Dear Ace,

   Thanks for your commentary.

   I should clarify what I state -- and believe -- about
the dynamic nature of all fundamental eyes -- when
tested under SCIENTIFIC conditions.

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

Ace > That was a funny read of Otis and Neil arguing.  I am not
     going to take sides or well rather will take both sides of
     the issue and address everything that hopefully will make
     both of you happy.

Otis> Brooks believes that NO ONE should EVER even BEGIN the use
     of a strong plus for prevention.    (i.e., as a choice or
     decision on YOUR PART, before you begin wearing an
     over-prescribed minus lens.)

Otis> It is not necessary that you "take sides", but more that you
     are informed intelligently about the proven effect that a
     minus lens has on a population of fundamental eyes on a PURE
     SCIENTIFIC LEVEL.  With that type of knowledge, you can then
     make a decision for PREVENTION -- or against it.

Ace> 1.  What Otis is trying to say is the natural eye is dynamic and
     the environment influences it.  Doing lots of near work
     increases the risk of going nearsighted, especially those
     susceptible due to myopia genes.

Otis> What I said was that when you check the fundamental eye on a
     scientific level, you will find that the refractive STATE of
     the eye moves in the direction of an applied -3 diopter lens
     (relative to the control group).    i.e., the refractive state
will change by at least -2 diopters in 12 months.    Majority
     opinion Retinula and Brooks TOTAL DENY THIS PROVEN
     SCIENTIFIC REALITY.

Ace> 2.  Wearing the minus lens makes everything appear closer to the
     eye (but not to the brain-minus minifies like looking at the
     wrong end of a weak pair of binoculars)

Otis> It is certain that as strong minus is very impressive -- as
     first blush.  It takes a good mind to understand the
     behavior of the fundamental eye -- stated above -- as
     realize that the SECONDARY effect of the minus (how ever
     well-intended) will be stair-case myopia for the person who
     chooses to wear it all the time.

Ace > In other words, a minus lens will cause you to accommodate
     a lot more.  This provokes a response to the dynamic eye to
     lengthen to relieve the accommodative stress.

Otis> Just stick with what we measure OBJECTIVELY, i.e.,
     refractive STATE.  And yes, the refractive STATE of the
     natural eye will adjust "negative" to a prolonged "near"
     environment, (by becoming SLIGHTLY NEGATIVE), now becomes
     even MORE NEGATIVE from that minus lens.    No one INTENDS for
     this to "happen" -- but it always does.

Ace> 3.  Otis is a big fan of the plus lens.  He's saying the risk of
     esotropia in the select few who are susceptible to it is
     less than the risk in the many who are susceptible to
     myopia.

Otis> I suggest that the presumed "risk" of esotropia is very
     slight.  I do suggest that if you have that concern, you use
     a "Myopter", to end any "risk" from esotropia.  It would be
     foolish to ignore the proven fact that you well develop
     stair-case myopia from that over-prescribed minus.  So that
     is the trade-off.  Understand what you want in this regard.

Ace> 4.  To address this issue, our wise Neil said you can simply have
     prisms added to your prescribed plus glasses.  Otis says you
     can use a Myopter as well.

Otis> They are exactly the same in their effect.  They cause
     "convergence" to be "in the distance" for all reading.  The
     plus causes all "near" to be in the distance.

Ace > If all this is inconvenient, just forget the plus lens but
     also forget the minus lens and when reading, hold things a
     foot and a half away, not half a foot as Otis sees so many
     children do.

Otis> It is true that SOME children have this "lazy" habit of
     resting their chin on the page, with eyes at -10 diopers.
     Thus the child, through this "habit" induces 20/50 vision in
     about 18 months.    Thus the START of progressive myopia.  It
     would be up to the parents to "break" this habit -- before
     it starts.

Ace> 5.  I don't believe there is a clear threshold, but it's true the
     more myopic you are, the less likely you will be to clear
     20/40 line.

Otis> I can not define a "threshold", other than to say that it is
     very important that you "understand" these issues before you
     even START with the minus.  After an over-prescribed minus
     lens has been worn all the time, I believe it is virtually
     impossible to "reverse" it -- which again places the need
     for a "decision" before you even begin wearing that minus.

Ace > Otis believes in the "ounce of prevention is worth a pound
     of cure theory"

Otis> Let me alter that statement.  Otis believes that an ounce of
     prevention is worth a TON of "cure".

Ace> 6.  According to Otis, its OK to have a little myopia as long as
     you pass 20/40 you are "legal" and don't need glasses for
     driving.

Otis> Correct!    Do not be "impressed" by an over-prescribed -2
     diopter lens -- if you personally verify you PASS the
     20/40 line.  In fact I SUGGEST that you take this as a
     PERSONAL responsibility to keep "up" the plus use, when your
     Snellen goes down to 20/50.  It is not that difficult -- but
     just take strong personal resolve to do it.

Ace > Otis may realize its hard for some people to clear to 20/20,
     heck some people can't correct to 20/20 due to high order
     aberrations and/or limitations of the rods, cones, retina.

Otis> There is a "Myth of 20/20" that you pointed out for Lasik
     people.  Very often they had 20/40, and not 20/20 -- but the
     OD "tweaked" the reading.

Ace> 7.  Neil needs clarification on much of what Otis said.

Otis> Brooks is totally arrogant and blind to objective science
     concerning the proven behavior of the fundamental eye.

Ace > Please let me know what you want me to clarify on or explain
     better than Otis.

Otis> You did a good job.

Ace > I will be glad to help resolve the confusion and answer any
     questions you feel Otis didn't properly address.

Otis> I expect Neil D.    Brooks to post shortly.

Best,

Otis