Well, absent proof, all you offer is your word.

That's just the Best,Otis,Engineer folderol.

Naw.  All that is is the inverse of the Best,Otis,Engineer folderol.
Quit trying to control the terminology, Uncle Otie.  It's not helping.

BTW: How come you didn't respond to "Only Have Eyes For You?"  He/she
asked a few very reasonable, very direct questions.  Scared??

I explained to your nephew--because ... AS your nephew ... he doesn't
appear to understand the difference between anecdotal evidence and
actual proof.  He does have your genes, eh?

Or ... what, exactly?  Perhaps my reaching out to your nephew can be
part of your defense against charges of practicing medicine without a
license.  Perhaps.

Maybe you shouldn't post his e-mail address on the Internet as "proof"
of your hypothesis....

What happened to your free speech argument, Uncle Otie?  It's only
permissible when it's *you* spouting off?

Got it.

Thank you for your concern for Keith's
successful results.

Because of his efforts (since age 13) he
always monitored his eye chart.

When his distant vision got "blurry" he
got "busy" with the plus, and cleared
to at least better than the Legal
VA standard.

Because of his knowledge of West Point
201 files, he knew that the un-protected
eye goes down by -1.3 diopters in
four years (spread -1.1 to -1.6 diopters)
and he knew that "neglect" was NOT
the way to keep your distant vision
clear for life.  He knew that he was
personally responsible --and that
he had not choice but to do it
UNDER HIS CONTROL.

The result is that keeping his distant
clear for life cost him maybe $100
for various strength plus lenses over
the last 20 years.

He has avoided stair-case myopia.

He has avoided paying $200 to $400
every time his "prescriptiong" changed
by 1/4 diopters.

He has avoid Lasik -- and all its
complications.

He has avoided Ortho-K.

He has avoided the false idea that
a minus lens has no effect on the
natural eye.

He has had MEDICAL exams to
elliminate any MEDICAL problems -- I always
recommend that.

But once it becomes a matter of
his natural eye having an slight
negative refractive state, well, hell,
anyone could clear their distant vision
if they had the "smarts" and motivation
for it.

As Keith says -- study your options,
and make your choice.  Learn
from the errors and mistakes
of others.   Formulate your
own preventive program.

[I do not begrudge the ODs their
money.  In fact, faced with you
"dense" attitude -- I understand
that they can provide NO ONE
with any help for true prevention.
Think about it -- and the
reasons why.  OSB]

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

FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WEARING A PLUS LENS

Dear Uncle,          February 19, 1990

    Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid
Nearsightedness".  I got it yesterday after I came back from the
weekend.  I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I
have a great deal of school work to read.

    I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that
one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check
my eyes with the eye chart.  I am able to read the 20/20 line on
the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most
of the time now.  I have always passed the driver's license eye
test.

    I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I
read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total
reading I do.  I started using them as much as possible again
because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I
didn't check them on a chart).  I am lucky to have an uncle who
showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my
nearsightedness.

    One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and
then use or adapt methods to work for me.  In the last few years I
have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the
magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to
deteriorate.  Then I realize it's time to do something to stop
that process.

    At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I
know what it does for my vision.  Thanks for taking the time to
tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for
the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending
me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the
methods I am using.

         Keith B.

That was clarification?
Please translate/paraphrase.

-Quick

IF you happen to be in Hong Kong, and IF he isn't being investigated
when you get there....

Oh, Uncle Otie ... you really need to get off of that.  I'm not
litigious.  IF the Franklin County District Attorney's office indicts
you, then it will have been *them* who found the need, not me.

Your inability to grasp simple concepts is astounding sometimes....

And of course when a not-biased scientiests reviews the
preventive issue -- he reaches this second-opinion conclusion.

