At least he seemed to address the actual question that you asked.

That's a rarity, if not unprecedented.

I've known numerous people in my life who wore minus lenses since
childhood, and -- despite early progression in their myopia -- their
Rx stabilized and remained unchanged (+/- 0.25d either way, depending
on who did the refraction) for decades -- all the way through
presbyopia.

My wife and my brother are two such examples.  Both wore their glasses
for all waking hours.  Each wore them all the way through undergrad.
My wife wore hers all the way through grad school.

They're each roughly -3.25d, though my wife finally DID have PRK (and
couldn't be more thrilled with her result).

I've researched eyes and vision for decades.  I've never seen anything
that would lead me to believe that minus lenses accelerate myopia
progression.

That said -- and I'll repeat myself, here -- my "protocol" offers
tested and/or perfectly logical solutions to EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE
POSSIBLE PROBLEM that the likes of Otis contends minus lenses might
cause.

And ... again ... as somebody who has suffered from accommodative
spasm issues for decades, I know a great deal about this subject.

The sort of myopia that Otis (and other advocates of Natural Vision
Improvement who are NOT insane (as he is)) seeks to forestall is
accommodative myopia (a/k/a pseudomyopia).

I've never seen any evidence that pseudomyopia causes axial-length
myopia.  Repeating myself yet again: if it truly happens, then it
surely should have happened in my case.

It didn't.

I forgot which OD first proposed the analogy, but ... it's perfect:
blaming the minus lens for myopia progression is like blaming that
first barber for a child's hair continuing to grow....

The current opinion of mainstream vision research is basically this:
there is no evidence that appropriate correction or over-correction of
myopia hastens myopia progression.

There has been at least ONE credible study that showed that UNDER-
CORRECTION of myopia (in effect, what Otis advocates) DOES ACCELERATE
myopic progression.

That's MY "yes or no" answer to your question ;-)

I did answer your question, elsewhere: I do not believe that minus
lenses accelerate myopic progression.

BUT ... I genuinely think it WOULD be worth your while to take a look
at that National Academy of Sciences book.  It is an extremely well-
written and thoroughgoing treatment of the subject of myopia
progression and prevalence, including a broad meta-analysis of
existing studies.

BTW: I'm VERY glad that you remain conscious of the BAK issues.  It
seems to me that the practice, among prescribing eye docs, is slowly
changing.

Only if you expect the cart before the horse. You asked for a yes or no
answer, not a list of citations.

Doctors don't warn myopes BECAUSE the preponderance of published studies do
not show that wearing glasses accellerates myopia.

Hey, they didn't tell you your vaccine had mercury in it either. Sometimes
medicine is stupid.

Ah, but grasshopper... we used to do it the OTHER way.

What if they quit using BAK 20 years ago and now Otis wants to bring it
back?

Optometrists used to prescribe bifocals and reading lenses and hygeine and
exercises in order to "control" myopia.

Why did they quit?

-MT

The preponderance of evidence shows that the use of negative lenses to
correct existing myopia does not accelerate the progression of
myopia.  There is little human evidence of course but the animal
evidence is clear: animals who wear minus to correct existing myopia
do not progress.

The next time Otis claims that minus lenses cause "stair case" myopia,
ask him for evidence for that statement.  The Soon graph is not
evidence, it is a speculation of what might happen if minus lenses
cause progressive myopia, not a graph based on any actual
measurements.  The Soon graph is as valid as one published by the Flat
Earth Society showing how far you could walk in various directions
before falling off.

Judy