exceptions mentioned above, nothing reliably worked. Nevertheless, I believe many of us will carefully examine for "functional" changes in vision ----something we can very often clinically diagnose--- and recommend sometimes effective treatment. But for us, it is not hokus-pokus voodoo science. It's real with documentable, repeatable cause and effect. When we recommend plus lenses, prism correction or vision training exercises, we do so with the knowledge and understanding that there is a reasonable likelihood of the treatment working. We can test it. We can substantiate the results. So let us remember the charter of the this forum: discussion relating to the science and medicine of vision. That pretty much means bye bye to Otis, "the plus", Bates. "See Clearly" and the rest of that junk science. --LB., O.D. Thanks all for your replies. I've already seen the See Clearly lawsuit. I also appreciate that some people who have found success with Bates method are kidding themselves and putting up with blurred vision. Nothing less than an improved prescription to 20/10 vision measured by a certified optician will convince me that this works I have a friend who has reduced his prescription by 0.75 D and removed an astigmatism of 1.5 D in both eyes, as measured by a professional. So I'm going to give it a go, anyway. As to whether it's a question of science or faith, I've seen faith achieve plenty of things that science can't explain yet. If there is a missing piece to the myopia puzzle, it seems to be an emotional/psychological component to do with the brain's programming, that I might just have the resources to unravel, at least in my own case. Cheers, Magnus > I have a friend who has reduced his prescription by 0.75 D and removed > an astigmatism of 1.5 D in both eyes, as measured by a professional. Somebody is pulling the wool over somebody's eyes... > So I'm going to give it a go, anyway. The problem is, when you fail, you will probably "forget" to report your failure here. But if you convince yourself that you got better, you'll do a testamonial like your "friend" did. And the beat goes on... w.stacy, o.d. > > I have a friend who has reduced his prescription by 0.75 D and removed > > an astigmatism of 1.5 D in both eyes, as measured by a professional. > > Somebody is pulling the wool over somebody's eyes... Heh, so now my friend is a liar. Nice! > > So I'm going to give it a go, anyway. > > The problem is, when you fail, you will probably "forget" to report your > failure here. But if you convince yourself that you got better, you'll > do a testamonial like your "friend" did. And the beat goes on... Promise I won't. Everyone put an alert in their diary to email me in 3 months and ask me how I'm getting on. I have no emotional/egotistical attachment to whether or not this works. I don't CARE. I just need to be able to see. Whereas Otis has obviously built his identity around proving conventional optometry wrong. The rest of you are just as bad, because when someone suggests your understanding of the eye may be at fault, you take it personally. If this doesn't work, I'm getting lasik. Good vision is ESSENTIAL for my lifestyle, and I can't wear glasses, only contacts, which are annoying. Blurry vision isn't acceptable to me. Magnus > I have no emotional/egotistical attachment to whether or not this > works. I don't CARE. I just need to be able to see. Whereas Otis has > obviously built his identity around proving conventional optometry > wrong. The rest of you are just as bad, because when someone suggests > your understanding of the eye may be at fault, you take it personally. Suggest another "understanding" of the eye, please. Do you really think that this is the world's best kept secret? Do you think that this is a world-wide conspiracy to hide the truth, and that only a tiny cult of believers possess THE understanding? Do you really think that the entire body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is wrong and Otis is right? When the idea of using bifocals and reading glasses was in vogue among optometrists several decades ago that it was quickly swept under the rug because it was effective? I think not. When somebody actually bothered to conduct a scientific enquiry, they found what many of us found in our own clinics, which is that it was ineffective. DrG The other day I happened watched the movie "Louis Pasteur", I was moved to tears. Many dialogues in the movie reminded me the arguments here. I suggest you all to watch or re-watch the movie and think or re-think youself, make sure you are not the ones who contribute to our human race negatively. Otis is not a medical doctor, but he cares about the children's development of myopia, and want to help them using the knowledge he knows. He may not have all of the proves you required, but your doctors can continue the job if you really care. Children become nearsighted at younger age, and minus lenses will not stop its progression. This is not a good thing to our human. You are eye doctors, is it your profession to find some better solutions to prevent it from happening? You are the eye doctors so you have some powers over him. But history has proved again and again that truth sometimes is indeed in the hands of the few. Anyway, I just do not like the altitude of the doctors here, specially towards Otis. Thank you. Yan > > I have no emotional/egotistical attachment to whether or not this > > works. I don't CARE. I just need to be able to see. Whereas Otis has [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > DrG Indeed, researchers have been trying to find solutions for the prevention of myopia for decades. The idea of plus lenses isn't anything new, Yan. It's not like Otis just discovered a new idea