Here is Dr. Colgates further statement of the need to
understand the necessity of the plus as the
preventive second-opinion.

Otis

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

November 20, 2004

To the Parents:

In the Matter of Steve H. Leung OD and Alfred H. Bossino.

www.chinamyopia.org

Dear Sir,

    I am a senior scientists, astrophysicist and nuclear
physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory and a member of the
National Academy of Sciences of the USA.  For all of my scientific
career I have been dedicated to understanding the cause of natural
phenomena.  From the age of 13 years, now 66 years ago, I
recognized that the standard response to myopia was perhaps miss
guided.  Instead I used positive lens glasses to correct, or alter
my focal environment, namely one of reading nearly all the time.
(A positive lens "corrects" a near-point focal environment by
altering the light rays to be more parallel from the near-point
object.  as if the print were made more distant.) Being young and
therefore developmentally plastic, my eyes and their focal
properties immediately responded.  Within just a few weeks, the
clarity or focus of distant objects had been restored.    This was
just as I expected from scientific arguments.  I had to maintain a
positive lens for reading thereafter.  This was a small price to
pay for perfect distance vision for all my life.

    I have continued an effort to bring this awareness of the
focal adaptation of the natural eye to the public, but
unfortunately the ease and immediate response of the standard
treatment of using a negative lens to reverse the myopic
adaptation to a near point environment is so immediate and so
rewarding to the myope that I and a few associates have not been
successful.  This is regardless of the decades after the ground
breaking scientific research by Dr.  Francis Young, and Dr.
Howard Howland and others.

    I have worked scientifically with Prof.  Joshua Wallman of
City College New York where his research on the response of the
natural eye to focal and neurological environments is leading the
fundamental research on this topic in the US.  The animal model
used is the recovery function of the deprivation induced myopia of
the chicken eye.  Here myopia and recovery can be altered by 10
diopters in a few weeks.  This extreme animal model allows many
factors of influence to be investigated in a short time.  Although
the complexity of the response of the eye is extraordinary and a
detailed understanding of the mechanisms still eludes all in the
scientific field, nevertheless there is no experiment, no
anecdotal example that contradicts, and no doubt in my mind that
myopia in all animals, including humans, is induced in response to
a near point environment.

    In view of this research and countless personal successful
examples the growing number of myopic individuals in the world is
deplorable, when such a simple remedy is available to the public.

    Steve H. Leung OD is a dedicated optometrist who has
taken a lead in attempting to bring this knowledge and
benefit to their patients.

    For them to be persecuted within his own professional
societies is wrong.  He should be lauded and encouraged instead.

    I am reminded of the first health professionals who spoke out
about the health problems that smoking brings to a society.
Theirs was a difficult task, but now thirty years later, smoking
in the US has declined to a negligible fraction of society.  If
we, as a culture, can give up smoking, we can also be weaned from
the negative lens.

    I do hope and recommend that you strongly support what these
dedicated optometrists are bringing to your profession.

Sincerely yours,

Stirling A.  Colgate Ph.D.

Dr. Colgate is a Senior Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory
and a Member of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA.

How interesting.

Perhaps now you're ready to answer my questions:

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, can you cite your source 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."

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?

What's going on Cletis?

You are the toothpaste man now?

You really stick to your own warped personality rathe rthan pretend to
be someone with no experience in bioscience.

Ooops, sorry, you already are someone with no expertise in bioscience.

Well, just think of someone who is remotely valid to pretend to propose
an arguement, like Francis Young. Sorry, you've tried him already.

Why not pretend to be Helmholtz and admit the errors of your ways?

dr grant