Getting Stronger: Discussion Forum

Discussion Topics => Rehabilitation => Topic started by: OtisBrown on June 27, 2012, 03:37:54 PM

Title: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 27, 2012, 03:37:54 PM
Subject: When suggesting a new concept - you are certain to hear objection to plus-prevention.

I will attempt to answer or review some of these concerns.  Let me start by saying that anytime you put a lens on - you interfere with the AC:C ration.  You can not avoid that from happening.

AC = Accommodation-Convergence
C = Convergence

Those who suggest that there is a problem or risk in wearing the plus, must remember that if you do not, your vision (refractive state) goes down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year - for each year in school and college.  Thus you have a known fact - versus your wise choice to begin the plus before your Snellen goes below 20/40, and reafractive status of about -1 diopters.

Pilots over-come their fear - because they need their distant vision. Most people can not make that kind of educated choice. More on this subject by those who wish to contribute to the controversy.

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 27, 2012, 07:06:45 PM
Subject: Helping your child with plus-prevention.

I have no doubt that I "self-induced" negative status in my eyes. In fact any ophthalmologist can 'see this coming' - from the beginning.  The doctor who examined me when I was 6 years old - told my parents that I was GOING TO BECOME NEARSIGHTED? 1) How the hell did he know that and 2) Why did he not SAY SOMETHING??

First, if you measure a child's refractive state - as I showed you how to do it - and you measure 0.0 diopters  - that child will become myopic, at a rate of -2/3 diopter per year.  That is issue #1.  He was absolutely correct.  All the studies SHOW THIS.  (Existing bi-focal studies).

Second, why did he not say anything??  The answer is more difficult.

a) It would have meant that I  would have had to start wearing a +2.5 - when my distant vision was in fact 20/20.  That seems to be an IMPOSSIBLE ISSUE THAT THE PUBLIC CAN NEVER UNDERSTAND.  That leads to
b) Prevention is not a medical issue or problem - at all.  Why is that.
c) Because the optometrist can be accused of screwing up the AC:C ratio - and that would "mess your eyes permanently" - maybe even making you go blind - or the plus could "cause catracts". So:
d) NEVER expect any OD or MD to VOLUNTEER to you that  your child's refractive state of zero - is going to lead to stair-case myopia through the school years.

This greatly improves MY UNDERSTANDING - of why Todd had to do prevention all by himself.
Do any of you think I an kidding about this issue of "medical silence"?
Thanks!
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on June 27, 2012, 11:16:54 PM
Otis can you please explain

Quote
Because the optometrist can be accused of screwing up the AC:C ratio - and that would "mess your eyes permanently" - maybe even making you go blind - or the plus could "cause catracts".


AC:C ration undersstand what about others

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 28, 2012, 08:58:38 AM
Hi Proh,

I am not sure what you mean, "... about others".  It depends on WHO you talk to and their qualifications.  Here is a woman (who promotes Bates) who states that the wearing of a plus lens, "..causes cataracts".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8J1vhCt3SM&list=UU8f8jhrxbwrHc-4v0fz7qcQ&index=9&feature=plcp

If you think that wearing a plus, "causes cataracts" - then don't wear the plus.  Same with the AC:C ratio.

I have attempted to show a rational basis for preventing negative status for the fundamental eye.  The ODs/MDs think prevention (of that -2/3 diopter is IMPOSSIBLE). They simply state that, "its heredity" ... ) and that should answer all your questions and problems.

The "fear factor" in a person is great.  I don't know how to deal with that issue.


Otis can you please explain

Quote
Because the optometrist can be accused of screwing up the AC:C ratio - and that would "mess your eyes permanently" - maybe even making you go blind - or the plus could "cause catracts".


AC:C ratio undersstand what about others

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on June 28, 2012, 10:12:46 AM
Hi Otis, this is the AC:C ratio you are talking about.  Any views on the AC:A ratio?  Usually that is the one I see in internet archives being questioned by Neil Brooks the most, although he also mentions CA:C (or AC:C) as you write it.  Peter

Hi Proh,

I am not sure what you mean, "... about others".  It depends on WHO you talk to and their qualifications.  Here is a woman (who promotes Bates) who states that the wearing of a plus lens, "..causes cataracts".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8J1vhCt3SM&list=UU8f8jhrxbwrHc-4v0fz7qcQ&index=9&feature=plcp

If you think that wearing a plus, "causes cataracts" - then don't wear the plus.  Same with the AC:C ratio.

I have attempted to show a rational basis for preventing negative status for the fundamental eye.  The ODs/MDs think prevention (of that -2/3 diopter is IMPOSSIBLE). They simply state that, "its heredity" ... ) and that should answer all your questions and problems.

The "fear factor" in a person is great.  I don't know how to deal with that issue.


Otis can you please explain

Quote
Because the optometrist can be accused of screwing up the AC:C ratio - and that would "mess your eyes permanently" - maybe even making you go blind - or the plus could "cause catracts".


AC:C ratio undersstand what about others

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on June 28, 2012, 10:19:00 AM
Otis - I think you sent the wrong youtube link.  The woman in this youtube link shows talks about her eye convergence problem being caused by a bad chiropractor who mis-treated her with some neck adjustments.  It talks about her using Bates to help her overcome double-vision, although she still gets episodes of double vision.  Very interesting testimony about a chirpractic incident.  Peter

Hi Proh,

I am not sure what you mean, "... about others".  It depends on WHO you talk to and their qualifications.  Here is a woman (who promotes Bates) who states that the wearing of a plus lens, "..causes cataracts".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8J1vhCt3SM&list=UU8f8jhrxbwrHc-4v0fz7qcQ&index=9&feature=plcp

If you think that wearing a plus, "causes cataracts" - then don't wear the plus.  Same with the AC:C ratio.

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 28, 2012, 12:34:00 PM
Hi Peter,

This Clark-Night/ Mary person has attacked me several times because I SUGGEST the use of the plus when you are at 20/40 - and -1 diopter.

Here is Don Rehm's site - where she posts against the pluls.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuC7a1lkrk&feature=relmfu

This is your typical patient - sorry to say.

It take real motivation and intelligence to wear the plus with the dedication it takes - just to get out of 20/40 vision.

Otis



Otis - I think you sent the wrong youtube link.  The woman in this youtube link shows talks about her eye convergence problem being caused by a bad chiropractor who mis-treated her with some neck adjustments.  It talks about her using Bates to help her overcome double-vision, although she still gets episodes of double vision.  Very interesting testimony about a chirpractic incident.  Peter

Hi Proh,

I am not sure what you mean, "... about others".  It depends on WHO you talk to and their qualifications.  Here is a woman (who promotes Bates) who states that the wearing of a plus lens, "..causes cataracts".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8J1vhCt3SM&list=UU8f8jhrxbwrHc-4v0fz7qcQ&index=9&feature=plcp

If you think that wearing a plus, "causes cataracts" - then don't wear the plus.  Same with the AC:C ratio.

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 28, 2012, 05:37:45 PM
Subject: Does the NIH believe in, or do they conduct true PREVENTION studies?

No, they spend massive amounts of money to RESEARCH WHAT THEY DO IN THEIR OFFICE.  But, since prevention MUST involved the intelligence and resolve of the person - outside the office - it is considered IMPOSSIBLE.  This is true "office myopia". But here is the proof of this "mind set" for your interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlrrc2Zq8Hs

I truly don't blame them - but it comes down to YOU realizing that  fact.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on June 28, 2012, 06:17:45 PM
I misunderstood your original message to Proh. Thought you meant the video said plus causes cataracts.

I had found her posts about plus/cataracts months ago.  I just went and searched them out again.

However, you did not fairly quote her Otis.  Unless you can show it to me somewhere, she doesn't say "plus lenses cause cataracts".  What she said on some message boards is that "plus lenses ***may*** cause cataracts".  Big difference. She then states 2 different people she knew where it occured.  With one of them she says, the person stopped using plus, went to Bates, and cataracts disappeared.   I remember many months ago looking for any other links between plus and cataracts after coming across her comments, and didn't seem to find them anywhere and dropped that search.