like microbes as the cause of disease. He is simply recycling old, outdated ideas that have since been discarded because they have not been found to work. If you resent that "attitude," I suggest that you don't bother to read this NG. This is scientific-based forum. Furthermore, I find your statement that nobody but Otis "cares about the children" to be highly insulting. I have children of my own, and for their sake have not subjected them to the experimental torture of plus lenses. Now, go watch some more movies about how Otis discovered the cure to myopia while being scorned by the world's scientific community. Careful not to bang the door on your way out. Thank-you. DrG [major part snipped] >Anyway, I just do not like the >altitude of the doctors here, specially towards Otis. I do. I like it very much (I'm not a doctor). We saw--just a month or so ago--an example of a pilot who was convinced of the propriety of trying what Otis suggests. A short while later, he had symptoms of monocular diplopia. He is a pilot. His eyesight is his life. Otis's response was something to the effect of: I'll put something about that on my website. Why would you ... how /could/ you ... have a problem with the notion of: "all available evidence shows that your proposed theory either doesn't work, or actually hastens the progression of myopia. If you are so sure that it /does/ work, please find an optometric school, or an appropriate body to set up proper clinical trials that can be peer-reviewed?" I've watched this newsgroup for years. Nobody (generally) has tried to squelch dissent. They've simply tried to maintain the charter of the group: to discuss the science of vision. That which has not been proven (or, in this case, has been repeatedly DISproven) by the commonly-accepted scientific method doesn't belong here. There are other forums for discussion of debunked, unproven, or disproven theories. This just isn't one of them. Believe what you wish. Try what you will. Good luck with the side effects ... either that Otis wasn't aware of or that he just disregards as confounding to his faith. IIRC, Pasteur used the scientific method to prove his hypotheses. Is that really so much to ask? >We saw--just a month or so ago--an example of a pilot who was >convinced of the propriety of trying what Otis suggests. A short [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >something to the effect of: I'll put something about that on my >website. Yes, Mangus if you are reading this, I suggest you get your advice from trained professionals, as that person Neil mentiones here is me and I did get astigmatism from the plus if not diplopia. I didn't have it before and I have it now after using plus for 8 months, don't put your faith in snakeoil salesman and go to your doctor. > Yes, Mangus if you are reading this, I suggest you get your advice from > trained professionals, as that person Neil mentiones here is me and I > did get astigmatism from the plus if not diplopia. I didn't have it > before and I have it now after using plus for 8 months, don't put your > faith in snakeoil salesman and go to your doctor. I'm sorry to hear this. Thanks for sharing this information. Magnus I have watched this news group for two years, the reason for reading this group is for helping my daughter with her myopia. I was a math major, so I learned that to prove or dis-prove an theory, you need to prove it or dis-prove it with no exceptions. If you want to say an theory may or may not be true, then you need to give both positive and negative examples to indicate so. In the plus lens case, there are cases for both sides, so I do not think it as proven or dis-proven. If I were an eye professional, who passionately want to find a solution for preventing myopia in children, I would go and investigate every cases to find out why it worked or not worked for those cases. My daughter has been using the plus lens for all of her near work for two years, and we not only halted her myopia progression, but also improved it steadily. (Of course we have been doing near-far accomodation exercises also, and we are under the care of a very good behaviour optometrist. My daughter has her eye examed every three months to make sure everything is ok.) So you see, not everyone thinks the same way as the ODs here. Yan >I have watched this news group for two years, the reason for reading >this group is for helping my daughter with her myopia. I was a math >major, so I learned that to prove or dis-prove an theory, you need to >prove it or dis-prove it with no exceptions. I see why you're a disciple of the electrical engineer, than. Medicine, unfortunately, must play by a different set of rules than mathematics. > If you want to say an >theory may or may not be true, then you need to give both positive and >negative examples to indicate so. In the plus lens case, there are >cases for both sides, so I do not think it as proven or dis-proven. Again, I give you this. I'm interested in what you've found that both comports with the scientific method /and/ supports the efficacy of plus lens therapy in preventing the progression of, or reversing, axial length myopia: The results of clinical trials of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression of myopia can be found at (hint: it did not work): http://snipurl.com/fij0 http://snipurl.com/fimq http://snipurl.com/fimr The details of a proper, controlled test have been proposed and can be reviewed at the following site, beginning with Page 40, Section 7(A) and continuing through Page 42: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/40.html The remainder of this text (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html) provides significant