Dear Dave,

Subject:  Discussing the natural eye's proven behavior
with my nephew.

It is clear from more than five studies, that the natural
(but un-protected) eye goes down at a rate of
-1/2 diopter per year.  The initial "induction" of a
negative refractive STATE is because the natural
eye controls its refractive STATE to its average
value of accommodation.

Thus our eyes are limited in the way we use them -- like
it or not.

At about age 11 and 13 (I believe) they had an optometric
exam an were declared to be "myopic".

I discussed the above, and other information, an
suggested they had a choice in this matter, and the
goal should be to:

1.  Avoid the use of the minus lens.

2.  Pass the DMV level tests.

3. Check their own Snellen.

All of this was predicated on both their interest
and motivation.  (Very difficult for most.)

In college (West Point and Annapolis), the refractive
STATE goes down at a slower rate, about -1/3 diopters
per year.  (The average for SLIGHTLY myopic students
was between -1.1 diopters to -1.6 diopters over four years).

Thus, if they were to avoid ENTRY into serious myopic
(avoid the minus lens -- except for driving), then it
would be wise to "take control", and preserve their
distant vision.

With no preventive efforts, and a strong minus lens,
I have no doubt (based on these statistics, and the
primate studies) that they both would be about
-2 to -5 diopters mopic at the completion of
college and graduate school.

Layman Neil Brooks has NO IDEA of anthing
he is talking about. He does not know them,
he is not qualified to talk about ANY MEDICAL
CONDITION, and about people he does not know.

Keith ran the Ironman, an has the desire and interst
to protect his distant vision.  He did this on the
basis of HIS wise understanding of these issues.

I simply supplied this second-opinion information
to him, and he chose the "high road" to protect
his distant vision.

I think Joy missed one line on the DMV test.
She has NO INTEREST in her distant vision.

She got a WEAK minus to meet the legal requirements,
and I recommended that she alway MEET the legal
requirment, but never wear that minus unless
required.  (Given a lack of interest in her part.)

Brooks likes to imply that she is a -7 diopter myope,
and legally blind without glasses.  This is of course
his "made up" bull-sh.t line.

The majority-opinion ODs can tell you that having
a SLIGHT negative refractive STATE is an ADVANTAGE
as you approach 40 years of age.

The range of accommodation (stop to stop) reduces
to about 2 to 1 diopters.

Thus, my discussion with my neice was that she
had the best of both worlds, i.e., she will be
able to work with no lens for near or far, probably
through the age of sixty or more.

So, she will keep the minus on the dash, and
will avoid the use of ANY LENS, plus or minus,
for a long time into the future.

If she had NOT used the plus through the
school years, there is no doubt that she
would be -6 diopters myopic, and wearing
that minus 16 hours / 7 days a week.

And lastly, you must remember that some ODs,
while unable to help the public with plus-prevention,
wake up, and insist that their own child wear the
plus, when the child's refractive STATE is zero.

They can't get the public to do this (for obvious reasons
of the ignorance of the public), but they can protect
their own child's vision for life.

That is the real meaning of the second-opinion.

Enjoy,

Otis