Aceman himself stated that he only wore his glasses 20% of the time
when they were -1 diopter.

DrG

It would be just as correct to consider that your brother doesn't wear
his glasses much because he is only -1D and so can see relatively well
without them.  In other words,  saying his low myopia "caused" him not
to wear his glasses much would be just as valid as saying not wearing
his glasses "caused" his myopia to stop at -1.

My mother is 4'10, her sister is 5' 6 and her brother is 6'.  My father
was 5' 8".  He had a brother who was over 6ft.  I'm 5' 1, one sister is
5' 4 and the other sister is 5' 7".    According to your logic, our
height differences prove that height is 100% environmental.  I guess my
mom and I are short because we spent a lot of time standing on stools
to reach stuff, so we didn't get any stimulus to grow taller.

Dr Judy

Leukoma said:

"Why?  It wouldn't have helped you.  Your myopia was genetic.  But, of
course, you couldn't accept that.  You needed a scapegoat instead of
taking responsibility for your own genes."

Like I said, genes arent the be it all. My brother is -1 and I am -4
while our mother is more than -7. We all have a slight astigmastim
which proves the genetic compound but the myopia compound can be
controlled by avoiding excessive use of the minus like my brother did.
I wish I could go back in time and use the plus then I too would be
around a -1.

On 7/27/06 11:42 PM, in article
_-GdnQJXZeRWLFTZnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews.com, "Mike Tyner"
<mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote:

Medical people seem extremely skeptical with respect to relating cause and
effect without extensive proof. Double blind experiments are preferred. Such
caution seems to go out the window with respect to progressive myopia. I am
trying to point out some inconsistencies in the logic.

One such inconsistency is regarding the effect of near work. If near work
does indeed engender myopia but negative lenses do not exacerbate myopia,
how does the eye "know" not to get more myopic when working with an image at
infinity. The negative lens moves the image to infinity as you well know.

Bill

-- Ferme le Bush

No, we don't prescribe -0.675 or -0.375 very often.

In this case it was -6.25 and -3.25, after cycloplegia.

That isn't news. We know that close working distances and much time spent in
close work contributes to myopia. But not 80%, more like 20%. The rest is
genes.

You lost me there. If you think negative lenses make a difference, you
haven't been listening.

I do refractions 15 or 20 times a day and in general my patients are closely
observed during the process.

Ah so you still think glasses matter. What-ev.

I caution kids and parents about close working distances and long spells of
close work without visual breaks. But if you think it matters whether they
wear glasses or not, you haven't been absorbing what you read.

-MT

On 7/27/06 11:07 AM, in article
0r-dneoNybtGnVTZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@giganews.com, "Mike Tyner"
<mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote:

I presume that part of the optometry jargon is to leave out the decimal
point. I can live with that. Nevertheless, the numbers you list, well under
1D in absolute value do not strike me any big deal.

How did that get to be negative at all? I have one possible reason. When I
and my cousin were kids, we spent many hours reading comic books in bad
light. To read easily, we brought the page close to our eyes. Certainly,
most people will agree that doing so will make it easier to read. The
closer, the better. With our young eyes, our accommodation allowed us to get
those pages to what memory at my now advanced age recalls as 150mm. That is,
we were able to do, without negative lenses, what was made easier with
negative lenses.

Has such behavior been factored into the various experiments? The way kids,
with or without glasses, are not observed during a refraction session. There
is more to good visual hygiene than merely telling a kid to use glasses only
for seeing the blackboard. Moreover, is a kid going to remove his/her
glasses when going from reading the blackboard to writing into a notebook.
If you think so, you do not know kids and have forgotten your own childhood.

Bill
-- Ferme le Bush

I just examined a young woman of 19 who had never worn glasses.

Her refraction was -675 in the right eye and -375 in the left.

How did she get that way without wearing glasses?