information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory. Much, in fact, directly contradicts it. > If >I were an eye professional, who passionately want to find a solution [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >years, and we not only halted her myopia progression, but also improved >it steadily. What became of the vision of her (similarly myopic) twin sister who was not treated with plus lenses or accommodative exercises? >(Of course we have been doing near-far accomodation >exercises also, and we are under the care of a very good behaviour >optometrist. My daughter has her eye examed every three months to make >sure everything is ok.) So you see, not everyone thinks the same way >as the ODs here. Cool. What /you/ have there is three things: anecdotal evidence, a poorly controlled test, and a sample size of one. While I don't deny that you may have achieved improvements in your daughter's condition, to draw conclusions about the efficacy of plus lens therapy based on what you've just said falls far short of science ... but I think you know that. Also, are the measurements that you're relying on to indicate 'improvement' taken under heavy cyloplegia (Homatropine or Atropine) to rule out accommodative spasm? Continued success to you .... My daughter does not have a twin sister, so we will not know what would be to her twin sister's vision. Before we started her VT, her myopia was progressed from -2.5 to -4 within one year. Then we stopped it, and now her prescription is -1.5. The recovery is very slow, but for us, to halt her myopia progression is a huge success already. This will not be achieved if we followed the opinions of the ODs here. I am not a medical doctor, so I know what I don't know. It's never be my intention to prove or dis-prove to you or anyone the efficacy of any treatment. I only want to present my own experience, to tell people that positive experience does exist. For many parents, such as myself, even if we know a treatment may be very slow and may not work for my child after all the effort, but as long as it has worked for somebody, we will give it a try, with 100% effort. Indeed it is not very efficient, we have been working for two years. (I even have to enlarge my daughter's piano pieces so she can play it with plus lenses on and keep within proper distance.) But we are so glad with what we have done, and think it worth every effort. Yan Yan, I personally know many cases of myopia reversal. It happens, even without using plus lenses. There are two issues presented: One is that wearing minus lenses to neutralize myopia at infinity increases the myopia. The other issue is that pushing plus lenses on an emerging myope will prevent the myopia from increasing. So far, neither of those hypotheses have been proven by the scientific method. In my personal experience, a young child who presents with 0.75 diopters of myopia progresses at about the same rate whether the minus correction is worn or not worn. I decided this myself after watching what happened. Furthermore, I have the benefit of published studies that agree with me. Nobody is telling you not to to what you think is in your child's best interests. But, you should be a little bit more knowledgeable before you come here and lob a few stink bombs at the optometrists who may have the benefit of addititional knowledge and experience. DrG Dr. Leukoma, I have already said that I only present my positive experience with the plus lens here, it may help someone to understand the matter better. Although I did not graduate from a medical school, I did read some medical books (text books for medical students on both optometry and opthemology) before we started the VT. From all of the reading, I come to the conclusion that our current knowledge about the cause of the myopia is still very primitive, people are still actively seeking the answers. This is the truth, and this is what I expect to hear from medical professionals. But some ODs here often say, in definite tone, that myopia is not curable, is not preventable, and attack fiercely anyone who has different opinion, worst of all, under the name of science. That is just not professional to me. I don't think any one person can represent science, for example, my daughter's eye doctor has been working with us for years. Besides, science is not fixed and still, something unknown today may be known tomorrow, and something known today as truth may become untruth tomorrow. People should treat the unknowns today as such, not more or less. Again, it's never my intention to prove/dis-prove or promote any therapy, because there are much more involved in order to do that. I simply present my experience here to show that there are still a lot unknowns about the myopia. Enough is said. Thank you. Yan >But some ODs here often say, in >definite tone, that myopia is not curable, is not preventable, and >attack fiercely anyone who has different opinion, worst of all, under >the name of science. I, for one, have /never/ heard that said. They certainly have told contributors that /their/ particular theory has been consistently disproven, or that no scientific evidence of a theory's efficacy exists. >My >daughter has been using the plus lens for all of her near work for two >years, and we not only halted her myopia progression, but also improved >it steadily. So what is there to do in my case Yan? Can I fix my refraction error with plus? Did it work after 8 months? No... Exceptions doesn't really change the reality that plus lense therapy is not practiced by medicine and can introduce side effects. >> My >> daughter has been using the plus lens for all of her near work for two [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > change the reality that plus lense therapy is