Dear Dicky,

I have friends in optometry and ophthalmolgy.

I set "professional limitations. I define this
as follows.

I DO NOT deal with the great mass of
humanity walking in off the street.

The public wants that "instantly sharp" vision,
and so it is provided. That is "optometry" and
that is how it has been for at least the last
150 years. I do not propose to "chage" it.

In fact Dr. Raphaelson spelled this out
with stark clarity in "The Printer's Son",
there the plus was indeed successful,
and the parents -- not understanding
the necessity of it -- totally rejected
this intelligent use of the plus -- for
prevention. That DEFINES but the
problem -- and the fact that these
ODs can never achieve a "solution".

But I simply report the fact that the
nautural eye is a dynamic device,
and is a "control system". When
you respect the natural eye is this
manner, then you get accurate
scientific results. But that becomes
a matter of judgment of the scientists
who are conducting this type of review.

This respect for scientific facts, however
can never be "reduced" to a matter
of dealing with the general public -- and
I don't propose to do it.

My proposal was for my immediate relatives
who had the insight to "work" the preventive
measure -- and personally verify their
vision as passing all legal VA requirements.
This they did. It certainly was not easy,
and reflected on their motivation in
this issue. The REAL SKILL and ability
was in them.

To further respond:


Dick> P.S. My guess has been that myopia is due in part (probably
mostly) to stretching of anatomical elements which succeed in
the well-functioning eye to keep its relaxed focus at infinity.

Otis> It is just easier to say that when you
take a population of primate eyes -- and place
them in a more-confined environment, the
refraction of the "confined" primates
moves in the direction and approximate
magnitude of the "confined" environment -- in diopters.
This is a NATURAL process -- and can be
verified by any scientists who wishes to make
this meaurement effort of the NATURAL eye's
behavior. That is just the way it is.
This is an expected result -- there is no
surprise to is. It would be very surprising
if this result DID NOT OCCUR.


Dick> That stretching, once beyond the elastic limit of said elements,
would not likely be reversible.

Otis> That is true. The only possiblity is
prevention -- as suggested by the
scientific work of the Oakley-Young study.


Dick> Thus, my proposal for positive
lenses would be preventative, not therapeutic.

Otis> That is my position also. It puts "responsibility"
on the person himself to make THAT kind of
choice. Not easy at all. But the consequences
of NOT doing it are as you state.


Dick> It is for reading
glasses, positive with respect to the distance correction, based
on a competent prescription to correct refractive errors, and
prisms to point the eyes straight ahead when focused on the
work (converge at infinity).

Otis> It is my belief that a person educated as
to the true-facts concerning the natural eye's
behavior -- can teach himself how to use the
plus. I believe that the "prisms" are not
necessary -- and very cumberson. It is hard
enough to help the person understand
this type of choice -- indeed. Most people
will not respond to this -- at all. So
the ODs have NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

Dick> I do not imagine I am the first to propose that.

Otis> It is not difficult to propose a preventive solution -- under
the person's control. The "reality" is that most people
have NO INTEREST in "protecting" their distant vision,
and so eventually, there is no choice but to
wear a minus lens -- when the eye-chart
goes below 20/50 or so.


As always, the issue is more a preception that
the natural eye is a "dynamic" system, rather
than a "medical" preception. Please
enjoy our pleasant analytic reviews of the
natural eye's proven behavior.
(In terms of measured refractive-state -- not
in terms of "error".)

Best,

Otis

so the point is that excessive accommodative stress does not induce
myopia, or hyperopes would all become less hyperopic. they don't, and
in fact at middle age they usually reveal increased hyperopia.

another point-- why do uncorrected myopes, such as children who are
-1.50 and refuse to wear their glasses, become more myopic. if your
myopic then you don't stress your accommodative system so you wouldn't
expect them to get worse. yet they do, at the same rate as those who
do wear their glasses. same is true for kids who are given bifocal.

hell, kids who are given excessive minus lenses so they have to
overstress their accommodative mechanism also don't change any more
that those with their exact prescription.

are you getting the feeling that it's pretty clear that accommodative
stress doesn't play a role in myopia progression in humans? if so,
then you are already leagues ahead of our good buddy Otis.

"Mike Tyner" <mtyner[at]mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:0Cs6f.17744$vw6.14408[at]newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
- quote -

Well, I am a myope, and can't really speak for the hyperopes.

But I could hope, for them, that they would inelastically stretch
far enough, so that their eyes would come to rest at infinity. Then
their eyes would function normally, and they would not have to
work so hard to focus close.

But they can't do it. Or, if they did, you would not notice them
as hyperopes.

--
Dicky

On 2005-10-22, William Stacy <wstacy[at]obase.net> wrote:
- quote -

Ahhh, forgot about the current Harry Potter fad........