Hi Peter,

This Clark-Night/ Mary person has attacked me several times because I SUGGEST the use of the plus when you are at 20/40 - and -1 diopter.

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 28, 2012, 08:24:08 PM
Hi Peter,

There are a lot of strange people in this world - no doubt about it.  I hope you watched her video.  I am an engineer. I am BLESSED!  I do not have to think about, nor deal with such people.  But anyone with a medical title MUST ACCEPT, TALK, AND REASON WITH THESE PEOPLE. That is beyond my purview.  I bless these doctors, and think about such people - and WALK AWAY FROM IT. There is no reason why I should ever be involved.

This is why you will never hear me say, "CURE", of ANYTHING. I say "dynamic eye" having (potentially) a negative STATE, which, with wisdom (in the person himself) can slowly be changed from a value of -1/2 diopter to a value of +1/4 diopter - if the person is willing to make long-term systematic use of the plus, and also measure his own refractive status HIMSELF.

It is clear that the only people who are successful - are the ones who do not involve themselves with medical people. (With GREAT respect to medical people). I now know your refractive STATE is about -1/2 to -1 diopter (and you pass the DMV at 20/40).

AS PURE SCIENCE, and if it were me, I would wear the plus 2.5 and PUSH MYSELF - to see if I could get that +3/4 diopter chage in my refractive state. But I am not you - so I don't know what you will do.

If you wanted to be a pilot, and your career was worth $100,000 per year - I think your motivation would be very strong.  I truly respect your intelligence, and YOU obtaining your own "Trial Lens" set.  It is now all up to you!

There is no threat to anything - from wearing the plus.  But even so, it is very hard to make a long-term commitment to doing it. That is the real difficulty of prevention under YOUR control

Best,




I misunderstood your original message to Proh. Thought you meant the video said plus causes cataracts.

I had found her posts about plus/cataracts months ago.  I just went and searched them out again.

However, you did not fairly quote her Otis.  Unless you can show it to me somewhere, she doesn't say "plus lenses cause cataracts".  What she said on some message boards is that "plus lenses ***may*** cause cataracts".  Big difference. She then states 2 different people she knew where it occured.  With one of them she says, the person stopped using plus, went to Bates, and cataracts disappeared.   I remember many months ago looking for any other links between plus and cataracts after coming across her comments, and didn't seem to find them anywhere and dropped that search.

Hi Peter,

This Clark-Night/ Mary person has attacked me several times because I SUGGEST the use of the plus when you are at 20/40 - and -1 diopter.

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on June 29, 2012, 01:31:22 AM
Otis

you can understand that whenever we try something new we always have to overcome fear of unkown & unfavorable


Also want to know that You always limits to 20/50 . If some is dropped below ( say -3 to 4D ) then what is your view on reversal.

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 29, 2012, 03:37:30 AM
Hi Proh,

I truly rely on scientific tests of the primate eye - having refractive states.  Using words like "failure" to describe natural refractive states - causes total mis-communication of the objective facts.  Thus Peter has a mild negative status - of about -3/4 diopters.  The issue for him, is this, can he change that status by 1) NOT wearing a minus lens (consistent with safety) 2) Wearing a +2 to +2.5 diopters (for near - when near is clear for him) 3) Keep this up for six months - as a scientific experiment.

If Peter has good reason to do this - then I think he can change his refractive state (objectively measured) by about +3/4 diopters in nine months (from -3/4 diopter to 0.0 diopters. THEN his Snellen will be clear (read the 20/20 line).  From the data from an OD - I limit that "clearing" to that rate.

Remember kids go down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. Thus if you are at -6 diopters, you MIGHT be able to work your way out in 6 to 12 years.  By my question is this - why not STOP IT AT -3/4 DIOPTERS.

We know Todd worked his way out of -3 diopters. I don't know what Todd's Snellen is, but I assume he passes the State DMV test. That is all that matters. I don't make predictions about WHO can  get out of it - or from what "LEVEL".  That is where I "draw the line".  For reference, here is an OD that SLOWLY got out of -3 diopters.  Her "improvement rate" was +1/2 diopters per year.  That is the only statement I will make or support.

http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/od-success/

This is like "selling weight loss".  If a person is not "successful" in a few months - he says "diet never works".

Best,



Otis

you can understand that whenever we try something new we always have to overcome fear of unkown & unfavorable


Also want to know that You always limits to 20/50 . If some is dropped below ( say -3 to 4D ) then what is your view on reversal.

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 29, 2012, 08:39:31 AM
Hi Proh and Peter,
Subject: Talking to a "tough-minded" engineer - who is passionate about prevention-only.

I would like to have a person talk to me when I was at 20/50, and about -1 diopters - AND EXPLAIN MY CHOICE TO ME.  Like Peter,  I would like to be shown that my Snellen is 20/50, and have it explained to me (assuming age 16) that, the natural eye goes down by -1/2 diopter per each year in school.  Then I would want to MEASURE MY REFRACTIVE STATE MYSELF.

Then I would want to be told how VERY easy it is to "fix" a person - and send him away, "happy".  Then, I would  want to understand that - THAT IT THE LAST CHANCE I HAVE TO "WORK" TRUE-PREVENTION - under *my* control.

I might ask - why do you want me to "fix" my eye by wearing a "plus" for near - when my "problem" is in the distance!!  (That does require a very intelligent, wise man.)  If the reason is clear as to WHY I should NOT WEAR THE MINUS (with passing the 20/50), and I had a STRONG REASON to get to naked eye 20/20 (with the plus) *I* would do it myself.

But that "strong persistent drive" to keep up wearing the plus - and understand this "subtle logic" (of not fixing the obvious) is totally missing in most people. 

It is not there intelligence (so much) - it is just that they have no interest.  I accept that truth as the reason few people will "commit" to wearing the plus when it could be effective for them.

Best,
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on June 29, 2012, 07:07:22 PM
The main issue most of us have Otis, is that it doesn't make sense with all the national jurisdictions all over the world that not one jurisdiction has second-opinion eye doctors who will offer their patients to consider the treatment plan of wearing a strong plus.  A medical doctor gives an overweight person or even others who are not overweight advice on how to eat, excercise, and rest in order to prevent obesity and remain healthy.  That is why I find it very challenging to understand the reason ODs that believe in the power of the strong plus do not offer that advice except to their children for fear of losing their licence or being sued.  Especially in the US, where such a pool of ODs could I am sure sue in some sort of federal class-action lawsuit allowing them to offer their medical advice as far as vision correction is concerned.

Patients who go to see a behavioral optometrist in order to try to prevent myopia end up getting advice that has been shown in scientific studies to be ineffective at treating myopia.  I've read industry advice, which essentially says, if you are considering vision traiinig ask the OD to show you the scientific studies that show the outcome will be favorable as well as how much it will cost.  I have no doubt a behavioral optometrist would perscribe a strong plus if they believed in its effectiveness as well.  So, it doesn't make sense to me.  You would figure somewhere there is a national jurisdiction with a group of eye doctors who band together and decide to do the right thing.  But we can not find them the world over. 

By the way, my behavioral optometrist does use the strong plus in certain situations, just doesn't perscriibe it.  For example, sometimes I will wear a +2 for certain excercises at the office.  Then there are the flippers that I use for tiring out my accomodative response.  Usually +2/-2, but was told when it gets too easy perhaps I will need to go larger - either +2.5/-2.5, +3/-3 etc.

Hi Proh and Peter,
Subject: Talking to a "tough-minded" engineer - who is passionate about prevention-only.

I would like to have a person talk to me when I was at 20/50, and about -1 diopters - AND EXPLAIN MY CHOICE TO ME.  Like Peter,  I would like to be shown that my Snellen is 20/50, and have it explained to me (assuming age 16) that, the natural eye goes down by -1/2 diopter per each year in school.  Then I would want to MEASURE MY REFRACTIVE STATE MYSELF.

