As always, your basic premise is correct.

It appears, though, that this person IS in business, in Malaysia, as
an optician:

Soon See, Optician
ReLeX Eyecare
56 Taman Bunga Matahari
32400 Ayer Tawar
Perak
Malaysia
Tel: 60-5-672-5619
A future office is planned close to Singapore.

http://www.myopia.org/ReLeX_Eyecare.gif

They claim to "prevent, control, reduce, and cure children's and
teenagers' nearsightedness."

The answer to the time-immemorial and critical question is simple: he/
she has offered no proof of efficacy and safety (that would comport
with internationally accepted standards), either.

It's a pretty good money maker, if you think about it.  According to a
longitudinal study ... posted BY Otis ... 85% of kids DON'T GET
myopia.

So ... if you gave every young patient Placebo, you'd still appear to
have an 85% cure rate.

Then -- just like Uncle Otie -- you blame the failures of the other
15% on their [laziness, immaturity, lack of personal resolve,
ignorance, lack of understanding of the "fundamental," natural eye as
a "dynamic system," etc., etc., etc.]

If you tried that HERE, people like ME WOULD do everything in our
legal power to see that your license was jeopardized.

But ... if you're Otis (selling books), or Steve Leung, or Fred
Deakins, or Soon See, or Alex Eulenberg ... you have nothing to
lose ... but income.

Hmm.

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