"Dick Adams" <bad.addr[at]nonexist.com> wrote

- quote -

If myopes "stretch" to read, then hyperopes "stretch" three or four or ten
times harder.

Shouldn't they get nearsighted?

-MT

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote in message news:1129949942.303139.234310[at]g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

- quote -


- quote -

OK, Otis, I'll do that. You must be doing something right, or
these eye guys would not hate you with such vigor.

Perhaps you might be interested in my latest theory:

Now that the pocket movie viewer is available, the next
thing will be the eyeglass viewer. The eye guys will be so
busy fitting these little viewers into eyeglasses that
refractive corrections will take a total back seat. Nobody
will care because the real world will totally disappear
behind movies. Maybe drivers watching movies as well
as gassing on cell phones.

Probably a good thing for the eye guys, because I am
guessing that they are all about to be obsoleted by the
next generation of autorefractors.

Thank you for your response.

--
Dicky

P.S. My guess has been that myopia is due in part (probably
mostly) to stretching of anatomical elements which succeed in
the well-functioning eye to keep its relaxed focus at infinity.
That stretching, once beyond the elastic limit of said elements,
would not likely be reversible. Thus, my proposal for positive
lenses would be preventative, not therapeutic. It is for reading
glasses, positive with respect to the distance correction, based
on a competent prescription to correct refractive errors, and
prisms to point the eyes straight ahead when focused on the
work (converge at infinity).

I do not imagine I am the first to propose that.

-d.

Dear Dicky,

Subject: Strong opinions -- strong resolve.

Re: Prevention (i.e., clearing from 20/60 to 20/30) is
indeed very difficult -- I believe that we all agree on that point.

Re: The only issue is that many say it is totally impossible,
while others suggest that it is possible.

To reply:

Otis> This depends on who is making the measurement.
When Dr. Colgate made the measurements he confirmed
his vision cleared. Opinions differ on this subject.


Dicky> What does "cleared" mean in this context.

Otis> "Cleared" in this context means that he
read his eye-chart at 20/70, and by INTENSIVE
use of a +2.5 diopter lens, slowly cleared
his distant vision to 20/20. (This result is
consistent to primate-eye studies -- as
the "second-opinion".)

Dicky> Do you mean that
he could read lower lines on the charts.

Otis> Exactly -- how else could you tell?

Dicky> At what distance?

Otis> Stirling Colgate has a Ph.D. in physics.
He knew the standard distance is 20 feet,
and the size of the letters.

Dicky> Was he reading through eyeglasses?

Otis> He "caught" his vision as stated,
and realized that he personally had to
take care of it himself. i.e., he realized the
nature of nearsighedness was the
NATURAL eye adapting its refractive
state to its average visual environment.
By ending the "near" environment with
a plus lens -- his distant vision slowly
cleared. This would only be possible
because the natural eye CONTROLS its
refractive state to its AVERAGE visual enviroment.

You might enjoy reading his commentary
on this preventive process on my site:

www.myopiafree.com

Best,

Otis

plew[at]csus_abcdefghij.edu wrote:


- quote -

wear them. It's a fashion statement. My own 9 yo granddaughter demands
glasses, even though she doesn't really "need" them, mostly because her
11 yo big sis got them.

w.stacy, o.d.

On 2005-10-21, William Stacy <wstacy[at]obase.net> wrote:
- quote -

I don't think an 8 yr old would be too enthusiastic about having to wear
glasses.

I recall my experiences when, at 8, I started to wear glasses & at some
point, was sent to live with my aunt for a half-year, after having
chicken pox.

The teacher at the new school made it mandatory that I wear my glasses which
I "sometimes forget" to bring it with me; was sent home to get it. I found
that I was able to take my time retrieving my glasses without reprimands when
it took me 1 or 2 hours to get them even tho it was only a 5 or 10 min walk.

I did find that "forgetting" my glasses was a highly "convienent" situation.
Kinda miss those "good old days" when I can "officially" miss school time
so often......

<otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote in message news:1129905724.849844.320430[at]z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

- quote -

Yer kiddin', right!!?

Can the monkeys learn how to read the Snellen charts?

- quote -

Not understood! Do you mean that the monkeys become
more nearsighted or more farsighted? How are the lenses
applied? (Will the monkeys wear eyeglasses?) What structure
of the eye changes to compensate the refractive change? Where
can I read about it?

- quote -

What does "cleared" mean in this context. Do you mean that
he could read lower lines on the charts. At what distance?
Was he reading through eyeglasses?

- quote -

Coke bottle optics are kinder. They give
the ants a fighting chance.

- quote -

It is hard to find eyeglasses good for zapping ants.

- quote -

We are going to get blasted by Dr. Leukoma.

--
Dicky