not practiced by medicine > and can introduce side effects. I've never heard of side effects of plus lens therapy. I've never experienced any and I've used it for years. What side effects are you talking about? > I've never heard of side effects of plus lens therapy. I've never > experienced any and I've used it for years. What side effects are > you talking about? +.25 astigmatism... Read the sign in front of .25! Which didn't exist before until I used plus for only 8 months, I am also an adult not a growing kid. >> I've never heard of side effects of plus lens therapy. I've never >> experienced any and I've used it for years. What side effects are you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > before until I used plus for only 8 months, I am also an adult not a > growing kid. Do reading glasses contribute to astigmatism in mid-40's and up adults? Were you using minus lenses at the same time? > Do reading glasses contribute to astigmatism in mid-40's and up adults? No, and they didn't contribute in this case, either. The OP wasn't aware that astigmatism easily varies by 0.25 at different times of day, or when measured by different doctors, or measured by the same doctor in two different exam rooms. -MT Yan (can cook): What you have presented is an anecdote. You have not provided US with the data. You have not provided a study comparing a control with a treatment group. With respect to refractive error there are a number of variables. You need to do that to convince the scientific community. However, you are free to believe in whatever it is that you believe, in which case if you believe then why are you posting here? DrG Dear Dr.G, I have provided a study where a plus lens was used -- following the "official" blind-study protocol. In this study the researcher did his best to INSURE that the child looked THROUGH the plus -- rather than "over" it. The Oakley-Young study demonstrated that the natural eye: 1. Would stop moving in a negative direction when a +1.5 dioter lens was applied to the "test group". The "down" rate was about 0.025 diopter per year. (Very close to zero.) 2. The single-minus, when "down" at a steady -1/2 diopter PER YEAR, for the several years of the study. Yes, there are scientific studies indicating that a negative refractive state CAN BE PREVENTED. However, it is also clear that once that "stair-case" -1/2 diopter per year sets in, recover is out of the question. Thus it is essential that the parent understands this issue before the child is put into an over-prescribed minus. The obvious consequences of the minus is that it is inducing the -1/2 diopter per year. Obviously your "majority opinion" is going to reject ALL SCIENTIFIC STUDIES where you do not like the implications of scientific truth concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. Enjoy, Otis >Dear Dr.G, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >The Oakley-Young study demonstrated that the >natural eye: Esophoric kids, no? Otis: you have ... to ... control ... for ... confounding ... variables ... otherwise ... you ... have ... to ... fully ... disclose ... to ... avoid ... misleading ... people. In other words: when the studies were performed on primates, you should say so. When they were performed on chickens, you should say so. Here. Here's a pretty good review of the studies and literature: http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?ArticleType=SiteSpec&page=osc/apr01/lesson_0401.htm OR: http://snipurl.com/hs25 And . . . again . . . The results of clinical trials of using plus lens therapy to prevent the progression of myopia can be found at (hint: it did not work): http://snipurl.com/fij0 http://snipurl.com/fimq http://snipurl.com/fimr The details of a proper, controlled test have been proposed and can be reviewed at the following site, beginning with Page 40, Section 7(A) and continuing through Page 42: http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html/40.html The remainder of this text (http://books.nap.edu/books/0309040817/html) provides significant information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory. Much, in fact, directly contradicts it. I don't think many people are saying plus lens therapy improves vision. Rather it restores the inate ability of the eye to what it would be without the degrading affects of minus lenses. >> I have provided a study where a plus lens was used -- following >> the "official" blind-study protocol. In this [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > information as well. Nothing contained within supports Otis's theory. > Much, in fact, directly contradicts it. >I don't think many people are saying plus lens therapy improves vision. >Rather it restores the inate ability of the eye to what it would be >without the degrading affects of minus lenses. Nearsighted kids who wear glasses do NOT get nearsighted faster. It's a myth. Please stop perpetrating myths. Otherwise please show us your evidence of "the degrading affects of minus lenses." -MT >> I don't think many people are saying plus lens therapy improves vision. >> Rather it restores the inate ability of the eye to what it would be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Otherwise please show us your evidence of "the degrading affects of minus > lenses." The evidence is available to anyone who wears glasses. Look at something at the limit of your acuity before putting your glasses on (of course for this to work best you wouldn't have worn your glasses for several days to give your eyes a rest). Then after wearing your glasses for a few hours look at the same thing again. Its always worse for me. But then maybe I'm lying (along with everyone I've tried this with!). After all I've nothing to