Dear DrG,

Subject:  Remarks on the Chinese studies.

Re:  My motivation to help my nephew take
over "control" of his distant vision -- for
life.

Since you asked for the reasons why
I support a TRUE "second-opinion" then
the reason were to help my nephew
take actions to completel "end" his
near environment by STRONG
use of the plus -- whenever it
was necessary as spelled out
below.

Clearly you could NEVER "prescribe"
this motivation, and only a person
with this type of motivation can
be successful with prevention.

Enjoy!

Otis

+++++++++++++++++

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject:  Keith's vision from a 13 years old to age 40.  Now 20/15!

    From detailed discussions with Dr.  J.  Raphaelson it became
clear to me that the person himself would have to make AGRESSIVE
use of the plus BEFORE he began to wear the minus lens -- or
suffer serious consequences.

    I knew from the bi-focals (plus) studies that when the
single-minus is placed on the natural eye -- its refractive status
moves steadily downward at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year --
average.

    Strong use of the plus STOPPED this movement.  For this
reason I advocated the strong use of the plus by the person who
wishes to keep his vision at a level that ALWAYS passes all legal
visual requirements -- by his own checking.

    Keith started this process when he was 13 years old.  He
would periodically notice that his distant vision was getting
"blurry" in college.  Taking responsibility himself, he simply
"re-started" the intensive use of the plus until he exceeded the
legal requirement for driving a care, i.e., reading 1.8 cm letters
at 6 meters.

    Keith understood the "trade-off", involved.  Use the plus
before you fail the DMV, and you will never REQUIRE a minus lens.
While on vacation with Keith recently, I noticed he still used the
plus to read the newspaper and other work of this nature.  I had
no idea what his eye-chart was -- and mostly Keith did not check.

    Here is his statement of his current eye-chart check.

    ______________________

Dear Keith,

    As you know, I take PERSONAL responsibility for the "dumb"
things I did with my eyes as a young child.  Like that "bad
habit", of leaning forward and reading at 4 inches (-10 diopters)
for long periods of time.  The ODs and MDs love to tell us there
is no relationship between refractive state -- and environment.

    They are totally, and scientifically wrong on this issue --
and very biased about it.

    However the general public will NOT ACCEPT advocacy for
prevention, and so the medical-myth must grind on -- and grind-up
a massive proportion of young children's eyes.  It is tragic that
these ODs will not VOLUNTEER information about the natural eye's
behavior as a matter of professional course and responsibility.  I
have long ago given up attempting to deal with that issue.

    It is only important that you have done this work correctly,
and therefore successfully.  Problems like this are "solved" at
the family level -- not by large institutions.

    I tell you this so you may protect your own children.  It is
difficult for a parent to "enforce" something like this on their
own children -- but I think they will "get the idea" in time.
Eventually the child himself must get the idea if he is to
retain clear distant vision through college.
.

Otis

     _____________________________________

Dear Uncle,

    I've been a bit more diligent in the last couple of months
using the plus and I've noticed an improvement in my distance
vision.

    The point of telling you something you already know?  Haley
went for her 4-year-old check up at the MD and they checked her
hearing and vision so I checked my vision too, on a 10 foot chart.
Low and behold, my left eye was able to read the 20/15 line and my
right eye, although not necessarily clear, was able to read the
20/20 line!

    Both together made the 20/15 line of course.  As you know I
don't check regularly so it was surprising that I'm back to that
good.

A nice surprise.

Keith

You present conclusions based on non-representative samples.

And anyone who actually measures human myopia will question them.

Yes.. you want warning labels on minus lenses. BTW, any progress on Rehm's
FDA petition?

Yes, but you actually believe it happens. You know, eventually the FDA will
get around to asking real doctors and doing their own Medline searches, and
you know what they're going to say, don't you?

Sorta tough to believe when they induce the same change in animals who lack
accommodation, or have their optic nerves severed.

No wait that was animals...

So, you think all species behave the same at all stages of development. Okey
dokey.

-MT