Then I would want to be told how VERY easy it is to "fix" a person - and send him away, "happy".  Then, I would  want to understand that - THAT IT THE LAST CHANCE I HAVE TO "WORK" TRUE-PREVENTION - under *my* control.

I might ask - why do you want me to "fix" my eye by wearing a "plus" for near - when my "problem" is in the distance!!  (That does require a very intelligent, wise man.)  If the reason is clear as to WHY I should NOT WEAR THE MINUS (with passing the 20/50), and I had a STRONG REASON to get to naked eye 20/20 (with the plus) *I* would do it myself.

But that "strong persistent drive" to keep up wearing the plus - and understand this "subtle logic" (of not fixing the obvious) is totally missing in most people. 

It is not there intelligence (so much) - it is just that they have no interest.  I accept that truth as the reason few people will "commit" to wearing the plus when it could be effective for them.

Best,

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 29, 2012, 07:34:55 PM

Hi Peter,

As always, you ask wise questions.  As always - I never say "cure". It should be clear that I agree that ODs can not CHARGE MONEY FOR PREVENTION.  Further, the word "cure" remains a problem.  But then that is indeed an honest disagreement.  This opinion comes from my conversation with Raphaelson and HIS prescription of the plus. (But parent a child had NO CLUE AS TO WHY WEARING THE PLUS WOULD BE WISE - AND HAVE TO BE CONTINUED AS LONG AS THE CHILD WAS IN SCHOOL.)  This statement convinced me that PREVENTION (versus cure) had to be in the mind and by the wisdom of the person himself.  I regret that I can never put that kind of "wisdom" in a person's brain.  I do not consider prevention (at 20/40 and -3/4 diopters) to be medical in any sense of the word.  It will always be PERSONAL. We will consider COSTS and TIME to do this also.


Peter> Patients who go to see a behavioral optometrist in order to try to prevent myopia end up getting advice that has been shown in scientific studies to be ineffective at treating myopia.

Otis> AFTER they are severly myopic. I has stipulated that is TOTALLY TRUE. We are not talking about "treating myopia", but rather PREVENTING ENTRY before a negative status goes below -1 diopters.  Only in that range do I judge that "recovery" is possible. BUT only if the person has considerable force-of-character to make continous use of the plus. Given this severe nature of "wearing the plus" - it is clear that the public will have NO PART OF IT.

Peter>  I've read industry advice, which essentially says, if you are considering vision traiinig ask the OD to show you the scientific studies that show the outcome will be favorable as well as how much it will cost.

Otis> If you have the wisdom to relize that UNDER OD CONTROL - the COST WILL BE HUGE.  By if you figure out how to INTENTIONALLY DO IS YOURSELF - the COST IN 1) Price of your own test lenses 2) Snellen chart 3) VERY STRONG, CONTINUED RESOLVE.  As far as I am concerned, no OD will be ever able to do this - tragic but so, so true.

Peter> I have no doubt a behavioral optometrist would perscribe a strong plus if they believed in its effectiveness as well.

Otis>  I have said, it is only POTENTIALLY effective if used by the wisdom of the PILOT himself - WHO TRULY REALIZES THAT THIS TYPE OF TOTAL COMMITMENT CAN NEVER BE PRESCRIBED. 

Peter -  I will post the remarks by Raphaelson (who had the greatest interest in THRESHOLD PREVENTION WITH PLUS) and the parents reaction - AFTER THE PLUS WAS SUCCESSFUL.

Best,

Otis





The main issue most of us have Otis, is that it doesn't make sense with all the national jurisdictions all over the world that not one jurisdiction has second-opinion eye doctors who will offer their patients to consider the treatment plan of wearing a strong plus.  A medical doctor gives an overweight person or even others who are not overweight advice on how to eat, excercise, and rest in order to prevent obesity and remain healthy.  That is why I find it very challenging to understand the reason ODs that believe in the power of the strong plus do not offer that advice except to their children for fear of losing their licence or being sued.  Especially in the US, where such a pool of ODs could I am sure sue in some sort of federal class-action lawsuit allowing them to offer their medical advice as far as vision correction is concerned.

Patients who go to see a behavioral optometrist in order to try to prevent myopia end up getting advice that has been shown in scientific studies to be ineffective at treating myopia.  I've read industry advice, which essentially says, if you are considering vision traiinig ask the OD to show you the scientific studies that show the outcome will be favorable as well as how much it will cost.  I have no doubt a behavioral optometrist would perscribe a strong plus if they believed in its effectiveness as well.  So, it doesn't make sense to me.  You would figure somewhere there is a national jurisdiction with a group of eye doctors who band together and decide to do the right thing.  But we can not find them the world over. 

By the way, my behavioral optometrist does use the strong plus in certain situations, just doesn't perscriibe it.  For example, sometimes I will wear a +2 for certain excercises at the office.  Then there are the flippers that I use for tiring out my accomodative response.  Usually +2/-2, but was told when it gets too easy perhaps I will need to go larger - either +2.5/-2.5, +3/-3 etc.

Hi Proh and Peter,
Subject: Talking to a "tough-minded" engineer - who is passionate about prevention-only.

I would like to have a person talk to me when I was at 20/50, and about -1 diopters - AND EXPLAIN MY CHOICE TO ME.  Like Peter,  I would like to be shown that my Snellen is 20/50, and have it explained to me (assuming age 16) that, the natural eye goes down by -1/2 diopter per each year in school.  Then I would want to MEASURE MY REFRACTIVE STATE MYSELF.

Then I would want to be told how VERY easy it is to "fix" a person - and send him away, "happy".  Then, I would  want to understand that - THAT IT THE LAST CHANCE I HAVE TO "WORK" TRUE-PREVENTION - under *my* control.

I might ask - why do you want me to "fix" my eye by wearing a "plus" for near - when my "problem" is in the distance!!  (That does require a very intelligent, wise man.)  If the reason is clear as to WHY I should NOT WEAR THE MINUS (with passing the 20/50), and I had a STRONG REASON to get to naked eye 20/20 (with the plus) *I* would do it myself.

But that "strong persistent drive" to keep up wearing the plus - and understand this "subtle logic" (of not fixing the obvious) is totally missing in most people. 

It is not there intelligence (so much) - it is just that they have no interest.  I accept that truth as the reason few people will "commit" to wearing the plus when it could be effective for them.

Best,

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 29, 2012, 07:42:17 PM
Peter - This explains to me - why any OD can never 'prescribe prevention'.  Even the most SINCERE person can not do it.

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.

++++
The percentage of "incipient myopes" in 1904 was probably about 9 percent.  That was when school started at age 6. But today, kids start much younger - and stay in school far longer.  Today the percentage of "myopes" runs about 70 percent in optometry colleges - and for the general population.

The basic use of a "minus" was started by Johann Kepler in 1610 (a rational analysis - box camera image) was provided by this insightful man. He did 16 years of intense close work and induced negative status in his natural eye. Of course, he found that if he held up a minus lens it "sharpened" his distant vision. So he used it. The basic philosophy of using a minus lens - HAS NOT CHANGED ONE IOTA SINCE THEN.

Best,

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 30, 2012, 03:25:54 AM
HI Proh,

Subject:  Here is a man who cleared his vision to normal.

AN ENGINEER'S UNEXPECTED SUCCESS

Perhaps the most surprising and encouraging result to be achieved was accomplished by accident. Because of my long-term experience with the experimental data, I knew that recovery -- on the average -- would be slow. Anyone who attempts to use the plus lens wants to succeed. It makes sense to help people who have gotten into about 20/80. Any improvement will get you to 20/40, which passes the FAA 3rd class flying license. Recovery, if you are worse than 20/100, is difficult but possible. To present all the facts including surprising results, I asked Dennis to write a letter describing his efforts and ultimate result.

VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT VISION

Dennis Romich,

My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis Brown discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for restoring the myopic eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to attempt to use the plus lens, and see what would happen, since the approach seemed reasonable and much safer than any other method.

I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The lens was a +1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass for people who have lost their near vision.

I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus lenses which I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my vision worsened, and the Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens. My distance vision without prescription lenses was very bad through high school, college, and graduate school. The last professional check (Ophthalmologist) showed that my prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right eye) and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This is approximately 20/320 vision using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I would be classed as legally blind without my glasses.

As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed that my distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I purchased Otis' book, and checked my eyes against the eye chart. They were 20/30, which means I will pass the standard driver's license criteria of 20/40 or better without prescription lenses.

Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that most individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but he felt that returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe. Since I have done it successfully, I have no doubt that other individuals who have a similar problem could obtain similar results using Otis' recommended method of vision restoration.

I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in both Engineering and Business Administration.

++++++

Proh - some people can make a commitment to wearing the plus - persistently - and others can't do it. I can't predict who will and who will not.  That is the issue.

Best,



Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on June 30, 2012, 06:37:52 PM
Otis> As always, you ask wise questions.  As always - I never say "cure". It should be clear that I agree that ODs can not CHARGE MONEY FOR PREVENTION. 

Peter>  Why can they not charge money for prevention?  Since there are so many questions about how to use the strong plus forcefully.  There are some parents that take their kids to regular eye exams every year.  First sign of a change in the wrong direction, the OD who is interested in the strong plus, advises the potential way to prevent with a strong, forceful plus.  Then the same OD explains that there have been some cases where negative side effects have occured.  People would be naturally concerned of possible negative effects.  It seems like an easy sell for 3 or 4 follow up sessions when the therapy is started, once per week just to be vigilent.  Then less regular visits. Of course, even without discussing potential side effects, the fact that you must use the strong plus correctly else you will not experience the benefit indicates that there are potential follow up visits just to discuss that, show proper reading distance, discuss proper computer setup, etc.  And then if you go the route of a snellon and test lenses, surely a professional would be able to give you confidence you are doing it right and there would be value in that?

Otis>  Further, the word "cure" remains a problem.  But then that is indeed an honest disagreement.  This opinion comes from my conversation with Raphaelson and HIS prescription of the plus. (But parent a child had NO CLUE AS TO WHY WEARING THE PLUS WOULD BE WISE - AND HAVE TO BE CONTINUED AS LONG AS THE CHILD WAS IN SCHOOL.)  This statement convinced me that PREVENTION (versus cure) had to be in the mind and by the wisdom of the person himself.  I regret that I can never put that kind of "wisdom" in a person's brain.  I do not consider prevention (at 20/40 and -3/4 diopters) to be medical in any sense of the word.  It will always be PERSONAL. We will consider COSTS and TIME to do this also.

Peter>  Remember, I assume you met Raphaelson around the time that applying plus was gaining some support among the alternative (second opinion) practitioners.  Case in point, Paul Harris' father, who Paul Harris says "he gave me plus, and kept upping it because that was the idea at the time".  I think you mentioned Raphaelson was quite elderly at the point you met him, so I am assuming he had not been practicing for a while.  As I understand it, there were optometrists in the 60s who decided to explore the use of the plus much like Paul Harris' father.  Paul Harris does state it was the idea at the time.

Otis> AFTER they are severly myopic. I has stipulated that is TOTALLY TRUE. We are not talking about "treating myopia", but rather PREVENTING ENTRY before a negative status goes below -1 diopters.  Only in that range do I judge that "recovery" is possible. BUT only if the person has considerable force-of-character to make continous use of the plus. Given this severe nature of "wearing the plus" - it is clear that the public will have NO PART OF IT.

Peter>  The public will have a part of it, including parents, if a second opinion OD discusses it with them. Maybe not a large percentage of parents will follow through, but I would expect with the advice, and with a good plan offered by the OD, a significant number would try.  And of course, I would expect many to fail.  Just like many do not get obesity under control and eventually resort to gastric surgery of some sort.

Otis> If you have the wisdom to relize that UNDER OD CONTROL - the COST WILL BE HUGE.  By if you figure out how to INTENTIONALLY DO IS YOURSELF - the COST IN 1) Price of your own test lenses 2) Snellen chart 3) VERY STRONG, CONTINUED RESOLVE.  As far as I am concerned, no OD will be ever able to do this - tragic but so, so true.

Peter>  Cost may be huge, but wouldn't some (like myself) be predisposed to paying up?  A weekly OD training session of 30 minutes costing $75?  People will pay as much for their personal training fitness needs or for a tutor for their child.  If you really desire good natural eyesight for the distance, many would pay up even though it would be considered a waste of money to others.

Peter> I have no doubt a behavioral optometrist would perscribe a strong plus if they believed in its effectiveness as well.

Otis>  I have said, it is only POTENTIALLY effective if used by the wisdom of the PILOT himself - WHO TRULY REALIZES THAT THIS TYPE OF TOTAL COMMITMENT CAN NEVER BE PRESCRIBED. 

Peter>  But like I said, just like a personal fitness trainer teaches someone initially how to work out, gives them encouragement to keep it up regularly, as well as offers advice on nutrition.  Why is it that you can not apply that same theory to the pilot himself?  Particularly, since his livelihood is on the line?  Why wouldn't there be support groups, or people that have helped hundreds in a similar boat, and who the pilot would rely on for their expertise to ensure they are following the technique correctly?

Peter>  By the way Otis, I am not trying to engage you to change your opinion.  Rather, I am just spelling out some logical questions which do not make sense.   I believe most people who have searched the same way I have, have the same difficulty.  You have clearly said that an OD can not do prevention, and I understand your message.  It just doesn't make sense to me. My OD in fact, argued with my friend who had brought in her child with -.5 perscriptions that were just perscribed 4 weeks earlier and convinced her to reject them and start using a perscribed +1 lens instead.  Maybe not a strong plus, but it sure smells like prevention to me, although not the way you define it.  And considering my friend had told me when she got the -.5 that "they were needed, couldn't see the board in school anymore", I think that was a classic example of how the public can accept and not be thought of as not wanting any part of prevention even the way you describe it.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on June 30, 2012, 07:59:38 PM
Hi Peter,
I will respond to your statements - but first I wanted to show what I learned from Raphaelson:

I appreciate the sincerity of your statements - as I listened to Jacob Raphaelson at age 95.  I had asked myself if ANY OD could "figure it out", and wanted to hear what he had to say. (I was interested in developing the SCIENCE, behind true prevention - and agreed that ONLY prevention was possible.)  You say so easily that an OD should do SOMETHING.  But I truly think the real "hang up" is in the person himself. It is for him to over-come HIS fear of the plus, and to understand that ONLY LONG-TERM WEAR WILL KEEP HIS DISTANT VISION CLEAR. (Remember the bifocal studies I presented?)  I truly don't think you can get out of it - if you start wearing a minus. In any event, I tried to "explain" this to my nephew.  Here ALL CREDIT IS TO HIM - for always wearing the plus before going to an OD. By always passing his Snellen - he never became "subject" to ODs.  I am not "hostile" to ODs, but this is about personal understanding and resolve.  The data shows that the plus must be REPEATEDLY RE-STARTED BY THE PERSON HIMSELF.  Here is my nephew's statement.

He started wearing the plus at age 13 - and now is doing some post-college work.  When he starts the close work - he notices the "blur" and that fires him up - to re-start the plus. Clearly this sensitivity to this need  - can not be prescribed.  Here is his statement from college:



YOU MUST TAKE CONTROL

From Jacob Raphaelson's experience with, "The Printer's Son", (Chapter 3), it has become clear that you must understand the bad results that occur when you use the negative lens. More than this, Jacob's analysis demonstrated that even a completely dedicated eye doctor can not overcome the popular misconceptions that exists in the public's mind about eye doctors and the use of the preventive lens.

