X-No-Archive:

Base05.txt

Subject:  How you arrive at the conclusion that the un-protected
      eye goes DOWN at -1/2 diopter per year.

    When Bates did his studies, there were no figures for the
DOWN rate.

    If you wish to not believe them, then don't.

    But I believe them because six INDEPENDENT studies showed
them.

    This truly explains why plus-prevention MUST be started
before the minus is used.

    If I know for CERTAIN my eyes are going DOWN if I do nothing
about it -- then I think I would at least make and EFFORT with the
plus.

    But each person is his own "adviser" on this subject.

    I just present the raw facts -- and encourage the person to
"factor" the scientific facts into his own decision to take
actions for PREVENTION.

    Here they are:

Subject:  Getting your refractive STATE to move "positive".

Re:  The facts concerning the eye's response from 12 years in
      school.

    The Oakley-Young study was done with children with NO
MOTIVATION, and NO INSTRUCTION in the use of a plus.

    But even so, Francis Young achieved an INDICATION that
prevention would be possible -- against the now proven down-rate
of -1/2 diopters per year.

    This indeed suggest that you avoid the minus -- unless
absolutely necessary.

    The issue is this.  If you have the MOTIVAION for it, can you
clear your Snellen (refractive STATE moves positive).

    And THAT depends exclusively on you -- and NOT on me.

    You will see statements to this effect -- but I am certain
you do not believe them.

    You will be lucky to avoid going down by -1.3 diopters in a
four year college.

    But that must again be your choice.

    The fact that Mike has a -2.75 diopter prescription in the
9th grade, and by intensive work has 20/30 (confirmed) vision is a
tribute to his decision-making capability.

    Against the back-drop of -1/2 diopter per year, he has been
an amazing success.

    But it certainly is very difficult to do it.

    I know that it takes time to "digest" this amount of data.
But is does resolve into an AVERAGE down rate of -1/2 diopter per
year.  Read it and UNDERSTAND for yourself.

    More kudos for Mike.

    Otis

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

Dear Vision-protection friends,

Subject:  Facing tough facts -- making a choice.

Re:  The reasons and need for plus-prevention.

    I know that we can not over simplify science and the facts.

    Yet an effort must be made.

    To me, the Eskimo data truly tells the 'story" of the natural
eye's behavior:

http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html

    In our "modern" society, where we are forced to spend 12 to
16 years in this "reading" environment, our eyes simply go DOWN at
-1/2 diopter per year.

    I know that it is hard to understand this issue, and harder
to take effective action against it.

    I am pleased that some people have the "smarts" to use the
preventive-plus correctly.

    Here is the data for six separate studies -- so there can be
no doubt about it.

    The facts are that from age six to sixteen, our eyes go
"down" in this manner.

    I always like to present the facts themselves concerning the
natural eye's dynamic behavior.

    That way you can look at them and personally decide what you
wish to do about them.

    Here are six studies, and the results of the control group.
They ALL show the same thing.

    If exclusively one study showed that -1/2 diopter per year,
and all the other studies showed zero diopters, or a positive
change, then I would question the concept of prevention.

    But when all of them show -1/2 diopter per year DOWN, you
MIGHT take preventive measures more seriously.

    Whatever you do -- I would keep these results in mind, if you
think that plus-prevention is a "joke".

 ___________________________

Study #1, Oakley-Young, 200+ children, four years.  Control group
      went DOWN by -2 diopters in four years.    The plus group did
      not go down.

- 0.02 diopters per year, thus -0.08 diopters in four years.

Versus

-0.52 diopters per year (over four years) single minus lens, or

-2.08 diopters in four years for the control group.

Francis Young Primate
Research Center Washington State University
Pullman, Washington

 ___________________________

Study #2 In the COMET study (children) the 3 year data is:

Single vision:    -0.49 D/yr over five years.

 ___________________________

Study #3 Single vision,

two myopic parents:  -0.51 D/yr

one myopic parent:  -0.40 D/yr

 ___________________________

Study #4 Fulk et al, children with esophoria 30 months

Single vision minus:  -0.49 D/yr

 ___________________________

Study #5 Parssinen (age 9 to 11) 3 yrs

Single-Vision Dist only, SV:  -0.48 D/yr
      ___________________________

Study #6 the Leung JT, Brown B.  Study:

Single minus vision lens:  -0.625 Diopters per year

 ___________________________

    I know that most people have no concern about their distant
vision at the threshold stage, and that the minus is very simple,
easy an quick.

    There has never been a "pure-plus" preventive study, but the
Oakley-Young study intimates that plus-prevention could be
successful if the use of the plus were consistently used, and the
PARENTS understood the implications of these six studies.

    These are the issues a parent (and child) must consider if he
wishes to work with a second-opinion professional -- with the goal
of keeping the child's distant vision clear (a positive refractive
STATE) through 12 years in school.

    In my opinion, these issues must be presented to the parent
(in an honest discussion) with the parents ultimately making this
either/or choice.

    This was the real "issue" of Dr.  Raphaelson's story of the
"Printer's Son".

    For me this is stark evidence that only prevention is
possible - and must be started before the minus.

    Visual standards must be met, but for a child, 20/60 to 20/40
is a very reasonable standard to maintain.  Yet, I know Of
children with 20/60 who have a prescribed -2.75 diopter lens.

    I believe that this is necessarily part of the review-process
with a parent, and difficult to understand - at first.    But I
think that the parents should take the time to understand it.

    Best,

    Otis