-MT

otisbrown@pa.net smiled:

They just dont believe in it. Ultimately, only you can take care of
your eyes. No one can take your responsability, you have to do it
yourself.

Great guy!

Dont worry if he doesnt believe in vision improvement, just do it
yourself and if done correctly and consistly, results are rewarding.

I know, it happened to me and everyone else who went with the wretched
minus.

I would have made the choice myself if only I knew about the plus lens!

Forget what they say, just learn how to use a plus lens and you are set!

Dear AceMan,

DrL> LOL

The Majority-opinion considers you protecting your
child's distant vision (as the engineer did it) a BIG JOKE.

The Second-opinion OD takes plus-prevention VERY SERIOUSLY,
as per Steve Leung OD at:

www.chinamyopia.org

So, before you do anything (with your child reading the 20/50 line),
determine if you OD considers your right to an informed,
second-opinion a BIG JOKE.

Because a strong minus at 20/50 leads to stair-case myopia
and PERMANENT consequences which then, can not
be reversed.

That is truly a choice that has life-time consequences for
you -- what ever decision.

I would NEVER allow a person to make that type
of decision or choice for me  -- when some
"third-party" considers my desire to keep
my distant vision -- a joke.

Make you choice for your children accordingly.

Best,

Otis

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

The second opinion ODs *do* prescribe the plus. It works almost all the
time when correctly and consistly used. There is *nothing* to lose by
trying the plus lens experment, if for some reason it doesnt work, then
you gave it your best shot. If it works like it almost always does, you
have reduced or even prevented myopia!

Otis, I was going to make a post like that but we think alike! Thanks!
Let me comment why majority opinion ODs prescribe the minus:

Child: My vision is blurry and I can not see some things in the
distance, I have trouble reading the lecture board unless I sit in the
front of the class.

Parent: Ok we are taking you to an eye doctor.

Doctor: Your child is slightly myopic, I will prescribe glasses and
this will immediately solve your problem and give your child very sharp
20/20 vision

Parent: yay! Now my child can see!

Child: *grumble* but I dont want glasses!

Doctor and parent: You need them now, sorry.

So the child is forced to wear glasses and the parents are happy that
the problem is "solved" till stair-case myopia occurs then its back to
the doctor every 12, 9 or even 6 months for stronger and stronger
glasses. The problem is the parents get worried their child isnt seeing
well and they look to the minus lens as an instant gratification
solution to the child. Most children are reluctant to wear glasses till
they get used to it and their eyes get so bad they havent a choice.

The plus lens takes months or even years to clear the child's vision
and most people are too impatient and lazy to make the effort. They
want an instant solution and the parent and even child wants better
vision. Otis says even if they met a second opinion doctor that
explained they had a choice of minus or plus, most people would chose
the easy and instant solution of the minus. I would have chosen the
plus had I been given a second opinion. If I chose the minus, it would
have been my choice alone, but I was never given a choice.

There is lasik and other refractive surguries to "cure" myopia but its
risky and does nothing to change your oval eyeball or prevent your eyes
from becomming more myopic, it just lets you see much better without
glasses. Even if someone wanted lasik, they would have to wait 10-15
years in glasses till they are old enough and their prescription is
more or less stable.

the reason no OD recommends plus prevention is that is has been proven
to be ineffective.  no prevention therapy has been shown to be
effective.

make up all the excuses you want, and quote all the romantic prose of
your hero Raphaelson but the facts are the facts, none of it works.  if
it did, we would recommend it.  its our job.

or is it a conspiracy?

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

Dear AceMan,

Subject:  Pure science of the eye's dynamic behavior.

It is very clear from Raphaelson's statement that the "problem" of
prevention must consider the public's REJECTION OF PREVENTION.

This statement says to me that no OD (how ever dedicated) can
EVER help the public with true-prevention.

It will take a person of considerable INSIGHT and self-motivation
to BEGIN the use of the plus, BEFORE that person's Snellen
goes below the 20/50 to 20/60 line.