I made a major effort to help my niece and nephew. They developed a clear understanding of the problem of nearsightedness and the type or solution that could be expected. I believe that providing them with a "fighting chance" to defeat the problem is better than providing no chance at all. Both used the plus lens and retained clear distant vision without prescription lenses. They understood that it would take long-term commitment to achieve the desired result. I asked my nephew to write a short note to describe his own effort and outcome as he worked to maintain clear distant vision through college.

FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WEARING A PLUS LENS

Dear Uncle,          February 19, 1990

     Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid
Nearsightedness".  I got it yesterday after I came back from the
weekend.  I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I
have a great deal of school work to read.

     I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that
one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check
my eyes with the eye chart.  I am able to read the 20/20 line on
the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most
of the time now.  I have always passed the driver's license eye
test.

     I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I
read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total
reading I do.  I started using them as much as possible again
because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I
didn't check them on a chart).  I am lucky to have an uncle who
showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my
nearsightedness.

     One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and
then use or adapt methods to work for me.  In the last few years I
have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the
magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to
deteriorate.  Then I realize it's time to do something to stop
that process.

     At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I
know what it does for my vision.  Thanks for taking the time to
tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for
the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending
me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the
methods I am using.

          Keith B.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on July 01, 2012, 09:54:15 AM
Peter,

About being in FEAR of the plus lens.

This is why "pilot motivation" can bring success.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/natvizim.html

He now flys 747s for islandic Air.  He did not argue about it- HE DID IT.

http://loh.nu/index.htm

Did an OD "prescribe" for him - or was he smart enough to figure this out for himself - and do it a NO COST AT ALL.

That is my point.

Best,
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on July 01, 2012, 05:47:23 PM
Peter,

Otis>  More about Raphaelson.  I met Raphaelson the Winter of 67 at his home. He had written up his idea of threshold prevention since 1904 - and later.  I wanted to LOOK THE MAN IN THE EYES.  He could have been TOTALLY WRONG. But maybe he was correct. How would I choose? How would I decide? Who is right? Who is wrong? What does TRUE SCIENCE have to say about the dynamic character of the fundamental, or natural eye. With that interview - let me respond about preventing negative STATUS for the totally natural eye - having refractive STATES - never "errors".

Peter>  Remember, I assume you met Raphaelson around the time that applying plus was gaining some support among the alternative (second opinion) practitioners. 

Otis> They never use the plus. In 1949, one man used a "minus" on top -and a plus on the bottom.  But that is a "half assed" answer. But still - I appreciate the thought. This allowed for a "plus" study about 1970.

Peter> Case in point, Paul Harris' father, who Paul Harris says "he gave me plus, and kept upping it because that was the idea at the time".

Otis> For his father, and son - yes, because it is indeed "family".  His son has excellent distant vision, and a refractive state of +3/4 diopters. That is a perfect success for the plus. But only his son was successful.

Peter>  I think you mentioned Raphaelson was quite elderly at the point you met him, so I am assuming he had not been practicing for a while. 

Otis> His son-in-law was an ophthalmologist named Felson.  Raphaelson's three daughters wore the plus, and were successful.

Peter> As I understand it, there were optometrists in the 60s who decided to explore the use of the plus much like Paul Harris' father.

Otis> You are mistaken.  The only ones who used the plus were the people we are taking about.  I am talking about the plus before the person's Snellen goes below 20/40.

Peter>  Paul Harris does state it was the idea at the time.

Otis> The "idea" - but pure hell to implement.

Best,

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on July 02, 2012, 03:21:43 AM
Dear Peter,

Subject: Some people seem to get the idea.

Here is the statement.  Dr. Kaisu is an ophthalmologist.

Best,

Otis

+++++


Dear Kaisu,
Dear Vesa,


  From May this year (2012), I have started the third year
of treatment with plus glasses.

My condition is good / stable.
Nothing has changed.

To be sincere, I can not even remember when was the last time
my eyes teared.
I am very satisfied / contented about the results.
Of course, one must have A LOT of PATIENCE, but the results
are very rewarding.

I will continue to wear the plus glasses and, as long as there are people
willing to listen, tell the good news of PREVENTING MYOPIA using PLUS LENS.


I hope you are both ok and in good shape.
I wish you pleasant summer holidays.

Lucian,
Onesti, Romania
============================================================
Year 3, Month 1 (24), May 2012
Year 3, Month 2 (25), June 2012

    Sleep good, eyes OK, vision normal
    overall mood / status: ok
Glasses:
-far          distance: +3.00
-intermediate distance: +4.00 / +3.50
-reading      distance: +4.50 / +4.00
-monitor/PC   distance: +2.50 / +3.00

Notes:- From May I started the third year of wearing plus lens glasses
              (May 2010 -> May 2012).
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on July 02, 2012, 04:29:20 AM
Hi Peter,

Here is Lucian's starting prescription of about -3 diopters.


http://www.kaisuviikari.com/testimonials.htm

For my purposes - getting to +3/4 diopters would be an outstanding success.

Best,


Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on July 02, 2012, 05:44:05 PM
Has he not already eliminated his nearsightedness given the strength of plus lenses he can use for seeing far, intermediate and near? 

Hi Peter,

Here is Lucian's starting prescription of about -3 diopters.


http://www.kaisuviikari.com/testimonials.htm

For my purposes - getting to +3/4 diopters would be an outstanding success.

Best,



Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on July 02, 2012, 06:48:46 PM
Hi Peter,

I posted his STARTING prescription, of greater-than -3 diopters. The *official* concept is that  you can not get your refractive status to change in a positive direction - by any method known to science.  So ANY recovery, is impossible, so you should just wear your over-prescribed minus all the time, and make no effort with the plus.

If you are a -2.5 diopter myope (as you were), the the concept is that you can not see clearly beyond about 18 inches.  If a -3 diopters, then you can't see beyond 13 inches. (Basic optics of a box-camera.)

So, if after heavy use of a plus, Lucian, and read at 20 inches through a +2, his refractive state must be on-the-order of +1 diopters.  Futher, if is retina is excellent, then his Snellen will be 20/30 to 20/20.  His refractive state is positive.  This is proof that then natural human eye - behaves like the natural primate eye.

I have sent a email to Lucian - to get further confirmation about these details.  I will post the response - with Lucian's concurrence.

Otis


Has he not already eliminated his nearsightedness given the strength of plus lenses he can use for seeing far, intermediate and near? 

Hi Peter,

Here is Lucian's starting prescription of about -3 diopters.


http://www.kaisuviikari.com/testimonials.htm

For my purposes - getting to +3/4 diopters would be an outstanding success.

Best,



Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on July 02, 2012, 06:55:17 PM
Peter,  For the record, here are Lucian's starting prescriptions. I always work with "Spherical Equivalent" for these comparisons - with other prescriptions.

 (2) September 2005 (Age: 23)

  Right eye: ‐5.00 sph, ‐2.50 cyl,  30 ax

  Left   eye:  ‐2.50 sph, ‐2.00 cyl, 120 ax

  Comment: Quit them after 1 month (were too strong).     

Right Eye = -6.25 (Sph. Equ.)

Left Eye = -3.5  (Sph. Equivalent)

If both eyes have a positive refractive status (measured with Snellen and trial-lens kit) - that is a profound success.

I will ask him to check his visual acuity at 6/6 if I can get in touch with him.

This result is similar to Todd's success in clearing his vision from -3 diopters to normal.

Best,
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on July 02, 2012, 10:11:16 PM
Hi Otis Peter


I want to add the the result of our old member "Jansen" of this forum reported on PVS .
He is now at 20/40 starting from 
June 2010: Right eye: -4.50, Left eye: -2.25 w/ +.5 astigmatism
need -0.5D for board in school.


http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?747-My-Improvements-in-a-Year&p=2968#post2968


Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on July 03, 2012, 04:37:00 AM
Dear Proh,

I did not know of that progress for Jansen.  Thanks!  For me, exceeding the DMV legal requirement - is very important.  It is very important that I personally check my visual acuity myself.