gain. > The evidence is available to anyone who wears glasses. Look at something > at the limit of your acuity before putting your glasses on (of course for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I'm lying (along with everyone I've tried this with!). After all I've > nothing to gain. You didn't state whether you're nearsighted or farsighted, young or old. They aren't all the same. This thread is mostly about "improving" nearsightedness. Farsightedness is notoriously variable, especially in young people. If you're nearsighted, print yourself a Snellen chart so you can measure your acuity more accurately. Don't rely on subjective impression. You'll find it doesn't vary as much as you expect. Use the same distance and lighting to test your acuity before and after wearing glasses. Don't squint when checking your acuity. -MT >> The evidence is available to anyone who wears glasses. Look at >> something [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > nearsightedness. Farsightedness is notoriously variable, especially in > young people. I'm near sighted, late 40's. > If you're nearsighted, print yourself a Snellen chart so you can measure > your acuity more accurately. Don't rely on subjective impression. You'll > find it doesn't vary as much as you expect. You're absolutely right. Will do. > Use the same distance and lighting to test your acuity before and after > wearing glasses. Don't squint when checking your acuity. Yes. Nothing worse than sloppy results from careless data input. "Howard D." <reply_to_group@please.com> wrote in news:op.sxdsi3cyf62wq0 @wnpgmb11dc1-49-107.dynamic.mts.net: > Its always worse for me. It's not always worse for me. There we have it. N=2, showing a 50% success rate. This is why we have statistics and blind studies.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > The evidence is available to anyone who wears glasses. Look at something > at the limit of your acuity before putting your glasses on (of course for > this to work best you wouldn't have worn your glasses for several days to > give your eyes a rest). Then after wearing your glasses for a few hours > look at the same thing again. Its always worse for me. But then maybe > I'm lying (along with everyone I've tried this with!). It's called perceptual reference, dear boy. A common and repeatable phenomena. Simply stated, when you compare clear to blur, you are aware of more blur than when you compare blur to blur. If you would like to test it scientifically by using a standard reference (a Snellen chart at a standard distance viewed under consistent illumination) you will find very little difference, if any, in the before and after test. It's been done, verified, scientifically. The use of properly prescribed spectacle lenses (and in most cases even improperly prescribed) does not alter the refractive state of the human eye in the long term. That's a fact. Plus or minus. Deal with it. LB, O.D. >> The evidence is available to anyone who wears glasses. Look at >> something [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > improperly prescribed) does not alter the refractive state of the human > eye in the long term. That's a fact. Plus or minus. Deal with it. I'll get a chart and post the results. And I'll deal with it...:) What exactly are the degrading effects of a minus lens? What inate ability is restored by using a plus lens? Since both are lenses, what makes one good and the other bad? DrG > What exactly are the degrading effects of a minus lens? > What inate ability is restored by using a plus lens? > Since both are lenses, what makes one good and the other bad? YOu know, for highly educated, very intelligent professionals you eye doctors don't seem to have a very good grasp on the written word. Those first 2 questions have been answered several times in the last few days. The third is just silly and redundant. Why don't you just try what we've done (on yourself - no multimillion study needed - that is if you happen to be myopic) and you can post your results? Its all about eyestrain though it may not feel like the eye in straining at all. Call it what you will, but it would seem the eyes are not designed for long term close work. Plus glasses push the focus point away so eyestrain is relieved. In essence, when you wear reading glasses for close work you're using your distance vision, not your close vision for focusing. > YOu know, for highly educated, very intelligent professionals you eye > doctors don't seem to have a very good grasp on the written word. Those [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > In essence, when you wear reading glasses for close work you're using your > distance vision, not your close vision for focusing. Sorry. I don't follow your logic. Plus lenses place the focal point nearer, not farther away. Plus lenses inhibit accommodation, they don't prevent eyestrain. Uncorrected hyperopes accommodate all the time, yet they don't become myopes. Perhaps the eyes were not designed for long-term close work, but if one wears plus when working at near, one is still working at near. In essence, when you wear reading glasses for close work, you accommodate less. The question is, does accommodation cause myopia? Some think not. Some think retinal blur causes myopia. DrG >> YOu know, for highly educated, very intelligent professionals you eye >> doctors don't seem to have a very good grasp on the written word. Those [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Sorry. I don't follow your logic. Plus lenses place the focal point > nearer, not farther away. Call it what you will, but when you use Plus lenses you are using your distance vision. Sorry if I'm not expressing my points better. > Plus lenses inhibit accommodation, they > don't prevent eyestrain. Uncorrected hyperopes accommodate all the > time, yet they don't become myopes. Perhaps the eyes were not designed > for long-term close work, but if one wears plus when working at near, > one is still working at near. Not at all. If the focus of the eyes with plus lenses is at the edge of acuity, then you're using your distance vision. > In essence, when you wear reading glasses for close work, youaccommodate > less. Accomodation equals eyestrain for me if I accomodate for a long time. When I focus at infinity or any point at the edge of acuity my eyes are relaxed and devoid of eyestrain. > The question is, does accommodation cause myopia? Some think not. Some > think retinal blur causes myopia. Call it what you want, but if I work close for longer periods without plus lenses, my distance vision is much worse. If you use plus lenses for close work I can work as long as I wish and when I look in the distance without the plus lenses its clear and my eyes are relaxed. This happens to me every time. > The third is just silly and redundant. Why don't you just try what we've > done (on yourself - no multimillion study needed - that is if you happen > to be myopic) and you can post your results? Its all about eyestrain > though it may not feel like the eye in straining at all. What units should we use to measure this "strain that doesn't feel like strain?" > Call it what you will, but it would seem the eyes are not designed for > long term close work. Then why is accommodation so easy? It seems to me that nearsightedness is exactly how nature adjusts the organism for prolonged close work. Before there were glasses, that's how you kept your job making arrowheads or weaving or scribing, if you lived past forty. > Plus glasses push the focus point away so eyestrain is relieved. In > essence, when you wear reading glasses for close work you're using your > distance vision, not your close vision for focusing. That's an accurate understanding of the optics. It still isn't effective for reversing nearsightedness, nor even slowing it, except in anecdotal cases. We don't base "effectiveness" on anecdotes, but on groups and comparisons between groups. When groups of children wear plus as bifocals, they get just as nearsighted as children who wear full correction. When groups of children remove their glasses for close work, they get nearsighted at the same rate as children to wear them full time. If these effects are so obvious and reliable, why don't they show up in the accepted studies? -MT My grammar was atrocious. I'll try to proofread more consistantly. Its hard enough to discuss this without leaving out words! >> The third is just silly and redundant. Why don't you just try what >> we've done (on yourself - no multimillion $ study needed - that is if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What units should we use to measure this "strain that doesn't feel like > strain?" Try looking at an eyechart. For me the difference is huge. >> Call it what you will, but it would seem the eyes are not designed for >> long term close work. > > Then why is accommodation so easy? Its easy of course. But the long term affects show that something's wrong. Does the medical field feel that the public's eyesight was just as bad a couple of hundred years ago as it is today? And I wonder if people lost their near reading ability in their 40's like today or was it later in life? > It seems to me that nearsightedness is exactly how nature adjusts the > organism for prolonged close work. Before there were glasses, that's how > you kept your job making arrowheads or weaving or scribing, if you lived > past > forty. Its hard to believe that the eyes degrade so quickly in a natural environment. What about studies done on non-urban jungle like settings? >> Plus glasses push the focus point away so eyestrain is relieved. In >> essence, when you wear reading glasses for close work you're using your [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > for reversing nearsightedness, nor even slowing it, except in anecdotal > cases. For me the immediate difference is huge. I should get an eye chart so I can monitor differences in my acuity. > We don't base "effectiveness" on anecdotes, but on groups and comparisons > between groups. When groups of children wear plus as bifocals, they get [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rate > as children to wear them full time. But children rarely remember to remove them for close work. A child's eyes will acommodate easily so they don't feel uncomfortable. Its hard to put much faith in children's studies unless the parents are actively involved and are monitoring the children's plus lense wearing activity. > If these effects are so obvious and reliable, why don't they show up in > the accepted studies? I have no idea. But these studies that have been presented here seem very flawed. I realize this isn't scientific, but people have got to: Accept a blur with indifference so their eyes don't strain. Be very consistant in not wearing their minus lenses. Be very consistant in wearing their plus lenses as much as possible for close work. If one has a high degree of myopia (-3 or more) functioning in society without correction might be a challenge. I have no experience with a correction to bring a myope to say -1. Otis might chip in here to give his opinion. It would be very difficult to get a semi-blind person to start without correction indeed. That would be asking a lot. Then there's the driving problem. For most everybody driving wouldn't be an option. That's got to be a major pain. So you can see that this is not an easy therapy for the general public. But for those that don't drive, fly airplanes or otherwise