There is every reason why you must understand it that way.

If you wish to avoid nearsighedness (a negative refractive STATE
of the natural eye), you quite frankly are going to have to
AVOID the M.O. ODs like "L".

How do you do this?

By learning more than most people are willing to learn about
the natural eye's proven behavior (in pure-science, not
the distorted "vision" of the box-camera paradigm).

By recognizing that you, as a parent, will NOT repeat
the "error" of the pareint -- in "The Printer's Son".

By recognizing that, for some issues in you child's life,
you must take a much larger degree of resonsibility -- by
exerting "control" over that child's "bad habits".

By checking the child's refractive STATE (with a trial lens kit)
and determining how close to "zero" that refractive state
actually is.

By being prepared to do what that engineer-parent did -- which
was to insist that the child us a plus -- before the child
got too deep into it.

I would take the "Printer's Son" as a warning.  That you must
understand and work WITH a plus-prevention OD, such
as Steve Leung, but also must NOT REJECT the use
of the plus at the threshold -- as the Father did in
this instance.

Success favors a prepared mind.  Plus-prevention is
the second-opinion, but must be invoked before
that minus lens is applied.

A M.O. OD will NEVER help you with prevention -- as
described by Raphaelons -- because the minus
is immediate and obvious.

The "plus" is subtle -- and takes a wise parent to
understand and ACCEPT it for use by his child.

Live an learn.

Best,

Otis

The minus works because it neutralizes the ametropia and restores
normal visual acuity.  Plus lenses have not been shown to work as
promoted by the leader of the Fringe Group, Otis-engineer.  He knows he
cannot provide any statistically-validated proof, and when prodded,
lashes out with strawman arguments and quickly changes the subject.  He
will never confront the issues straight-on.  He is as evasive and
slippery as an eel, having carefully crafted his arguments over
DECADES.  This also means that the kernel of his ideas are DECADES OLD.
He refuses to join the 21st century.  He is a 19th century man.

He also wastes an inordinate amount of band-width with his ridiculously
long-winded diatribes and allergories.  On second thought, maybe it's
his therapy.

DrG

Dear second-opinion (preventive) friends,

Subject:  How and Why the PUBLIC rejects plus-prevention

    The minus is quick-and-obvious.  The plus is not.

    Therefore the "minus" always "sells" and the plus does not.

    This explains why it must be the PARENTS who "wake up" to
plus-prevention.  If not, we only create stair-case myopia for
ourselves -- buy rejecting the plus a the threshold -- when it
MUST BE USED to be truly effective in keeping your distant vision
clear for life.

    It is necessary to understand this issue clearly.    You must
figure out how to do this "preventive" work youself -- or become
victim of that over-prescribed minus.

    No M.O.  OD can help you with plus-prevention.  And it is a
waste of time to even argue about it.

    Never forget this story -- it is the truth of this tragic
situation.  You can not transfer "responsibility" to anyone other
than youself -- if you desire effective prevention
with the plus.

    Best,

    Otis

    ++++++++

    WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?

    With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's
behavior, you would think that the insightful and motivated
optometrist or ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and
effective method of solution.  Dr.  Jacob Raphaelson did exactly
that in the following example -- with the following result:

    THE PRINTER'S SON

    "It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge
meeting.  She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in
school.  I gave her my card and told her to bring him to my office
and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles.

    "She said that she had no money at the time and that her
husband was a printer working in another city.    She did not expect
him home for the next six weeks.  I told her all this would not
matter, that she should bring the boy over and I would fit him
with a pair of spectacles.  I told her that she could pay for them
when her husband returned home.

    "She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes.  I found
that his vision for distance was poor.    It was less than 20/40.  I
made him a pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles.  She was to pay
me when her husband came back home.

    "In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to
me.  She stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting
the glasses.  He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints,
far and near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his
naked eyes.  In fact, she said, the boy could see even better
without the glasses than with them.