I further add, that I have enough knowledge to use some simple "check" lenses, so I can find the "minimum minus" that will give me 20/20, from 20/40.  (That way I can obtain any lens or glasses from Zennioptical for $7. 

I "see" a great amount of over-prescription - but I can never prove it.   This is how I would check - so that I control my eyes.

Further, once you get to the 20/50 to 20/40 range - the eye is very slow to go that last 1/2 diopters.  Some people get discouraged at that point, because they expect rapid success. 

Thanks for your post!


Hi Otis Peter


I want to add the the result of our old member "Jansen" of this forum reported on PVS .
He is now at 20/40 starting from 
June 2010: Right eye: -4.50, Left eye: -2.25 w/ +.5 astigmatism
need -0.5D for board in school.


http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?747-My-Improvements-in-a-Year&p=2968#post2968


Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on July 03, 2012, 04:39:16 AM
That is awesome!!!!!!!!

Hi Otis Peter


I want to add the the result of our old member "Jansen" of this forum reported on PVS .
He is now at 20/40 starting from 
June 2010: Right eye: -4.50, Left eye: -2.25 w/ +.5 astigmatism
need -0.5D for board in school.


http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?747-My-Improvements-in-a-Year&p=2968#post2968


Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on July 03, 2012, 08:23:18 AM
Hi Peter


I suggest you to look at this excersie which helps in improving double image.
http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?280-PVS-Video-tutorial-2-quot-Ocular-Stretching-exercise-fixing-a-point-quot

Or better is have a look at all of them .

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on July 03, 2012, 08:39:02 AM
Hi Peter and Proh,

I always like to publish a person's prescription.  Here is Lucian's record. Note: It is hard to read the prescription.  Also note the variation in measurements.

http://www.kaisuviikari.com/Testimonials/Lucian_Damoc_Romania_testimonial_2011.pdf

This is typical - that gross errors in measurement exist. This is why I taught myself how to measure my refractive status myself.  That way I don't get these errors.

Best,
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on July 03, 2012, 08:49:23 AM
Hi Otis


I have no idea how refractive index checked in US .
In India we go for auto refractor first to get only initial point. Then followed by subjective reading.
I do agree that  you may be prescribed at higher number but then it is quoted as 6/5 ( 20/17) .

I have never seen any prescription on autorefractor alone.

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on July 03, 2012, 06:42:09 PM
Thanks Proh.  Watched the video, and I will try it.  Trying to figure out how to watch all the vidoes on that site now that you pointed it out.  Doesn't seem obvious.  Peter

Hi Peter


I suggest you to look at this excersie which helps in improving double image.
http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?280-PVS-Video-tutorial-2-quot-Ocular-Stretching-exercise-fixing-a-point-quot

Or better is have a look at all of them .

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on July 03, 2012, 07:32:06 PM
Hi Peter

Please check at below link


http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?28-Video-Library


Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on July 04, 2012, 07:02:03 AM
Hi Peter and Proh,

Here is Lucian's site - and his ability to change his refraction from -6 diopters to +2 diopters (estimated).  A refractive state of zero is, for all practical purposes, 20/20 vision.

http://pluslens.wordpress.com/

So it can be done!
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on July 04, 2012, 08:30:42 AM
Hi Peter Otis


You have quite good understanding of this topic . I recommand you to read below paper which has done study to prove that defocus has impact on eyeball size. Its again coming from PVS site

http://www.iovs.org/content/51/12/6262.full

Let me know you comments

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on July 07, 2012, 08:16:25 PM
Hi Proh,
I like to summarize an idea or concept.  With out that, you have no idea what you are talking about - or doing.  There is one term I object to, it is "de-focus".  When you put a -1 diopters (assuming a normal eye, refractive status zero), you can read the 20/20 line CLEARLY. You can also read at 20 inches CLEARLY.  Therefore a lens does not "de-focus" the image on the retina.  What happens is that the accommodation system changes - to "take up the slack".  The lens, plus and minus were on for only 60 minutes - yet the change in eye-length has been measured.  This intimates, that 1) Long-term near, creates that first negative status for our eyes, i.e., it is in fact our "educated" environment that SLOWLY creates the 'long eye" and nearsightedness. This means that 2) In the short-term in an office, a minus "impresses", but it is primitive, and based on this data - can only make matters much worse.  But let me present the summary of the concept (paradigm) of this paper:

For a minus lens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLv7BIxnIU&feature=g-upl

The plus lens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPOjOFT0p1g&feature=g-upl

For a person at -1 diopter, and is prepared to make heavy commitment to a plus (when he can still read the 20/50 line - self-confirmed) the prevention is possible, for the exact reason confirmed in science.

But the real issue is not this science - which is very accurate, but our lack of ability to convince the person to AVOID THE MINUS, and always wear the plus when ever that person sits down to read.  This is a real exercise in personal intelligence and motivation.

I hope I have not "lost" you, but this is  how I visualize science.

Best, Otis



Hi Peter Otis


You have quite good understanding of this topic . I recommand you to read below paper which has done study to prove that defocus has impact on eyeball size. Its again coming from PVS site

http://www.iovs.org/content/51/12/6262.full

Let me know you comments

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 04, 2012, 09:51:30 AM
Peter's use of a plus lens - FYI:

Peter and I discussed the wise use of a plus, as well as the importance of checking your own Snellen chart.  I thought Peter would take wearing a plus seriously - i.e., with great consistency for MONTHS.  That works with pilots - because they ACTUALLY WEAR THE PLUS WITH THE DEDICATION REQUIRED.

I don't blame a person who does not wear the plus - but they you can hardly claim that it "does not work".

I respect Peter.  Here is his commentary for your interest.

+++++


Dr. Judy OD:

Based on your explanations below on what an optometrist can recommend, I thought
I'd outline a current scenario for me and whether there is any standard optical
practice deviation I could possibly expect.

Although I have not been using pluses, I did try however briefly to use them
many months back (for perhaps an hour 2 days in a row).

In any case, I have several times when measuring myself against my snellon put
on plus 1.25 standard readers, and attempted to see which lines I could bring
into focus. Based on your previous explanation of fusional vergence, I wanted
to ask you if that still makes sense for me.

A few times when I put on the +1.25 readers to look at the snellon, I have
succeeded into bringing into clarity the 20/25 line. Most of the time I will
bring into focus the 20/30 line as well. Again, this is brief (from 20 seconds
to a minute) that I am able to hold it. I suspect this aligns with fusional
stimulation helping me verge.

My question is whether my momentary ability to read the 20/25 line on the
snellon would in any way suggest that I might be able to improve my vision
further with less change of that double-vision at near risk you explained. You
also suggested earlier I may have taught myself how to constrict my pupils in
order to see at distance, and so this may be also be the +1.25 explanation as
well.

I guess it all comes back to the frustrating situation that I can only find out
within a research setup exactly what I am doing. If you have any
recommendations on someone with that setup that may be interested in seeing me,
please let me know. You can email me privately on that.

Thanks,
Peter
++++++

As always, if you don't take plus-prevention seriously, you obviously will see no "effect" at all.

Otis

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 04, 2012, 12:45:15 PM
Why I advocate the wearing of the plus - for chldren.

Why Peter rejects wearing the plus - for himself and for his child.

Here are the statistics.  For myself, I would want to be taught to use the plus, while still at 20/40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAiMkT4vn9E

This is always PERSONAL.  You can NEVER prescribe personal wisdom, knowledge and force-of-will.

Otis
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 05, 2012, 06:28:22 AM
FINAL SCIENCE, and FINAL TRUTH.

Very few people have the strength to "help themselves".  They want to see a "problem" with wearing the plus - while ignoring what serious science (and statistics) tells us if you decided you WILL NOT WEAR THE PLUS WHEN YOU ARE AT 20/40 TO 20/50, AND IN SCHOOL.

