Ace,

You are correct -- vision clearing is possible.

Here is the discussion.  I do think that
$350 is "steep".  But as long as they
return your money promptly ...

Otis

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

Subject:  Eyeballing the Vision Workout

    Advertising Pitches for the 'See Clearly Method' Claim That
Simple Exercises Can Improve Your Vision Naturally.  Plenty of
Experts Aren't Buying It.

    By Ranit Mishori

    Special to The Washington Post

    Tuesday, September 12, 2006; Page HE01

    The sales pitch for the See Clearly Method (SCM) is
ubiquitous:  An optometrist-created system of eye exercises is so
effective at improving vision, according to promotions on local
radio stations and across the Internet, that you may be able to
throw away your glasses for good.  In fact, the ads claim, regular
eyeglasses may actually be making your eyesight worse .  The SCM
kit costs $350.

    Iowa's attorney general, Tom Miller, is not buying it.  His
office filed a consumer fraud lawsuit last summer against Vision
Improvement Technologies (VIT), the Iowa company that developed
and markets the See Clearly Method.  Among other things, the suit
says assertions that SCM users can "quickly and easily free
themselves of having to wear glasses or contact lenses" are false
and misleading.

    Treatments for Poor Vision Approximately 14 million Americans
over the age of 12 suffer from visual impairment, according to the
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).  The
most common forms are the refractive disorders myopia and
hyperopia.

    In addition, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) for
northeastern Indiana has put SCM on its watch list.  A year ago,
Wisconsin's Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection issued a warning to consumers after finding that of the
more than 1,850 Wisconsin customers who bought the kit, half
attempted to return it for a refund.

    Also last year, VIT agreed to make a minor modification to
its advertising, according to the Electronic Retailing
Self-Regulation Program.  This BBB-affiliated review group found
that almost all the the company's promotional claims had been
presented legitimately as opinion.  However, it also concluded
that one statement -- that the See Clearly Method could "eliminate
.  .  .  poor vision due to aging" -- "was not entirely consistent
with the opinions espoused by the authors and should be modified
accordingly." Cliff Rose, VIT's founder and marketing director,
says the product is effective and many users are satisfied.
"You've got to talk to our customers who thank me every day," he
says.  "Every week I hear from people who thank me from the bottom
of their hearts."

    The SCM Web site offers a 30-day free trial of the technique
for those who pay a shipping/handling fee of $9.95.  But the Iowa
lawsuit alleges that customers who wanted to return their kits had
had trouble arranging their money-back guarantees.  In February,
an Iowa judge issued a temporary injunction ordering VIT to change
its refund system.

    According to Dominick Maino, an optometrist and professor in
the Pediatrics and Binocular Vision Service of the Illinois Eye
Institute and the Illinois College of Optometry, no independent
scientific studies have proved SCM's or similar products effective
at treating nearsightedness or farsightedness.    Karla Zladnik,
professor in optometry and physiological optics at the Ohio State
University College of Optometry, says eye exercises to correct
vision have been "long out of favor" among most vision
professionals.    Their use "is not accepted by mainstream
optometry," she says.

    Henry Ettinger, a New York optometrist who serves as a
consultant for VIT, defended the product in an e-mail, arguing
that some dissatisfied customers may not be performing the
exercises correctly or consistently enough.  "Some of my patients
and some other consumers around the country have been pleased with
the results using the SCM," Ettinger wrote.  "Some have been able
to function without glasses; others have been able to reduce or
stabilize their prescription."

    The Iowa lawsuit states that VIT's promotional materials make
selective use of customer satisfaction reports.  The lawsuit
alleges that in one 54-day sampling of consumer contacts, six were
favorable and 49 were complaints.  The lawsuit further alleges
that some people whose names appear in ads as satisfied customers
had stopped doing the exercises and were back to wearing glasses.

    Vision training programs have been around for decades.  Some
are loosely based on what's known as the Bates system, named for
New York ophthalmologist William Horatio Bates, who, in 1920,
published "Perfect Sight Without Glasses," a book of exercises
that Bates believed could "normalize vision."

    Bates didn't like eyeglasses; he thought they were ugly.  He
also hypothesized that wearing glasses actually made vision
problems worse.  His idea spawned an industry -- one that, even
while the understanding of the causes and treatments of eye
disorders have changed dramatically, continues to attract
practitioners.    Often they have been accused of quackery and,
sometimes, fraud.  The eye works like a camera.  The parts in the
front of the eyeball, the cornea and lens, focus light on the
retina, located on the back inside wall of the eye.  Once the
retina receives an image, it transmits a signal through the optic
nerve to the brain.

