Getting Stronger: Discussion Forum

Discussion Topics => Rehabilitation => : OtisBrown August 16, 2014, 06:59:36 AM

: Our Review of Todd's Excellent Presentation.
: OtisBrown August 16, 2014, 06:59:36 AM
First: Todd had made a powerful statement about effective prevention of "negative status" for his natural eyes.

Second:  Nothing I say, should ever be construed as a criticism of Todd's presentation.  I will only add clarifications of some statements, and suggest why he was successful - and why a successful person must do all prevention and measurements himself.

Third:  I will be posting my commentary on Todd's slides - in due course.  It is rather obvious that anyone wishing prevention - must do it himself.  No one in medicine is "equipped" to do anything for you.  That is truly what makes plus-prevention so difficult.  Todd had broken though that intellectual block to progress.  Feel free to add your commentary - that is how we learn.

For the "newbie", I recommend watching Todd's success.  It is about 30 minutes of lecture, and 10 minutes of questions.


: Re: Our Review of Todd's Excellent Presentation.
: OtisBrown August 16, 2014, 03:31:20 PM
I think Todd's slide fully defines the problem of "long-term near" for the refractive state - of the dynamic and natural eye. 
What truly happened is that the natural eye, being dynamic, simply changes its refractive state in a negative direction. 

Becker, Slide 8>  A 1969 study of Eskimos found that myopia had increased dramatically since Western schooling was introduced.

I know that Todd did not have the time to fully discuss this issue, but here is the graphic.

The issue is choice of descriptive words.  Every time you call a natural refractive state a "medical error" you are jumping to a conclusion - not supported by scientific fact.

OK, here is the graphic.  Please note that refractive states can be positive (necessary for 20/20), or negative (in which case you have negative status - but the eye is not defective - just normal.)

We should have always expected the natural eye to be dynamic.  Why would it be otherwise?  But it does take real understanding to fully respect that prevention requires a person who FULLY understand this issue - and is willing to make the critical refractive state measurements himself.

That puts you in full control of (prevention) if you have the knowledge and fortitude to do it.  No optometrist is ever in a position to be of any help to you on this issue.  Science shows prevention is possible - up to 20/60 or so.  But it takes a wise, motivated person to do it.
: Re: Our Review of Todd's Excellent Presentation.
: Ydgrunite August 16, 2014, 04:02:07 PM
First: Todd had made a powerful statement about effective prevention of "negative status" for his natural eyes.

The presentation is not a statement about prevention, it is a statement about reversing myopia.  It is right there in the title: "Myopia: A Modern Yet Reversible Disease."

Your position on prevention is quite clear, but there is no need to make it seem like Todd is presenting the same view as you.

I enjoyed the presentation very much.  It is a lot to take in at one time for anyone who has never been told that myopia can be reversed, but I like that most slides that make claims have a journal refence listed at the bottom.  The web links at the end also allow people to explore these ideas further.

One improvement that I would suggest is on slide 36 ("How Long Before My Vision Improves").  The first bullet point says, "Be patient – it takes months to reverse a condition that was years in the making!"  That statement is misleading without any indication of what degree of myopia can be reversed and in what time period.  If someone has high myopia (> 6 D) and they think that they will completely reverse it in months, then they will be disappointed.  Although they can certainly see enough improvement in that time to convince them to keep at it.