"I have seen several you your posts that claiming that everyone over 40
needs reading glasses if they have good distance vision.   I'm 48 and
have 20/15 distanced and can still read 6pt font at 8 inches."

Thats a major fluke, a freak of nature, 1 in a million. Your
accomodation is better than mine in fact and im half your age! You are
so lucky, I am jealous!

Dear Jessie James,

Subject: amending previous comments

Re: double vision

Double vision, most assuredly, IS a known side effect
associated with my much fabled "plus lens" therapy,
especially if the plus lens WAS NOT PRESCRIBED by
a licensed practitioner in conjunction with a binocular
function evaluation and ongoing monitoring.

I don't speak openly about it because it is a side
effect of almost NO consequence.

Double vision is a SMALL price to pay to avoid
stair-case myopia associated with the use of the
over-prescribed minus lens.  DOUBLE VISION, by the
way, can be EASILY corrected with "patching."

Once stair-case myopia begins, there IS no turning
back.

As always, I advocate FULL information.  Only then
can a parent choose the path of prevention.  It may,
indeed, be hard, but you cannot lick it by being
soft.

I don't believe that the lack of convincing evidence
of the plus lens as a tool for myopia prevention should
even be a "consideration" in this discussion.  That is why
you never see me respond to such "requests."

Best,

Odis
Ingenue

No he isn't. He really is Odis. Your assertion that it may be Brooks
surely is slander?

Cya
Simon

Interesting points, as always, Uncle Otie, but they raise some even
MORE interesting questions.  Perhaps you'll (finally) take a moment to
ACTUALLY ANSWER them:

1.    There seems to be a great deal of evidence that primates have
widely differing visual systems.  How is it that you feel so secure in
saying that "all primate eyes" behave similarly … in ANY regard?
2.    In these monkey studies that you reference, isn't it true that
the SAME STUDIES showed that, with even BRIEF periods away from the
minus lens, the myopia was prevented?
3.    If there was no medical indication that these monkeys needed
corrective lenses at all, can you be sure that appropriate CORRECTION
of somebody's REFRACTIVE ERROR will have similar results?  If so, how?
4.    You continually claim that a minus lens causes something that
you call "stair-case myopia."  Presuming that you mean that it does
this in humans, do you have any valid clinical evidence for this
claim?
5.    You have repeatedly claimed that the Oakley-Young study is
"proof" of this "stair-case myopia" phenomenon, but Oakley-Young only
establishes that-in some people-myopia can get worse over time.  It
doesn't even CLAIM that a minus lens CAUSES this.  Please explain your
position.
6.    Also-at least in part, based on the Oakley-Young study-you
recommend that people use plus lenses to prevent myopia.  Are you
aware that the only people in the Oakley-Young study for whom plus
lenses made ANY difference were those with diagnosed "near-point
esophoria?"  This is a convergence disorder.  Do you have ANY EVIDENCE
that the same result is likely with people who DO NOT HAVE this
convergence disorder?
7.    You claim to have known Donald Rehm, the founder of the
International Myopia Prevention Association, for some decades.  I
presume that you are familiar with his FDA petition.  In it, Mr. Rehm
states:

[quote]"A percentage of children may have difficulty "accepting" a
large add because of the strong linkage in the human visual system
between accommodation and convergence (turning the eyes inward when
looking at something close). As a viewed object approaches the eyes,
accommodation and convergence increase in proportion to each other.
Over thousands of years, the brain has learned that this is the normal
situation.  Consequently, accommodation stimulates convergence and
vice versa.   Thus, if we converge without accommodating the
appropriate amount, or if we accommodate without converging the
appropriate amount, problems can develop for this small percentage of
children such as eye fatigue, double vision, or other types of fusion
problems. That is, the two images can no longer be fused together
without discomfort. Normal binocular vision is interfered
with."[/quote]

Is there a valid reason why you have not attempted to make people
aware of these SERIOUS risks of unprescribed plus lenses?

8.    You continually cite Fred Deakins as a (questionable) success
story.  Do you think it is honest NOT to mention that Mr.  Deakins
is--in truth--myopic, that he is trying to sell a $40.00 product, and
that his "testimonial" is used as an inducement to buy this product?
9.    Do you have any economic interest in the product sold by Mr.
Deakins?
10.    You claimed that you were not selling a book--until, that is,
I provided links to websites where it WAS being sold for $24.95 (with
your home address as the "send check to" address).  You then claimed
that the entire book was available for free on the internet--until,
that its--I pointed out that only approximately four of 14+ chapters
were on the internet. Would you please clarify whether or not you have
ever received money for a copy of your book, "How to avoid
nearsightedness: A scientific study of the normal eye's behavior?"  If
so, please state how many copies you have sold, and when the last copy
was sold.  If not, please state how long it has been since you
received any money for this book.
11.    Do you believe that it is dishonest NOT to mention that you
have a commercial interest in inducing people to visit your website?
12.    Presuming that you understand the difference between
accommodative spasm (pseudomyopia) and axial-length myopia, would you
please provide credible proof that either a) pseudomyopia CAUSES
axial-length myopia, or that b) relieving pseudomyopia REDUCES
axial-length myopia
13.    You CONSTANTLY make reference to "Second Opinion"
optometrists--presumably meaning those who share your views.  Other
than the now-infamous Steve Leung, are there ANY OTHER such "second
opinion optometrists" in the ENTIRE WORLD?  Does any of these people
have any evidence to support the claims that you make?  Would you
please provide it?
14.    Mr. Steve Leung is also trying to sell a book.  Do you have
any economic interest in the book sold by Steve Leung?  Do you think
it is honest NOT to mention that Mr. Leung is--in truth--myopic, that
he is trying to sell a book, and that the "testimonials" on his
website, and your repeated referrals TO his website are used as
inducements to sell both your and his  book?
15.    Do you feel that it is HONEST NOT TO admit that--even though
your niece, Joy, NEVER WORE MINUS LENSES, and DID USE PLUS LENSES, she
is, at this time, a myope?

Or better still find an engineer. THEY have all the facts.

-MT

Dear Ace,

Subject:  Fundamental scientific testing.

Do not let Liberman TELL YOU WHAT TO THINK.

Do not let me tell you how to run AND JUDGE
scoentific experiments designed to
establish the fact that the fundamental
eye is a dynamic system, and NOT
a PASSIVE system.

Understand the difference between pure
scientific PROOF, and medical dogma
of the Donderrs-Helmholtz passive
theory of the eye.

Best,

Otis

Yeah.  My funny bone.

Care to answer my questions now??