need sharp vision for their work, and don't have a high level of correction, its very doable. And a low leval of fashion consciousness helps as well! Nothing like the stylist pizazz of dollar store reading glasses to infuse your social life with new vigour. By using bifocals in these studies it shows the people involved don't understand eyestrain. The minus (upper) part of the bifocals will introduce eyestrain. Plus, who wants to work on paperwork or the computer with only half a field of vision? I do find computer work a wonderful way of testing plus lens therapy. Big reading glasses with a wide field of vision (matched to the myopes' prescription of course otherwise one eye might be focusing too close and introduc more eyestrain) can position the screen at the limit of acuity. If one is beyond -2 though, you have to bring the screen too close for comfort (who wants to read at 6"!?) so computer plus lenses are only workable for mild myopes. Unlike you, I look at ALL the studies, not just the one that was published 30 years ago. DrG > I have provided a study where a plus lens was used -- following > the "official" blind-study protocol. Yes, you did. Now, why can't we duplicate those results? What's the secret ingredient? -MT Dear Yan, It is essential to separate "medical" studies -- where they are "blind" -- so you can not judge the effect, versus pure-scientific tests were you seek to confirm that a population of natural eyes change THEIR REFRACTIVE STATE and the visual enviroment is changed in a negative direction. This issue is using completely neutral words to describe a test a population of natural eyes. In this sense, this type of pure "input" versus "output" can have only two results. Here is the scientific (and mathematical) discussion for your interest. Best, Otis ________________ Subject: Francis Young's study demonstrates that a steady DIFFERENCE (of -1/2 diopter per year) in refractive state develops between the "plus" group and the single-minus group. Otis> * One of the scientists was Dr. Francis Young -- although not associated with this study. His bifocal study showed that a combination of under-correction and a strong plus stopped the eye's movement into myopia, i.e., would help the natural eye maintain clear distant vision if used when the eye was at the 20/50 to 20/70 level. Judy> If you look up Young's 1975 study, you will find that myopia progression was slowed but not stopped. Otis> Judy has a way of "distorting" the statistics of the study. The "plus" group showed a "down rate" of 0.025 diopters (almost zero) and the single-minus showed a "down" rate of -1/2 diopter per year. REMEMBER -- these were children with NO MOTIVATION to use the plus properly. What this suggests is that more forceful use of a stronger plus could have the result of GRADUAL CLEARING (from 20/50) if the person understood the intent of the effort, and the plus was started BEFORE ANY MINUS WAS USED. This result is confirmed by the people who have this type of "understanding" of this issue. I would consider that -0.025 diopters per year to have effectively "stopped" -- but the indication is that a stronger plus must be used -- with the reading INTENTIONALLY done at the "blur-point". Clearly a "prevetive" study COULD NOT BE RUN AS A BLIND STUDY -- because of the need to supply precise instructions as to correct use of the plus. Judy> In the following 30 years, dozens of similar studies have been done with thousands of subjects and none have found an effect as large as that found by Young. Otis> Clearly the OD opinion is against the plus-for-prevention. As Francis Young pointed out concerning the "Houston" study, Otis> A "small segment" plus was used, i.e., "granny" type of plus. The result was that the kids (with no understanding or instructions) looked over the plus -- and ignored it. The result was of course, that the "plus" has NO EFFECT. Francis Young used a stronger "high" plus, and the kids could not evade the "high" plus. Judy> In science, when a study's results cannot be replicated, the results are suspect, ie it is likely that there was a design flaw or some other aberration. Otis> This is the reason why you run SCIENTIFIC tests of the natural eye to establish the fact that it is proven to be dynamic. Unlike these bi-focal studies (where you CAN NOT CONTROL THE CHILD) the scientific work to determine if a population of natural primate eyes is dynamic -- is both very accurate, and the result (proving that the natural primate eye is dynamic) CAN BE REPLICATED -- AS MANY TIMES AS YOU LIKE -- PROVIDING YOU HAVE THE MONEY TO DO SO. Otis> The "design flaw" of the bifocal studies is that they are BLIND STUDIES, which means that you are PROHIBITED from "controling" the way the child wears the plus at all. For that reason alone these bifocal studies are suspect -- because you have NO CONTROL at all as to whether the child looked through the plus AT ALL. Otis> AN ENGINEERING-SCIENTIFIC STUDY would develop where the engineer was given EXACT INSTRUCTION as to the use of the plus -- UNDER HIS CONTROL. This would be a SCIENTIFIC (NOT MEDICAL) study. Best, Otis Dr Judy ___________________________ BIFOCAL CONTROL OF MYOPIA Authors: Kenneth H. Oakley, MD. Bend, Oregon and Francis A. Young, Ph.D. Primate Research Center Washington State University Pullman, Washington ABSTRACT "... Similarly, 226 Caucasian bifocal wearers are matched on the same criteria against 382 control subjects. " "... the (plus) Caucasian subjects (was) of -0.02 and -0.03 diopters right and left eyes against -0.53 and -0.52 diopters for the (single-minus) controls." CONCLUSION "...The rates of progression of about -0.50 diopters per year among the control subjects at the younger age levels are commonly found among