As you know, I advocate that a person receive eye exams.

But equally, I adovcate that they be offered the PREVENTIVE
second-opinion, before their Snellen goes below 20/50 or so.
(About -1.25 diopters.)

I have changed the name of "Mike" below, to
protect him from you-know-who.

In the 9th grade, Mike had a -2.75 diopter lens.

After reading Bates and other advocacy, he decided
ON HIS OWN to quit cold-turkey.

I offered to provide SUGGESTIONS based on Steve Leung's
advocacy.

Today he passes the DMV visual-acuity requirements
of 20/40.  He must continue using these preventive
methods through the college years, since
the un-protected eye goes DOWN at -1/3 diopter per year.

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

Dear Mike,

As you might know, I come under extreme attacks because I
advocate that you:

1. Have a medical exam (of course), but then,

2. If you wish to clear your Snellen, you must do it yourself.

There are far to many medical people who consider that
quick-fixing with a minus is PERFECT, and will not talk to you
about prevention.

I OBJECT to that general attitude.

But equally, I understand how hard it is to assert your own
"force of will" for prevention.

I will post some remarks on how to separate true "medical"
visual issues, from a negative refractive STATE for your eyes --
which you can deal with yourself. (In my opinion.)

Some more commentary:

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

Mike> I have noticed a pattern. When looking at my monitor
eye-chart the letters that I most often get wrong are letters that
can look like other letters. Like I might think a K is an X or a
C is a G or a P is an F or an O is D or an E is a B. But I don't
get letters wrong that are more unique. Like a Z.

Otis> The Snellen was a SIMPLIFICATION of a means to quickly
determine if you had 1 minute-of-arc resolution.
(Cameras, and astronomy issues).

Otis> An eye with a good retina, and a positive refractive STATE
will have resolution (visual acuity) on that order. It is
clear that some letters are "easier" than others, but the
intention is that you get the "average", or read 1/2
letters correctly (just to be consistent, for yourself and
others).

Mike> I was looking through my -.5 and thought to myself how close
I am to perfect vision. I looked without it and then looked with
it and there wasn't much difference.

Otis> When clearing from -3 diopters (where you were, from "cold
turkey"), then getting to 20/60 or better was critical.
Going about 20/40, is much MORE DIFFICULT. 20/20 by ALL
STANDARDS is very, very sharp vision. You will see a lot
of detail -- that you NEVER saw before when you had a -3
diopter "prescription".

Mike> Concerning OD prevention with the plus.

Mike>  Also I don't really see why prevention couldn't be
profitable.

Otis> I wish it could be. In fact, I endorse PAYING an OD for
this type of advice. As a practical matter, only one OD
will actually help it.

www.chinamyopia.org

Otis> That is the reality. When I mention this on sci.med.vision,
I am told that he is a TOTAL JERK, and should be kicked
out of optometry. Further, I am told that he should be
sued for malpractice. There is a PROFOUND disincentive to
help ANYONE with plus-prevention. That is a harsh truth.

Mike>  When I think of all of the people that wear a minus that
don't really need it they just do what there OD tells them.

Otis> I have suggested to Steve that he DISCUSS these issues with
their clients, and send the person to www.myopiafree.com

Otis> If the child and parent are RECEPTIVE to vision clearing
then they could proceed -- and avoid the minus. But
nothing like this is going to happen, given the profound
hostility of the majority-opinion ODs.

Mike>  So if he said that they needed a plus they would probably
listen.

Otis> I would read my book, and the section on, the "Printer's
Son". If the parent only wants his child to see, very
VERY sharp, then the plus would seem to be a "joke" to the
parents. You know how your own parents judge your work
with the plus.

Mike>  I know that there is an instant effect of clarity if I look
through a plus at a near object. You could easily "trick" people
into thinking that there near vision is defective. Also if the
attitude was that everyone should wear a plus lens you would
include the people that pass the 20/20 line.

Otis> You are RIGHT!!! But that would required and intelligent
and INFORMED parent and child to understand WHY they must
wear the plus at the threshold. Tragically, most people
are either not that "smart", or do not care about their
distant vision to do anything about it. But if YOU DO,
then YOU can do something about it.

Mike>  It would seem to me that if the ODs advocated prevention they
would increase profits not lose them.

Otis> That remains an open question. So far I get endless
hostility against BOTH the concept and the implementation
of it. For now, you have to stand alone and do what you
can for yourself.

Mike>  Through my time using the plus I have learned how to tell
what other people's focal states are as well. If I look at their
glasses while there wearing them I can tell if they are wearing a
plus or a minus and the relative strength of the lens.

Otis> Excellent! A course in physics and science will help you
understand these issues.

Mike>  I told you that so I can tell you this. When I was at a
store I passed a little kid and his mom pushing him in the cart.
The kid must not have been over 5 years old and he was wearing
glasses.

Mike>  However I could tell that he was wearing plus lenses of about
+2. I have seen very little kids wearing glasses and all of them
have been wearing pluses. Further proof that all people are born
with positive focal states.

Otis> Absolutely! But these "pluses" are prescribed because that
positive refractive STATE is considered and "error", that
must be "fixed" with the plus. The concept is profoundly
different. But you are right, the doctor can prescribe
the plus -- but the parents MUST understand the reason and
goals for doing so.

Mike> I was thinking back to the first time I was found not to pass
the 20/20 line. My little sister and I were getting an exam
before school started I was about 10 or 11 and she was 6 or 7. I
was found to be nearsighted and she was found to be farsighted.

Otis> Most REASONABLE ODs will measure a positive refractive STATE
(and 20/20) and NEVER prescribe a plus. A positive
refractive STATE is (tragically) called "farsighted", and
considered an error or defect for that reason. In fact it
is very valuable in a young child.

Mike>  Come to think of it I don't think I had ever had an eye
examination before the age of about 9 or 10. I wonder what would
have happened if I had been tested at age 6 or 7.

Otis> Your refractive STATE would have been about +1/2 to 0.0
diopters -- as a reasonable estimate.

Maybe I would have been "farsighted" and maybe I would not be
in this situation right now.

Otis> If your refractive STATE were zero, (i.e., 20/20, but a +1/2
would blur the 20/20 line, then your OD or MD should have
SUGGESTED the use of the plus at that time. But your
mother simply would not have "understood", so NO OD OR MD
WILL EVEN BOTHER.

Mike>  I have told my little sister how lucky she is. She reads a
lot. I told her that if she had waited until about the time I was
tested about 10 or 11 she would have probably been nearsighted.

Mike> But what has happened has happened and nothing can change
that. I can only control what I do now.

Otis> That is exactly "it". You think that "third parties" can
help you. They can in a crude sense with an
over-prescribed minus lens. But, for personal issues like
this, only you can help yourself.

Otis> I do not see any other way to do it.

Otis

Mike