Dear John,

Subject:  A person's choice for prevention.

I respect your opinion on the issue
of true-prevention.  You have made
up your mind with absolute finality.

If you had a child, and that child
was at 20/40 or 20/50, it is my belief
that the optometrist like Steve Leung OD,
should discuss the POSSIBILITY
of your child wearing a strong plus
for reading at that point.  You
have already made up your mind
about that issue, so your child
would automatically be put into
a strong (prescribe for 20/10) visoin,
and would wear that minus
ALL THE TIME.  This is indeed
the "majority" opinion.

it is clear that this is an either-or
decision or choice.

As you know, Captain Fred Deakins,
John, Mike, Keith, Stirling Colgate,
and quite a few others CHOOSE,
to use the plus -- and cleared
their vision to PASS the DMV
AND BETTER.

Obviously with this type of "diversity",
no uniform "policy" can be developed,
and that type of choice (properly
informed) must rest with the (educated)
person involved with it.

It is indeed a "tough" decision -- since
the "preventive" work must rest
with the individual himself.

Since the "down" rate at BOTH
West Point AND Annapolis
is established to be -1.0
to -1.3 diopters for 4 years,
it is clear that a person at 20/40
can not expect to stay at 20/40.

But of couse he can choose
"neglect" at that point, and
"hope for the best".

There are people (like my nephew Keith)
who, facing that type of scientifc
truth chose to make systematic
use of the plus.  The result what
that he personally cleared his
vision -- and kept is clear to
age 40.

"the printer's son" it was clear
that the issue of prevention is
an issue for the person concerned
with it.  That fact did hit home,
and I realized that the "future"
would exist for the person who
can accept that our natural eyes
have "design limitations" and
that we should respect them.

As you probably know, about
85 percent of the Singapore
high-school students are
myopic.  It is my opinion
that a great deal of this
could be prevented -- but
only on the threhold.

But I wish you well -- and when your
child gets "into it", you will
have no problem if that
child becomes seriously
myopic.  At least you have
made your own choice in the
matter now.

Best,

Otis

Dear John,

As you know -- I believe that PREVENTION is
possible -- but difficult.  It must depend
on the resolve of the person himself to
do it.

John>  For what purpose do you promote using plus lenses, is it for
PREVENTION
of MYOPIA,

Otis>  I is basically for the "empowerment" of
the person -- so that he understand
ALL THE FACTS concerning the issue
of prevention, and the type of studies
that support the need for a "preventive"
decision.

John>  ...or is it for REVERSING MYOPIA?

Otis>  Because of the Oakley-Young study,
I would agree that only PREVENTION
is possible.  But I do "slightly" streach
prevention to mean that a person at
20/40 and 20/50 should be able
to confirm "vision-clearing" to
20/30 if he totally "pushes" a
strong plus for all close-work
as a matter of "personal" habit.
I also agree that once a person
starts wearing that minus, his
eyes "adapt" and then "recovery"
is simply not possible.  Again
this is a matter of the results
of the Oakely-Young study.
Thus "prevention" is the only
possibility.

from progressing?

Otis>  No.  From the Oakley-Young
study it is clear that if you put
a kid  in a strong minus his
"average" vision will go "down"
at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.
There is no "reversing" that type
of induced myopia.  I take
prevention as an either-or
choice that MUST be made
at the 20/40 level.  I also
take this decision as having
life-time and permanent
consequences for the
person (and parents) involved
with it.

John>  Or further reverse it?

Otis>  Only vision-clearing before
the minus is applied.  Once a
person begins wearing that
minus he must accept that
the condition will become permanent.
I refuse to get into arguements
with people now wearing a minus lens.
I regret that they were not informed
of the naturel of the either-or choice
at the threhold.  But that is indeed
a matter of personal choice.

John>  Because none of these are
valid.

Otis>  That is indeed YOUR opinion.
Please remember that Captain
Fred Deakins came to exactly
the OPPOSITE conclusion that
you did.  Since I agree that
"recovery" is impossibe once
you begin wearing that minus,
the only real issue concerns
true-prevention -- that you
declare "invalid".
Even other ODs DO NOT AGREE
on the pure-prevention issue.
That makes it a "second opinion"
indeed.

John>  If this theory, when applied, would not work for even one single

person,

Otis> This depends on the person's
judgment.  Your say "this theory" -- that
the natural eye is dynamic.
I think that the concept that the
natural eye "moves down" is
PROVEN in the primate data.
You and others choose to ignore
this data.  This does depend on
how you preceive the natural
eye's behavior -- and what
"facts" you key off of to reach
your own conclusion.

Otis>  You say "works on one single
person" and then ignore, John,
Mike, Stirling Colgate, Keith,
Steve Leung OD, and others.
No, you can say that some are
effective with it (in the sense
of prevention) and that others
are not -- you being one of the
"un-successful" ones.

John> ... then it is not valid.

Otis>  Since you used the plus,
then that is a fair statement of
your judgment of it.

Otis>  In retrospect, I did not
realize that you could have
gone down to the MD department
and have had an exhaustive
exam.  I wish you had done
this first -- just to clear the
air.  For the average person that
would be very expensive.  For
you it is free.

I will foward this discussion for
the various parties for their
interest and understanding.

Best,

Otis

Go back a few days and read the long threads that have ensued between
some of us and the above questions will be answered.  There are 2 opinions
generally but if you're curious and a mild myope you can easily try it.
The only way that you will have any real results is if you dump your
minus lenses completely and use the plus lenses when doing any extended
close work.  Its amazing how many people don't realize that plus lenses
don't work miracles.  Its like the eye is slowly climbing back to where
it would be naturally with no strain introduced by minus glasses. So
in my ignorant opinion there are 3 levels of vision:
Corrected vision (the worst).
Uncorrected vision with close work done unaided.
Uncorrected vision with close work done with plus lenses.