myopes at these age levels and suggest that the control subjects in this study do not differ from myopic children who are fitted with a virtually full correction which is worn constantly. The annual rate of progression of -0.04 diopters per year found among the bifocal subjects is uncommonly found among myopes of these age levels and suggests that the bifocals are having a controlling and reducing effect upon the rate of progression. The effectiveness of the bifocal in this study may well depend upon the very high position of the add fitted to the child. The bifocal can only have an effect, if it has an effect at all, if it is used. The bifocal fitted too low or too small a bifocal or a bifocal which is not used does not provide a proper test of the effectiveness of the bifocal. Under reasonably well controlled conditions the bifocal appears to be effective in controlling the progression of myopia." Francis Young %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DISCUSSION Judy insists that the plus did not "stop" the "down" rate in the "plus" group, (because the rate was -0.025 diopter for the plus group! She then totally ignores the effect that a strong minus has on the "single-minus" group. This is indeed "selective" intellectual blindness to the result of this scientific study of the natural eye's behavior. Even in this study a very mild plus (+1.5 diopter) lens was used as the "plus-add". And this was sufficient to stop the development of nearsighedness if used BEFORE the minus was applied. With NO INSTRUCTION to the child, most children will pull the work in "closer" who are wearing the plus -- thus partially reducing the intended effect of the plus. With instruction, and use of a stronger plus, it is possible to estimate that a MOTIVATED, INTELLIGENT person could use a +2.5 diopter lens to "clear" from 20/50 to the 20/30 20/25 range -- thus passing all legal visual requirments of the DMV. This type of scientific study HAS NEVER BEEN CONDUCTED. Where individuals have "woken up" about these issues, they have been successful in clearing their distant vision in the manner. Best, Otis >Dear Yan, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >STATE and the visual enviroment is changed in >a negative direction. But . . . but . . . wouldn't the human application of whatever outcome you achieve -- by definition -- be medical? If so, then why would you try to follow the conventions of something that excludes the impact and variability of individual biology in your endeavor. In other words: your models might work if your subjects are robotic (chickens and monkeys, too, apparently), but they just don't seem to work on humans. Can you explain? Also, whether or not your whole "input vs. output" methodology works in an engineering sense, shouldn't it hold up to scrutiny over larger sample sizes, using controls, and with other variables held constant? It doesn't seem to. Can you explain? Thanks, Neil Something the public never talks about..... We all know that natural vision improvement doesn't work miracles. It often doesn't work at all. It could be the genetics of the patient, or they haven't found the correct exercise for their condition. BUT... We DO know that glasses RUIN your vision. Now that has legal implications since if it was ever proved "scientifically" the cost to the optical field would be uncalcuable as every slob in the nation would sign up for their local class action suit. People should think for themselves after getting medical advice. If the medical advice doesn't work, they need to seek other advice. And keep seeking until they find acceptable results. Everyone wants a quick fix. Nobody has time to read, to experiment, to think for themselves. >Something the public never talks about..... >We all know that natural vision improvement doesn't work miracles. It >often doesn't work at all. It could be the genetics of the patient, or >they haven't found the correct exercise for their condition. BUT... >We DO know that glasses RUIN your vision. You don't know me, but I would /love/ to buy into any of a thousand different conspiracy theories. They appeal to me greatly. Problem is, quite simply, none of them has ever been proved true. Is that just the power of the system, stacked, inexorably, against the little guy? Maybe. It's also equally/more likely (Occam's Razor) that those theories just have no basis in fact. So, back to your point: "We DO know that glasses RUIN your vision." We do? How do we know this?? Where did you learn this? What makes you say this?? > Now that has legal implications >since if it was ever proved "scientifically" the cost to the optical field [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Everyone wants a quick fix. Nobody has time to read, to experiment, to >think for themselves. A case could be made that those who read, and those who follow the properly-conducted, peer-reviewed testing, will quickly realize that much of what they are being sold so vigorously simply doesn't work. Do you dismiss /any/ test result that contradicts your belief as part of the conspiracy? Where does that get you?? Confused, Neil >> Something the public never talks about..... >> We all know that natural vision improvement doesn't work miracles. It [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that just the power of the system, stacked, inexorably, against the > little guy? Not at all. I attribute it to pride. You see, when someone realizes something has been taught and understood incorrectly, its like suddenly changing direction when paddling down a river. Going with the flow is easy but once you change direction you feel great resistance. What doctor would have the cou |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message