I think you're missing a significant point here: Otis is also inducing
double vision in people BECAUSE he's "monkeying with" (pun intended)
the near-vision triad.

The way around this (as Dandy Don Rehm well knows) is to work with an
optometrist to include prisms to OFFSET the effect OF the plus lens ON
the convergence mechanism of the eyes.

So's Drano, but it can have a wicked effect on the body if used
inappropriately.

Sure Neil D. Brooks.

I agree that plus-prevention is difficult, and must START at the
threshold to be effective.

I also agree with Dr L (G), that if his "vision" of the eye is such
that he believes that the only treatment is a minus lens
for his own son, at age 5 with 20/40, then he is
doing the EXACT RIGHT THING FOR HIS SON
AND ALL WHO ENTER HIS OFFICE.

I do not agree with his approach, but I respect his actions
as the majority-opinion.

But there has been a consistent recognition over the last
100 years, that while the minus is impressive in five minutes -- it
has a serious secondary effect.

Some ODs "wake up" to this effect, and START their
OWN children in a plus as soon as their refractive STATE
is between zero to +1/4 diopters.

This is indeed a "family" choice and must be understood that way.
It must also be understood as an "educational" process for
the parent an child.

Here are the remarks of Dr. Jake Raphaelson for your
interest.

We all must make "money", but that is never the issue.

THE EFFECT OF A NEGATIVE LENS ON THE NORMAL EYE

Truth is so obscure in these times,
and falsehood so established,
That unless we love the truth
we cannot know it.

- Blaise Pascal

THE HISTORICAL OPINION OF THE USE OF A NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE LENS FOR
NEARSIGHTEDNESS

Over the past eighty years, eye doctors have become increasingly
suspicious of negative-lens use for nearsightedness. While the
immediate effect is instant clarity of vision, the long-term effect
has been recognized to be bad. For instance Dr. Samuel Drucker said:

The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of
progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave lenses
themselves. From many articles that have appeared in the past on the
subject of 'Optical Poison', a familiar term a decade (1930) ago, many
other optometrists appear to have the same idea.
An optometrist in Ontario (1938) says that, "...he would like to have
a law established and enforced that would make it a misdemeanor for
any refractionist (optometrist) to prescribe minus glasses for any
child unless under very extenuating circumstances." (3)

These are strong opinions by individuals who have had direct and
prolonged experience with the use of a negative lens and the effect
that this lens has on the normal eye.

Doctors, some time ago, have correctly deduced the nature of the
problem and suggested the correct solution. For example, Chalmers
Prentice, wrote the following in 1895: (3)

In the nomad, who is reared out of doors, and who follows such
pursuits that his vision is mostly used at twenty feet and greater
distances, the nerve-impulses to the ciliary (lens) muscle become
established so that the easiest vision is for the far point, and in
many years of such use, these impulses become more or less fixed;
while the child of a higher civilization spends his life within doors,
amuses himself with toys, picture books, kindergarten amusements and
learning to read.

We will assume that such a child generally holds his book or toy 10
inches (4 diopters) from his eyes, in which case the crystalline lens
requires a much greater convexity, or higher state of refraction to
bring about perfect vision; and this is brought about by an increase
in the ciliary nerve-impulse which changes the shape of the ciliary
lens. Through long continued use, this impulse becomes comparatively
fixed, and in some instances refuses to suspend itself sufficiently to
bring about distant vision again, and so myopia has set in. The
regular work of the student and those other pursuits which require the
use of the eye at the near point, tend to perpetuate this condition
and make it progressive.

...Again, the important question, 'How are the advantages of a high
civilization to be attained without the foregoing disadvantages?' If
the eyes are to be used at a distance of ten inches, aid them
artificially by a ten inch magnifying glass; then the nerve-impulses
to the ciliary muscle will be no more than if the patient were leading
an outdoor life and viewing objects at twenty feet or more.

It is clear that the collective common sense of the profession has
indicated the type of problem they face and the nature of the expected
solution. In the article "Trying to Get Myopia into Focus", (1987) Dr.
Theodore Grosvenor of the Houston College of Optometry, insists that
persistent close work causes myopia. He also states that; "Once the
eye has started to stretch, it may be too late to keep it from
stretching. The ultimate study would be to put reading glasses on
first-graders, before anyone has developed myopia."

WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?

With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you
would think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or
ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and effective method of
solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly that in the following
example -- with the following result:

THE PRINTER'S SON

"It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting.
She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave
her my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit him
with a pair of spectacles.

"She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was a
printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for the
next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she should
bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles. I
told her that she could pay for them when her husband returned home.

"She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his
vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a
pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her
husband came back home.

"In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She
stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the glasses.
He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and near, and
had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes. In fact, she
said, the boy could see even better without the glasses than with
them.

"I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that
quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to
bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well
with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his
vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good
eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

"I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the
mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor
vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that
vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses
for a few weeks?

"My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for
exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on
children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to
investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself
nearsighted.

"On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in
doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly,
did not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses
without the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or
diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be
under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the
medical profession.

"To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the
following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any
form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter
and nothing more. Second, I charged a reasonable price for the
spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I
gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I just did it as a
matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity.

"Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship
of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept
it up, and will continue to do this work as long as I continue to have
the incentive and capability.

"Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair
of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to the
naked eye could be restored to children whose eyes have a negative
focal state? This was true in 1904, and it is also true now, in this
decade of 1950."

======================

So no "dedication" of a second-opinion optometrist can have any
effect if the parents ONLY understand a quick-fix in five minutes.

It takes considerable review and understanding to fully understand
the use of the preventive-plus at the threshold.  And that
understanding is not "medicine" -- is it science based.

Otis

The reasoning is just looney.

If I had a technique for resolving (or even preventing) myopia, I'm pretty
sure I'd have trouble keeping up with the business it would generate.

I think Otis realizes that too.

-MT

On Feb 27, 8:57 am, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote:

Dude:

Randomized.

Placebo-controlled.

Axial-length verified.

Double-blind (not to imply that you're biased, but ... you're
biased ... to say the least).

Then submit for peer-review (bull$hit detectors).

You are presenting unverifiable third-hand anecdotes that are
meaningless.  Nobody knows you.  You may well be absolutely nothing
more than a balls-out liar.  We already have one here.  Nobody's
seeking another.

If you HAD discovered the cure for myopia, you'd be on the front page
of journals and newspapers world-wide.  NOBODY would shun that
notoriety--regardless of their own economic interest (or lack
thereof).

Anybody who REALLY had the "myopia cure" would want to spread it like
wildfire to help the masses.

Therefore, I offer--with charity in my heart and compassion for all--
that you are simply full of $hit.

Please prove me wrong.  Do something that withstands scrutiny ... then
come back.

I beg of you.

So do countless myopes.

On Feb 27, 10:57 am, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote:

No, it's what your website said, and what you said here.  This boy
left his eye doctor with a prescription for -1.00 in the OD, and a
manifest refraction of -1.25.  A few days later, you refracted him at
-1.50, and after eight days at -1.00.  All I see is an actively
accommodating myope who reads too close, and who presents with a
variable refraction.  You, on the other hand, have arranged the data
to suggest some type of curative.

DrG