Here are the objective facts.  Kids with the plus - DID NOT GO DOWN.  (They did not go "up" by much - but they had no instruction on how and why it was necessary to wear the plus.{  Tragically, any wearing of the plus is an honest "intrusion" in a person's life.  He he takes it "that way" he will not wear the plus properly. 

http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm

For those who are "in fear" of wearing a plus (at 20/50, about -1.0 diopers), and in high  school - and going to college -  I say I regret your choice.

BECAUSE EACH YEAR YOU DO NOTHING (DO NOT WEAR THE PLUS) YOUR VISION GOES DOWN BY -1/2 DIOPTER FOR EACH YEAR IN SCHOOL.

I hope a person understand this proven issue.  I will argue for "recovery" - if a person has a reasonable chance of success.  This statement that I make is not a "threat" -- it is objective reality.

Otis

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on September 05, 2012, 07:09:13 AM
Hi Otis,

I expect Dr. Judy will suggest I may be training myself to constrict my pupils through the +1.25s, and thus improve my depth of vision. 

The purpose of the question to Dr. Judy and perhaps Dr. Tyner (or anyone else out there) is to try to qualify more closely what is the risk.  As you have always stated, the person who would consider using the plus at near needs for himself or herself be perfectly comfortable with the risk and taking that decision on their own.  It is very, very difficult to quantify and understand what the actual risk is.  I did read one person's post from Turkey (about 6-7 years ago)  who undertook to strong plus at near and caused himself double-vision and gave explicit warnings.  Unfortunately, he used an alias name for posting his internet message, and it was only one post where he wrote.

Also, given the OD community knows use of plus at near has been tested thoroughly in overwhelming numbers of studies, then I would expect in all those studies that they would have also been concerned about the risk of that plus use.  Just as you say that there is a price to pay in doing it in your book.  So, I know they must have been monitoring participants in the studies.  As Dr. Judy told me, even with me doing this without the use of glasses, she said she would have expected me to have caused myself issues of double-vision at near.  I would imagine they must have seen this in studies.

Peter

Peter's use of a plus lens - FYI:

Peter and I discussed the wise use of a plus, as well as the importance of checking your own Snellen chart.  I thought Peter would take wearing a plus seriously - i.e., with great consistency for MONTHS.  That works with pilots - because they ACTUALLY WEAR THE PLUS WITH THE DEDICATION REQUIRED.

I don't blame a person who does not wear the plus - but they you can hardly claim that it "does not work".

I respect Peter.  Here is his commentary for your interest.

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on September 05, 2012, 07:22:01 AM
Hi Otis - once a person understands fully what the price to pay is for using plus at near to prevent myopia, they can make a reasonable  decision.   It is understanding what that price to pay is which is the trick.  I don't have a good clarity on what the current risk probabilities are, so how can I reasonably weigh the risk?   One will pay the price of tinkering with AC:A and AC:C if one can understand clearly the risk/reward scenario.  Just like there is no shortage of people willing to risk it by having LASIK.   I would think with all the studies where plus was used and according to the medical establishment having shown to not be effective, then clearly those study investigators had to make some sort of preparations to mitigate the risk concern to the patients.  If I can grasp that, and if that message is available to laymen (like myself), then I think you will be surprised by how many people have the strength to "help themselves".  Peter

FINAL SCIENCE, and FINAL TRUTH.

Very few people have the strength to "help themselves".  They want to see a "problem" with wearing the plus - while ignoring what serious science (and statistics) tells us if you decided you WILL NOT WEAR THE PLUS WHEN YOU ARE AT 20/40 TO 20/50, AND IN SCHOOL.

Here are the objective facts.  Kids with the plus - DID NOT GO DOWN.  (They did not go "up" by much - but they had no instruction on how and why it was necessary to wear the plus.{  Tragically, any wearing of the plus is an honest "intrusion" in a person's life.  He he takes it "that way" he will not wear the plus properly. 

http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm

For those who are "in fear" of wearing a plus (at 20/50, about -1.0 diopers), and in high  school - and going to college -  I say I regret your choice.

BECAUSE EACH YEAR YOU DO NOTHING (DO NOT WEAR THE PLUS) YOUR VISION GOES DOWN BY -1/2 DIOPTER FOR EACH YEAR IN SCHOOL.

I hope a person understand this proven issue.  I will argue for "recovery" - if a person has a reasonable chance of success.  This statement that I make is not a "threat" -- it is objective reality.

Otis


Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 05, 2012, 08:09:54 AM
Peter - I greatly respect your words and encouragement.  I also respect medical people - as I think you understand it.  But I "draw a line" to determine, or establish exactly what I am responsible for - and what a "medical person" MIGHT be responsible for.  It is that "line" that is never established when you "walk into an office" (having never checked your own Snellen) and are prescribed a very strong minus lens.  I truly understand that no one "medical" can take the time to explain any of these "issues" to a person, (layman).  But by now, neither you nor I, nor Todd Becker are "laymen" - in any sense of the word.  We are becoming "educated experts" on how to prevent (but not "cure").
Peter - because you obtained your own Snellen, and verify that you exceed the 20/40 line (with no lens) have become your own expert.  Further, you have your own plus and minus lens, and can confirm how "sharp" you can make your Snellen with a minus lens.  You can do this for your son also - when it becomes necessary.  The major purpose of these discussions is to make you PERSONALLY wise and responsible. I know full-well how difficult it is for a person (at 20/60) to truly "commit" himself to the use of the plus.  In fact it is so difficult, that I only make this advocacy with my sister's children.  But the salient point (for me) is that Table 4 by Francis Young.  So I never use the words "cure myopia" because of the adverse "implication" of saying something like that.  I will use the words, "anti-prescription" glasses, or "avoid negative stauts for your natural eyes".  But the intent is for the person to LOOK at a Snellen, and realize what is certain to happen if he does not take plus-prevention seriously, when he can still read the 20/40 to 20/60 lines.  That is why, if there were ever to develop a PREVENTION (not cure) study, your "experts" would have to include the advice of people who are NOT-MEDICAL. 
If I wanted to be a pilot, (at age 17), and my refractive STATE were -3/4 diopters, I would want to know FOR CERTAIN that my "state" would go down by -1.5 diopters in four years.  That would mean fully understanding the Frank Young tables, and the Military Academy Statistics.  It would the be completely up to my own intelligence and self-protective motivation to do WHAT NO MEDICAL PERSON COULD DO FOR ME.  That would be very active use of a +2.0 for all close work.  This is not simple - due to the long-term persistence it takes to be effective.  I find it IMPOSSIBLE to describe this process as "medical", and I would regret anyone who attempted to call prevention of this nature, "medicine".
But I am very happy that you now exceed the required 20/40 line, and have become expert in your own right.  In this endeavor - even the experts disagree - and that is as it should be.
Sincerely,  Otis
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on September 07, 2012, 07:42:30 AM
Hi Otis, can you tell me if your nephew and niece that you advocated for have had any children themselves now, and have they been working on prevention with their children.  Peter

I know full-well how difficult it is for a person (at 20/60) to truly "commit" himself to the use of the plus.  In fact it is so difficult, that I only make this advocacy with my sister's children. 
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 07, 2012, 12:18:07 PM
Hi Peter,

That is indeed a good question!  I do not "intrude" myself into their lives.  Wearing the plus, in the manner that it MUST be used, requires a parent who has understood the true implications of Dr. Francis Young's "Plus" study.  (That's not easy.)  Further, and in my opinion, the "wearing of the plus" must start before the person's "Snellen" goes below 20/40.  I prepared my book so that they could understand the scientific basis of (threshold) prevention. But the issue of "nagging" a child to 1) Monitor his Snellen 2) Wear the plus when he sits down to read and 3) Understand that you you allow your vision to go much below 20/60 - you probably will not be able to get out of it.

This is truly a "tough issue".  I maintain it is like "obesity prevention".  The parent might have the tough body of an athlete - and the child, having no interest in his body, becomes seriously obese.  So no, I can not "control" any child with this issue.

