Subject:  Clarification on the "correct" use of the plus
     FOR PREVENTION ONLY.

To:  "Mike Tyner"

To:  "Howard D."

Howard > Otis can you explain Vision Clearing in a CLEAR, concise
    sentence?

Otis> No.  However, you can explain the use of a minus lens in
    several sentences.

1.  It works instantly.

2.  Everyone prefers it.

3.  People get "upset" if there is an attempt to discuss a
    "preventive" method.

4.  Anyone who attempts to "change" this traditional method gets
    "trashed".

5.  If I were deaing with the mass of the population expecting
    these results -- I could change NOTHING about them.  (In that
    sense, I AGREE with the "majority opinion" ODs on
    sci.med.vision.  That is their "reality".)

6.  But I do expect, with time and "learing" that a FEW people can
    "get the idea" of prevention-with-plus.  I can only hope that
    they "wake up" on the threshold and follow Steve Leung OD's
    advice.  That is why prevention is called the "second
    opinion".

___________________

Subject; Representing the fundamental eye as a dynamic system.

Mike> No, he can't.

Mike> Otis believes myopia can be slowed, or even reversed, by
    prolonged use of excess plus to blur distance vision.

Otis> Mike, please to not mis-quote me.  What I suggested, based
    on Francis Young's scientific study was that their is a
    POTENTIAL to AVOID getting into nearsighedness on the
    threshold.

Otis> This DOES NOT MEAN PUTTING A PLUS ON FOR DISTANT VISION!!!

Otis> PROVIDING the distant vision is 20/50, no minus lens would
    be used, i.e., no bi-focal.

Otis> The young person WOULD be instructed in the use of a PLUS
    FOR NEAR.    The plus would be "adjusted" by the person by
    "pushing print", based on the persons HABITUAL READING
    DISTANCE.    The PURPOSE of this "pusing" is to gain maximum
    "clearing" effect of the plus.  The parents and child would
    PERSONALLY monitor that eye chart, and verify vision
    clearing, under THEIR CONTROL.  Some SUPPORTIVE advice could
    be supplied by a "behaviorial" optometrist in this process,
    but 99 percent of the effort, and 99 percent of the control
    would be by the parent.

Otis> LET ME REPEAT!  This plus IS NOT TO BE USED FOR DISTANT
    VISION!

    simply mean > vision improvement to the point > of being able
    to pass a driver's test?  If so, why not just say the >
    patient was 20/40?

Otis> From the people who have done it, I suggest "vision clearing
    to PASS the 1.8 cm line at 6 meters.  This has been done --
    but it takes strong personal resolve to do it.  Secondly, the
    person is not a "patient", he is an intelligent person who
    UNDERSTANDS WHAT HE IS DOING, AND WHY HE IS DOING IT.

Mike> Otis believes anyone with 20/40 or better doesn't need
    glasses because minus lenses are harmful and the government
    says 20/40 is good enough.

Otis> The FAA says that 20/40 is SAFE TO FLY an airplane in US
    Airspace.    If the person verifies 20/40 (or better) then he
    SHOULD go down to the DMV and PASS the DMV test.

Otis> The purpose of this "step" is to get rid of the minus lens
    (as suggested by Bates).  HOWEVER, there is NO INTENTION that
    the person STAY AT 20/40.

Otis> The INTENTION is that the person have enough PERSONAL
    responsibiity to continue "pushing print", and continue
    clearing his distant vision to 20/30, 20/25, and if possible
    20/20.

Otis> Getting from 20/70 to 20/40 is a CONFIDENCE STEP for the
    individual.  I think he should continue with the "vision
    clearing" work -- but that must be the decision of the person
    doing this work UNDER HIS CONTROL.

Otis> I hope this clears the specific issues raised by Mike.

Best,

Otis

Mike Tyner