    In nearsightedness and farsightedness -- considered the most
common vision problems -- the eye does not properly bend, or
refract, the light directly onto the retina.  The image sent to
the brain looks blurry.  When the eyeball (as seen from the side)
is too long, objects farther away are blurry.  When the eyeball is
too flat, closer images are blurry.

    The question is whether these problems can be exercised away.
Exercises and vision therapy are not discounted entirely by the
medical mainstream.  They are often prescribed for certain eye
problems, such as eye movement disorders (those in which the eyes
don't work together in a coordinated way) or when one eye is
"lazy" (a condition known as amblyopia).  In these cases
optometric vision therapy -- exercises supervised and directed by
an optometrist -- can make significant improvements.  Vision
therapy has also been used, though not without controversy, in the
treatment of children with learning disabilities and ADHD.

    Ohio State's Zladnik says some parts of the See Clearly
Method are also found in optometry vision therapy, "but they are
not really [intended to] improve your vision."

    Maino, of the Illinois Eye Institute, concurs that SCM uses
some fairly common vision therapy techniques, but they "have not
been shown to take someone who's nearsighted and to eliminate it."

    In fact, there is a basic lack of evidence supporting vision
training for these problems.  SCM spokesmen Ettinger and Rose do
not dispute this.  "No knows for certain how it works," Ettinger
says.  (The See Clearly Web site explains that the exercises
"strengthen and relax the eye muscles responsible for focusing so
your vision can improve naturally.") Rose adds:  "We have never
said that it's supported by any research.  .  .  .  All we have to
go by is the anecdotal evidence that we have from people who have
improved their vision." The first controlled study of SCM, which
involved 30 participants, found no benefit.  Ohio State graduate
student Tracy Bildstein, working with Zladnik, presented her
findings at last year's annual conference of the American Academy
of Optometry.  It has not been published.

    The study concluded that "using the SCM for one month did not
have a significant effect on distance or near uncorrected visual
acuity or refractive error." Bildstein's participants were asked
-- as anyone purchasing the kit off the Internet or over the phone
would be -- to follow the manual provided in the SCM kit.  It
spells out a series of techniques that include biofeedback, eye
massage, "palming" techniques (in which the eyes are rested on the
palms of the hands), hot compresses over the eyes, visualization
and personal affirmations.  The more demanding exercises in this
orbital regimen involve focusing and unfocusing on objects and
rotating the eyes in clock-like motion.  Rose says these exercises
"work on the extra-ocular muscles and the ciliary muscle," which
are located around the eye.  "You have to exercise these muscles
to keep them strong and flexible."

    States the SCM Web site:  "Just as you can improve your
health and fitness by exercising your body, we believe you can
improve your vision by exercising your eyes."

    This doesn't make sense to Eugene Helveston, emeritus
professor of ophthalmology at the Indiana University School of
Medicine, who wrote a 2005 article in the American Journal of
Ophthalmology about visual training.

    His conclusion is blunt:  "Muscles have nothing to do with
problems such as nearsightedness or farsightedness." Though the
ciliary muscle controls the movement of the lens, Maino says
simply exercising that muscle will have no benefit.

    "You've got to get out of your head the idea of training the
muscles," he explained in an interview.  "There's no such thing as
an Arnold Schwarzenegger ciliary muscle."

    The consensus of most eye professionals is that
nearsightedness and farsightedness are structural problems,
correctable only with eyeglasses, contacts or laser surgery.

    Rose thinks that the consensus is more like a conspiracy.
"People are selling glasses and contact lenses and surgery," Rose
says.  "This is a multi-billion-dollar market.  So some people are
very threatened by us.    So they are attacking us.  .  .  .  Don't
be so quick to condemn us just because we can't line up all kinds
of research."

    But it is clear the lack of research hurts, and Rose says his
company has commissioned a formal study of SCM, though he would
not discuss details of the study design.

    But proof is what the Iowa attorney general wants.  It's what
Zladnik believes consumers should ask for before they part with
$350.  It's what, Helveston believes, professionals and patients
alike should seek.  "All you can do," Maino says, "is state the
facts, and the people will decide."

    Ranit Mishori last wrote for the Health section about the
changing roles of fathers in the delivery room.

Also, Ace, here is some commentary:

http://www.myopia.org/

that is critical of the use of a minus lens on the threshold.

