Dear Bill and Mike,

Subject: Prevention BEFORE ANY MINUS IS APPLIED.

What a excellent "bi-focal" study showed (always DENIED by the
majority-opinion group) is that a PROPER AND STRONG PLUS, (alone)
could be effective in the sense of prevention, BUT WITH THE
INTELLECTUAL INVOLVEMENT OF THE PERSON HIMSELF.

This is what I mean by PREVENT, or AVOID, and LIMITED TO NO MINUS
USED.

This means an "engineering compromise" -- THAT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD BY
THE PERSON HIMSELF.

This is why Stirling Colagete was successful.  This is why other
pilots (at the threshold) were successful.  They simply monitored
their Snellen -- and cleared it by dint of strong personal resolved.
Obviously an OD can't "make money" on these people, and the cost of
this type of true-prevention is only the cost of the "plus" they got
from the store.

But, I would like a second-opinion OD like Soon and Steve Leung
involved in this PREVENTIVE PROCESS.  That is the importance of Soon's
graph for the natural eye's behavior.

Further engineering/scientific response:

=========

Salmon Egg" <Salmon...@sbcglobal.net> wrote

Bill> I usually try to avoid far-fetched what if questions. But as you
can
tell from my previous posts, I do believe that at least some of what
Otis says is indeed true. If Soon's curves are indeed fact, what
conclusion can be drawn from them?

Tyner> Bifocals/plus lenses can easily stop myopia.

[ I have NEVER said this.  In fact, the use of the "minus" in the "bi-
focal" PREVENTS RECOVERY.  It is the plus ALONE that must be used,
consisten with the person being able to pass the 20/60 INITIALLY.  It
is critical that this process be UNDERSTOOD before that minus lens is
applied.  The Soon curve strongly suggests this.  OSB ]

2-diopter myopes will hardly ever get worse if they remove glasses for
near.

[ If the person is "wise", and personlly can commit to the plus (at
the 20/60 stage of FUNCTIONAL VISION) and just use the a plus at near,
he will never become a -2 diopter myope, and in the fact that he
clears his Snellen to pass the DMV line, he will require NO MINUS LENS
AT ALL -- EVER.  OSB ]

Tyner>  Overcorrecting would accelerate myopia.

[ From the primate, objective, scientific data -- oh, so true. OSB ]

Hyperopia would disappear.

[ Well you can't have BOTH a postive and negative refractive STATE for
the natrual eye.  OSB ]

Just a clarification of the concept of prevention -- before the
minus.

-MT

Bifocals/plus lenses can easily stop myopia.

2-diopter myopes will hardly ever get worse if they remove glasses for near.

Overcorrecting would accelerate myopia.

Hyperopia would disappear.

-MT

In article
<506b5261-3562-46e3-b01e-83107b701234@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

I usually try to avoid far-fetched what if questions. But as you can
tell from my previous posts, I do believe that at least some of what
Otis says is indeed true. If Soon's curves are indeed fact, what
conclusion can be drawn from them?

My escalating quarrel with Otis now is not with what he believes but
what he demonstrates. If it  can be demonstrated that Soon curves are
valid, I will be more strongly convinced that Otis's ideas have merit.
On the other hand, if it can be shown that these curves are without
merit, I am willing to change my belief. Otis has picked a subject that
certainly can help make him or break him, That is why I am so intrigued
by the topic.

Bill

No matter what Otis answers, if you look at Soon's site
http://www.geocities.com/soonicansee/

you will notice that he has no references for the graphs.  Also, we
don't know if there is an actual person named "Soon", the website is
called "Soon I Can See".  The webmaster does not identify himself, so
there is no way to know if he/she is a researcher.

Judy

This would be primarily aimed at Otis.

The Soon curve was first brought to my attention by Otis. At this time I
do not know if this is purported as actual measurement or not. Please
answer:

1.  Is the Soon curve as presented supposed to be experimental fact?
Yes/No

2.  Is the Soon curve as presented the way an experimental result is to
be expected? Yes/No

Bill

[some comments about the cost of obtaining copies of published papers]

You have strayed from the topic of this thread which is the
"Scientific Basis of Soon's Graph".  Interesting a Flitcrofts's paper
is, as I said in my previous post:

"Flitcroft states that poor accommodation function may lead to
increased myopia with near work.  He does not mention use of minus
lenses to correct myopia as a factor, nor does he say anything about
"stair case myopia", nor does his paper support Soon's Graph.

Poor accommodation function and steady state errors exist with or
without myopia and minus lenses.  Wearing plus at near will not
improve poor accommodation, nor will wearing minus make good function
turn into poor function.

And his paper is speculative, not measured.  Do you have any actual
measured evidence to support Soon's Graph?"

Judy

Dear Judy,

Subject:  Publication Costs.

As you know, there is an effort to get any "U.S. Goverment Funded
Study" to be published on the "net" -- for free.

The idea is that the taxpayer (You and I) have paid for it, why should
we  have to pay $30 for research we already paid for.

It would be easy to write this into funding requests to the National
Eye Institute.

In this case, however, I don't think this was the case.

I have received a copy of the paper by Flitcroft, and think it is
EXCELLENT.

I think that ANY SERIOUS PREVEIVE STUDY -- should be required to read
and discuss this paper -- before any preventive effort was started.

Thus the person could NEVER be considered a "subject", or a "patient",
but a co-reseacher in the science of the dynamic behavior of the eye
-- as he would measure it.

Science and second-opinion best,

Costs about $30 to read via Elsevier

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9797983

Subject: The Scientific Basis of Soon’s Graph.

Re:  Ophthalmologist D. I. Flitcroft’s Analytic Paper of the
Fundamental Eye's Dynamic Behavior

Soon’s graphs are simplification and clarification of developing
scientific and medical thinking about the behavior of the fundamental
eye.

Thus, while denied by the majority-opinion optometrists, they are
analyzed ophthalmologists.

For the record, here is the paper.  Since many of you don’t like the
concept of prevention, and to respect Dr. D. I. Flitcroft, let us just
call this the professional (preventive) second-opinion, and thus avoid
the endless personal attacks that have no place in science.

Perhaps this paper is on the “Web”.  Maybe some of you could find it?

VISION RESEARCH

PERGAMON

Vision Research 38 (1998) 2869 – 2879

A Model of the contribution of oculomotor and optical factors to
emmetropization and myopia.

D. I. Flitcroft

INSTITUTE OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
University College Dublin
60 Eccles Street
Dublin 7, Ireland

ABSTRACT:

The purpose of this work was to investigate quantitatively the
interactions between accommodation, vergence and a mechanism of
emmetropization driven by optical blur within the retinal image with a
view to developing a model that provides and explanation of both
normal emmetropization and near-work associated myopia…..

I would recommend that anyone who wishes to challenge Soon’s graph
(which is an extension of this paper, obtain the paper and READ IT.

Enjoy,

Otis