         HOW TO MAINATION CLEAR DISTANT VISION FOR LIFE

               By Dr. Stirling Colgate

              INTRODUCTION

    It is not necessary for young people to become myopic.
Progressive myopia is "iatrogenic" (a professionally induced
condition).  Myopia can be prevented by the use of far-sighted
glasses for reading instead of the use of near-sighted glasses for
distance.

    This book argues that myopia is completely preventable, and
therefore need not be progressive.  Young people should not use
negative-lens glasses for distance vision -- unless they
accurately understand the long-term consequences of such use.
There is a trade-off; either use positive lens glasses for the
unnatural act of reading or use negative-lens glasses to
compensate a distorted eyeball for distance vision.  The
scientific investigations on which this factual assessment is made
is based extensive scientific work by Dr.  Francis A.  Young, as
well a many other gifted researchers.

    "Normal vision" means seeing mountains, birds and stars at a
far distance -- "infinity" -- with sharp detail, as great a detail
as is allowed by the spacing of receptors (rods and cones) of the
retina of the eye.  This spacing of receptors has biologically
evolved in mammals, birds and some reptiles to corresponds to a
resolution of about one in ten thousand (l in 10,000), or a
resolution of 1 minute-of-angle.

    To make use of the resolution of the optical receptors
requires a focal system that is also good to 1 in 10,000.  We
can't be born with physiological parts that are made that
precisely; instead, there is a natural process in growth and
development that corrects for the wide dispersion of the physical
dimensions of the new born eye.  Essentially all eyes at birth are
far-sighted with a positive focal state.  Continual close-work
causes the normal eye to change from a positive to a negative
focal state -- which is described as "nearsightedness".

    This process of adaptation is supposed to stop when the eye's
focal status is zero.  (All normal eyes have a zero or positive
focal status.) The eye behaves in this manner for people and
animals in a natural environment, outdoors -- i.e., people without
books, TV, or sewing kits.  Instead we learn to read, and then our
focal status becomes as close as the book we read.  We lose the
ability to see clearly at a distance because our eyes have adapted
to the close-up focus of the book.  We call this condition
"near-sighted" or myopic.

    Our response to this condition is disastrous, because we
attempt to correct this condition by actions that exacerbate the
original condition, namely by wearing near-sighted glasses.  After
we have changed our focus to a negative value, and we want to see
a mountain, we must use a lens that moves the mountain (optically)
closer.  The mountain will have the same focal property as an
object close up.  Such a lens is called a negative lens or
"near-sighted glasses".

    The focal property of a close-by object is that the rays of
light diverge; for distant objects the light rays arrive parallel.
A negative lens, or "near-sighted glasses", causes light rays to
diverge; hence endowing the distant object with the focal
properties of one close-by.

    When we start wearing such glasses they indeed bring the
mountain closer, and of course in better (sharper) focus.  But
then with such glasses (when we read using these glasses) we bring
the near object up still closer.  Because of the wondrous
adaptability of the eye, the eye continues to adapt to the still
closer environment (caused by the negative lens) and you become
still more nearsighted.  That is, your normal eyes take on an ever
increasing negative focal state, caused directly by your use of a
negative lens.

    Fortunately, nature sometimes puts an end to this farce at
the age of about 18 to 22 -- by refusing to adapt further.  After
that you are stuck with a negative focal state for life because
the eyeball loses its ability to change in response to the close
work you are doing.  Of course, after the age of 40 to 50 you also
lose the elasticity of the lens.  This however, is an entirely
different matter, just as glaucoma, blindness, etc., are entirely
different eye problems.

    The elementary and obvious thing to do in order to maintain
clear distant vision -- i.e., seeing mountains and stars clearly
without glasses -- is to catch your focal adaptation when your
eye-sight is on the threshold of the situation, i.e., your focal
state is zero or slightly negative.  When you first notice a
slight blur at distance, begin using positive-lens glasses for
reading.

