Dear Judy,

Subject:  You skipped past these items, so I post again.

Judy> These are models not actual evidence. Got anything more recent,
something published less than 15 years ago?

The "preponderance of evidence" link is this, which you cut out in her
response. I'm sure it was an innocent oversight. Here's the link
again.

http://www.i-see.org/myopia_correction.html

Every single link is to research published within the past 15 years.

Medina, incidentally, showed in his article that his madel fit the
clinical data. In other words, even with this research we are talking
about evidence, not just a model. This was not obvious from the
abstracts.

Here is the full text of the article.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122401621/PDFSTART

Second-opinion (and recent scientific publication) best,

Otis