    "I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery
that quickly.  I could hardly believe this story.  I persuaded the
mother to bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could
really see well with his naked eyes.  She again brought the boy in
and I checked his vision.  I found that the father was indeed
right.    The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

    "I was in a dilemma.  I did not have the nerve to say
anything to the mother.  I just let her go.  How was I to prove
that the boy had poor vision before he received his glasses?  And
who would believe that vision could be restored by just wearing a
pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks?

    "My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn
tendency for exploration.  It gave me an incentive to try to do
special work on children's eyes and on vision restoration.  It
also enticed me to investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I
was myself nearsighted.

    "On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be
cautious in doing such work.  For selling spectacles to persons
who, supposedly, did not need them was almost a crime.    And the
fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a medical
doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy
person who might need or be under medical attention, was, and is
now, and encroachment on the medical profession.

    "To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I
took the following precautions:  First, I quit using the title
'doctor' in any form, in print or verbally.  I was to be known as
a spectacle fitter and nothing more.  Second, I charged a
reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for
any special work or relief I gave.  I did not advertise about this
special work.  I just did it as a matter of routine whenever or
wherever I was given the opportunity.

    "Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the
relationship of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and
health.  I have kept it up, and will continue to do this work as
long as I continue to have the incentive and capability.

    "Who would believe it?  Who would believe that by just
wearing a pair of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that
normal vision to the naked eye could be restored to children whose
eyes have a negative focal state?  This was true in 1904, and it
is also true now, in this decade of 1950." (It continues to be
true in this decade of 1990 -- Otis Brown)

    SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION

    With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a
profound and adverse effect, you would think that it should be
possible to develop scientific verification for this
characteristic of the normal eye.  You would be correct.  The
testing and verification is impeccable -- if we restrict our
attention to the normal eye's behavior.

    ++++++++++++++

    Remember this:

    If the PARENTS had put their son in a "plus" and verified his
vision-clearing from 20/50 to 20/20 -- they MIGHT have been
convinced.  But since the PARENTS did not make the measurements --
they were CONVINCED that Jake was "cheating" them -- by clearing
their kid's vision back to 20/20.

    This why no OD can help with true-prevention.  DO NOT EXPECT
ANYTHING OF THEM.

    The effect of Raphaelson's staement -- was the recognition
that if any "preventing" was to be done, then:

1.  I must recognize that if I "want" true-prevention -- I
   MUST DO IT MYSELF -- UNDER MY OWN CONTROL.

2.  The M.O.  Optometrist satisfies MOST PEOPLE becase MOST
   PEOPLE have no interest in their distant vision AT ALL!  If you
   EVER attempt to help them UNDERSTAND plus-prevention -- they get
   VERY ANGRY at you -- for attempting to help them with PREVENTION.

3.  Some issues like this MUST BE DECIDED BY THE PERSON
   HIMSELF.

    +++++++++++++++

    If the above is UNDERSTOOD, and the person is not "too deep",
(i.e., not yet BELOW 20/70 on the Snellen, and not DEPENDENT on
that minus) then a certain degree of vision-clearing is possible.

    But he must understand the issue of self-motiviation, and
have a rather intense desire to clear his vision under HIS
CONTROL.

    There is no "easy" way about this.  Just knowledge and common
sense -- and a realization of the fact that these M.O.    OD are
destructive of you long-term vision.  No intentionally, as the
above will SUGGEST, but destructive none the less.

    The real question is what you PERSONALLY are going to do
about it.

    AceMan -- this issues will be for your own children.  As you know,
some engineer-parents WISELY put their own children into a
preventive plus (with refractive state close to zero).  But it was
the PARENT and NOT THE OD who had the wisdom and
good sense to help his own children with true-prevention.
It the long run, the discussions on sci.med.vision will not matter
excessively.  What WILL MATTER, is the type of preventive
support you choose to use for your own children.

Success favors the PREPARED MIND.

    Best,

    Otis