Wow!

Enjoy,

Otis

Agreed.

Unproven, despite decades of trying. You know this, therefore your statement
is fraudulent.

-MT

Dear Ace,

   Mr. Rehm requested that the "minus" have a warning applied
to it -- in effect -- to be "careful" with that minus -- and
state that a certain "risk" exists in wearing it, i. e.,
stair-case myopia as the secondary consequence.

The FDA turned down his request.

Here is Mr. Rehm's response.

Best,

Otis

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

FDA REJECTION LETTER COMMENTS

September 11, 2006

Re: Docket No. 2005P-0166

I have received the letter of August 2, 2006 from your deputy, Linda S.
Kahan, in which the FDA rejects my petition to require a warning to the
public that prolonged close work is the cause of myopia and that minus
lenses increase the rate of myopia development. The petition, your
decision, and this letter are now available to the world on the
Internet at www.myopia.org/fda.htm. Also at www.myopia.org, you will
find the whole story about the myopia tragedy, including a similar
brush-off letter I received from the National Eye Institute years ago
when I sought their help in testing the Myopter further. Both letters
show a similar lack of concern for human suffering.

It appears that you have spent 15 months thinking up every possible
reason to do nothing, while hundreds of millions of children around the
world continue to be made into visual cripples by tens of thousands of
eye doctors. They do this because that's where the money is. This is
the biggest consumer fraud in the history of the world; yet to you it
is not worthy of any action. By this decision, the FDA has established
itself as a major player in the worldwide conspiracy to hide the truth
from the public.

I believe this is just another example of how the money of big business
has corrupted our government, and the FDA is a shining example of
putting business interests before public health. Are you solely
responsible for this decision? Is the FDA Commissioner, Andrew von
Eschenbach, orchestrating this tragedy? Or did it go as far as the
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Mike Leavitt? It is difficult
to believe that either of these two persons had the time to investigate
this matter in depth. Or did the word come down from the White House
that this petition should be squashed because the optical industry and
doctors are big contributors to the Republican Party and they want it
that way? Isn't that how our government works these days? The public
has a right to know who actually made this decision and is hiding in
the background.

The FDA has a history of doing the dirty work of optical interests. In
the early 1990's, the FDA sent armed agents to raid the businesses of a
few small vendors of pinhole glasses. These devices have been in use
for centuries and were being sold via newspaper ads and even on the
early Internet. The products were destroyed and the businesses closed
down. This outrageous action was done under pressure from eye doctors
and optical companies who didn't want the public to know about or have
access to this inexpensive method of correcting vision. That is why
such glasses are not offered in optical stores. Prescription lenses are
much more profitable.

So, the FDA sent out armed goons who used violence to keep harmless
pinhole glasses away from the public while it now refuses to lift a
finger to even warn the public about the vision-destroying capability
of minus lenses. This is just one of many shameful events in the FDA's
history. If you want to refresh your memory, you can read about this at
www.myopia.org/conspiracy.htm . Now, with the expansion of the
Internet, such glasses can be bought from many sources, even overseas,
and the FDA would have a tough task trying to suppress them any longer.

Working with a Pittsburgh optometrist, I was the first person to prove
that myopia could be prevented and reversed. These results were
included in my petition and published in my book, The Myopia Myth. We
didn't need a fancy study and a million dollars. We just did what
everyone in the business said couldn't be done. The National Eye
Institute refused to assist in further studies, even though I sat
across the table from Carl Kupfer, the NEI Director at that time, and
pleaded for his assistance. Yet it will fund studies for things as
"looking for the gene that causes myopia." This would be comical if it
wasn't so tragic. The NEI pretends to look for an answer to the myopia
problem, but it actually does everything in its power to hide the
truth. It is run for the benefit of optical business interests, not for
the benefit of the public. The children using the Myopter were examined
by a qualified, well-respected optometrist using conventional
refractive techniques. Yet, on page six you dismiss this study as
"anecdotal." You don't even know the meaning of the word. You can find
my disgusting experience with the NEI related on www.myopia.org/nei.htm
.

Your brush-off reply is so full of lies, distortions and omissions that
it would take far too long to deal with all of them. But here are a few
obvious comments:

1. You say you refuse to require a warning on minus lenses or place any
limitations on what doctors do. You say you don't have the authority.
But you also refuse to alert the public in any way. There is nothing
preventing you from holding a press conference and giving the public
such information as:

A. Monkeys, with eyes just like ours, develop myopia when kept in a
visual-confining environment, proving that prolonged accommodation
causes myopia.