    A positive lens endows the close object with the focal
properties of a distant one by making near-by light rays parallel.
When you use a plus-lens for a close-by object, the rays become
parallel as rays are from a distant object.  Remember, prolonged
reading is the "unnatural" thing you are doing.  Then the focal
properties of the book you are reading are like those of the
mountains, i.e.  infinity, and the further adaptation of your eyes
stops at this point.  You then have, and can maintain normal
vision.  (A positive focal state of the eye.)

    Because this period of normal vision occurs early, 5 to 10
years old, you are usually too young to know when you are at
"normal" vision.  Your parents don't know either because until
recently it has not been understood.  Further, there has been no
consistent effort to accurately explain the eye's behavior to you,
so that you could not intelligently make this "either-or"
decision, between recovery and successful prevention, or
progressive worsening of vision.

    Every professional who deals with you owes it to you to
broach the subject of this alternative when you are on the
threshold of the situation.  Your eyes, after all, belong to you.
Since the nearsightedness produced by the negative lens cannot be
undone by a positive lens, it is imperative that you understand
and choose to use either one or the other of these two mutually
exclusive techniques.

    Science has progressed to an accurate understanding this
mechanism of slow change of the normal eye to its average
environment.  A significant number (several dozen) of professional
people in ophthalmology and related disciplines have empirically
and intuitively come to the same conclusion and unsuccessfully
attempted, even with the dedication of a lifetime, to reverse the
orthodox view of solely genetically determined eye focus.

    The "majority opinion" of those in the ophthalmology
profession has been a refusal to recognize a mechanism of slow
adaptation of the focal state of the eye to its mean focal
environment -- for various reasons.  Among these reasons are:

1.  There is a long-standing orthodox view that all focal states
   of the normal eye are hereditary and therefore nothing
   affects focus after conception.

2.  The public demands instantaneous sharp vision, i.e., "Johnny
   can't read the blackboard and I won't stand for any nonsense
   about getting positive glasses that make it still fuzzier --
   even temporarily!"

3.  The scientific understanding of the early development of the
   normal eye is new and not yet complete so there is always an
   excuse to ignore it.

4.  There have been many non-scientific books about sight without
   glasses that have not logically argued the reasons, not
   giving the physics background, nor have they discussed the
   biological mechanism.  For example, eye exercises involve
   contracting the ciliary muscle causing a shorter, more myopic
   focus and therefore tending to change the eyeball and produce
   a still more myopic state.

5.  Ophthalmologists in general are not required to study the
   physics of the normal eye, which includes optics and
   information theory necessary to understanding a logical
   scientific argument for a physiological mechanism.

6.  If reading glasses were used at the onset of myopia up to 90%
   of all myopia would be prevented, and then a significant
   fraction of the optometry profession would be eliminated.
   Furthermore, reading glasses cost no more than $6.00 to $9.00
   to manufacture and sell for $12.00 to $19.00 without a
   prescription.

7.  Many optometrists and even some ophthalmologists believe that
   myopia and wearing glasses is not such a bad thing; after
   all, many people want to buy glasses in order to look chic.
   The very many that undergo the discomfort and expense of
   wearing contact lenses is an overwhelming vote to the
   contrary.  People would rather not be nearsighted.

8.  Finally social pressure of intellectual achievement is forcing
   the age of first reading to an earlier, even preschool age,
   hence causing earlier myopia and a eventually, further
   progression.

Note:  Ophthalmologists who practice ophthalmology are trained as
      medical doctors specializing in the diseases of the eye.
      They have minimum training in optics, measuring human
      refractive states, physics, etc.  Optometry on the other
      hand, came out of physics dealing with the physical optics
      approach and the application of physical optics to
      correction of human refractive errors.  (This idea, of
      course, assumes that a negative focal state of the normal
      eye is a "refractive error".) Although optometry came from
      physics, little if any physics is retained in the
      curriculum of the training of optometrists.  Optometrists,
      however, are somewhat more sympathetic to the concept that
      myopia can be prevented with a plus lens, than are
      ophthalmologists -- although opinions vary widely!