B. A study of Eskimos showed that over 60% of the children were myopic
while their parents and grandparents were not. The reason was that the
children had the benefit of compulsory education. Their parents and
grand parents were illiterate. This proves that myopia is not
inherited.

C. Hold the book or other viewed object as far away as possible.

D. Use adequate light to reduce accommodation.

E. Take a break from close work frequently and look into the distance.

F. Don't use minus lenses unless absolutely necessary, since they
increase accommodation.

G. Allowing myopia to develop increases the risk of retinal detachment,
macular degeneration and glaucoma.

H. Discuss with your doctor the possible use of plus lenses to prevent
myopia.

2. On page one, you state that "we believe that the current regulations
provide adequate assurance of the safety and effectiveness of these
devices." But, there ARE NO regulations concerning minus lenses.
Doctors can prescribe them without regulation. That is the problem. And
how can you say that minus lenses are safe? What proof do you have?
There is no such proof.

3. On page three, you state that enforcement action is the duty of the
individual states. Yet the states say that the FDA is the proper place
to deal with this matter. How convenient for both of you to be able to
place the responsibility elsewhere and wash your hands of everything.
You say you have no authority to "interfere with the authority of a
health care practitioner to prescribe or administer any legally
marketed device to a patient for any condition or disease within a
legitimate health care practitioner-patient relationship." But we are
asking for a label just like those used with prescription drugs.
Requiring a label with prescription drugs is not interfering with the
practice of medicine. It is a safety warning to the public. The public
needs to be informed about the danger of minus lenses as well.

4. On page four, you say you are supporting the use of drugs which are
placed in the eyes daily to paralyze the accommodation. For one thing,
these drugs are toxic. Secondly, how are these children going to read
without their accommodation? They will obviously need lenses with a +3
add. So why not just give them the plus lenses and omit the drugs?
Thirdly, you claim there is no evidence that prolonged accommodation
causes myopia. Then why are you supporting the use of these drugs? This
whole approach is idiotic. You are talking out of both sides of your
bureaucratic mouth.

5. On page five, you state that the "FDA is unaware of any large,
multicenter trial that incorporates the recommendations you suggest."
Of course you aren't. Neither am I. And there will never be such a
study because optical interests would never let it get off the ground.
Such a study would mean the death of the genetic theory of myopia
development. That would threaten this multi-billion dollar industry.
Even if such a study was done, it would be ignored by the eye doctors,
just as they have ignored all of Francis Young's marvelous, pioneering
research. If I were to bring you ten blind children and within 30 days
have them all seeing again, would you dismiss what you see before your
eyes because no multicenter trial had been done? Anyone can reverse
acquired myopia within 30 days, just as I did. But there is absolutely
no interest in doing so.

6. On page six, you mention a study that "provides evidence that
under-correction of myopia may actually increase its progression." In
other words, they claim that a beginning myope will become more myopic
if minus lenses are not prescribed. That's idiotic. This asinine study
has been quoted far and wide by defenders of the status quo, but it has
been completely discredited. That you would even mention this "study"
shows how superficial and slanted your analysis is. Why don't you state
that "the findings may have been subject to bias", as you stated about
the Hong Kong study and the Francis Young study?

7. On page six, you say, "Without corrective lenses, myopic children
cannot see distant objects clearly and would be at a significant visual
disadvantage in schools, sports, and other activities of daily life."
No kidding! Don't you understand that this whole thing is about
PREVENTING children from becoming myopic in the first place? And don't
you understand that they will also be at somewhat of a visual
disadvantage when they go blind from the effects of an abnormal growth
of the eye, caused by minus lenses?

In summary, common sense and science seem to count for nothing in your
world. You seem to think that the eye doctors will police themselves
and do nothing wrong. Does the tobacco industry police itself, or does
it do everything in its power to make our children addicted to tobacco
products? The same thing is happening in the optical business. Children
are being victimized and made into lifelong, addicted customers. Your
letter is obviously a political decision that is designed to protect
the multi-billion dollar profits of the eye doctors and the optical
industry.

In short, both the FDA and the NEI act as if your salaries are paid by
the optical industry, rather than by the taxpayers you are supposed to
serve. What kind of monsters are you? How do you live with yourselves?
What do you use for a conscience? If we lived in a just world, the
officials at the FDA and NEI would be taken into court and charged with
crimes against humanity.

Donald Rehm
President
The International Myopia Prevention Association

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