Equally, I admire you, in that you got your own Snellen and trial lens kit - so you KNOW what your are doing - and can make your own judgments of these issues.  You also, perhaps have children, and will face these issues in the future.  I know I can not "intrude" myself in that area either.

But I do say this - if your child (at age 16) expressed a strong desire to qualify as a military pilot (which requires 20/20 vision), and was at 20/25 to 20/30 (about -1/2 diopter) you would inform him of this type of choice he would have.  1) Wear the plus through college, or 2) Face the additional -1.5 diopters he would develop through four years of college - if he did not wear that plus, and monitor his own Snellen.

That is how difficult it is for a parent to support his own children - even if he has been personally successful in PREVENTION by "doing it himself".

Otis



Hi Otis, can you tell me if your nephew and niece that you advocated for have had any children themselves now, and have they been working on prevention with their children.  Peter

I know full-well how difficult it is for a person (at 20/60) to truly "commit" himself to the use of the plus.  In fact it is so difficult, that I only make this advocacy with my sister's children. 
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 08, 2012, 06:12:58 AM
Hi Peter,

Let me explicitly respond to your implied questions.  Remember, and OD has a 'perfect minus lens solution in his office'. He is not "looking" to change what has been done, with no change, for the last 200 years.  So he is not going to "volunteer" the fact that 1) If you put the natural eye in a cage for 8 years - it becomes SERIOUSLY MYOPIC. 2) If you place a -3 diopter lens on the eye - after a year - it becomes seriously myopic.  3) But honest it takes a wise and 'forceful' person to realize the dangers of wearing the minus - and take personal responsibly to understand the need for the plus while they still read the 20/40 line. To further respond:

Peter> ... once a person understands fully what the price to pay is for using plus at near to prevent myopia, they can make a reasonable  decision. 

Otis> Agreed. But that assumes a very educated person - who has the motivation for prevention, while they can still read the 20/50 line. The Plus (bifocal) data of Frank Young (combined with the minus-lens primate data) is absolutely convincing to ME - as pure science. It probably is NOT CONVINCING to you - with all due respect.

Peter>  It is understanding what that price to pay is which is the trick.

Otis> I agree.  The "price to pay" is to be intelligent about this science and these facts, and begin wearing the plus when you see your Snellen going down to 20/30, 20/40 and 20/50 (about -1/2 to -1 diopters) and have education that convinces you to begin wearing the plus under YOUR CONTROL. That avoids conflict with an OD in and office - who is never in a position to help you with plus-prevention.

Peter> I don't have a good clarity on what the current risk probabilities are,

Otis> I do - by exhaustive research.

Peter> so how can I reasonably weigh the risk?

Otis>  But reading Frank Young's "Plus" study - and understanding it and the IMPLICATIONS OF IT.

Peter>  One will pay the price of tinkering with AC:A and AC:C if one can understand clearly the risk/reward scenario.

Otis> A person with NO INTEREST - should not be involved in "plus prevention" - because he will not be accurate, interested nor consistent.  A pilot at 20/40 WILL take what "risk" you might think exists - and wear the plus and SLOWLY get his 20/20 back.  That is how "calculated risks" are made.

Peter> Just like there is no shortage of people willing to risk it by having LASIK.

Otis> Or cataract surgery.  We all make that judgment.

Peter>  I would think with all the studies where plus was used and according to the medical establishment having shown to not be effective,

Otis> Peter - this is a false statement.  You should know that by now.

Peter>  then clearly those study investigators had to make some sort of preparations to mitigate the risk concern to the patients.

Otis> The "plus" has been in use for the last 50 years - with NO ADVERSE EFFECT.  Check yourself on this point.

 Peter>  If I can grasp that, and if that message is available to laymen (like myself),

Otis> I do NOT consider myself a "layman". I am an engineer, and a supporter of science and the second-opinion that prevention is possible - if the person makes himself an "expert" on the necessity of plus-prevention.  Choose your experts with wisdom.  Not all of them are "medical".

Peter> then I think you will be surprised by how many people have the strength to "help themselves". 

Otis> People are understandably TIMID.  They don't like their "routine" disturbed.  Unless there distant vision is VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM (at 20/40 to 20/50) they will not take the responsiblity to work there way out of it with a plus.

Peter - thanks for your review!
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 08, 2012, 11:51:45 AM
Hi Peter,

I can "understand" the person who thinks everything in this world "must be medical" - and you or I as in intelligent person - can't do anything at all to PREVENT entry into "Myopia".   One person, "Zane", was on his way to getting to 20/40 - naked eye, when using the plus for prevention.  Then he developed a sudden "fear" of wearing a plus lens and quit totally. 

But the person who thinks it is "safe" to reject the plus (at 20/40), and "do nothing" - is likely to have this experience of a person who probably would have rejected "correct" wearing of a plus at the 20/50 level.  Whether Zane would have been successful, or not, we will never know.

No OD or MD - is ever going to help you with prevention - if you stand in STARK TERROR of wearing the plus when at -1.0 diopter.  I personally, don't make any claim beyond about -1.5 and 20/60 - for that reason alone.  I think the  person must be WISE ENOUGH to not to allow himself to get down to -5.0 diopters as stated by Chris who had 20/20 at age 17.  Who do you want to "to blame" for this mans terrible myopia?  If educated at 20/40 - to wear the plus - and rejects it - the HE IS COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE -5.0 DIOPTER HE KNOWS HE WILL DEVELOP. 

We know, thanks to the Frank Young study, that, on first entry (refractive state -1/2 diopter) that a child's status will go down at a rate of -1/2 diopters per year.  (I suggest making a personal study of that report.) Thus, at age 5, with -1/2 diopter, a child can expect to "go down" to -5.5 diopters after 10 years in school.  (Basic statistics and knowledge.)  This "limits" my argument for prevention - that the person realized what is going to happen - for certain - if he decides to do NOTHING ABOUT IT.  Or worse, judges the minus to be "perfectly safe".

Here are the remarks of Chris, who had "perfect vision" entering college.  But no own bothered to inform him of the consequences of rejecting the "wearing of the plus" when he first started "down" from long-term close work. Now he is looking for a "solution". I hope this helps your understanding of these issues.

Otis

+++++

New on here and wanted to write a quick backstory and my reasons for wanting to
get my vision back.

I entered the US Air Force Academy as Pilot-Qualified. I had 20/20 vision. In
my junior year, my vision began to deteriorate from all the studying (160+
academic hours in 4 years!). Mandatory physicals revealed my vision had gone
from 20/20 to 20/50. They prescribed minus lenses. I was being taught not to
question so I didn't question.

By the spring of my senior year, my vision had degraded to probably 20/100.
It's a longer story than you want to read, but I basically lost my PQ. This
changed the entire arc of my life and career. Instead of going to pilot
training, spending a career in the Air Force, and fulfilling a childhood dream,
I went into Satellite Engineering and US Space Command. Of course, this
required constant computer and near work which would continue to degrade my eyes
in my 20's.

I'm now 42. I'm at -5.0D in both eyes. I believe my myopia was functionally
induced because no eye doctor that I've seen between then and now recommended
that I simply not wear my minus lenses and instead use the plus lenses for close
work. I would get hints from time to time, but it was like they were telling me
illicit information.

Only because of the Internet have I found information that gives me hope. I got
here from an article on ISEE

Though I'm not going to fly for the Air Force (I separated since I wasn't a
pilot), I want to improve my vision in hopes of alleviating floaters that
developed in my 30's. My understanding is that they are a direct result of
progressive functional myopia.

I'm hoping to avoid the remainder of my life in glasses and dealing with
floaters in my vision. I also want to verify that preventative methods will
work for my young children who are already reading at 4 and 3 yrs old.

I'm hoping I can be disciplined and not lazy and see real improvements. I am
combining the exercises with much improved diet that I have been working on for
the past few years.

I look forward to keeping in touch and staying accountable. Any advice or
further information will be appreciated.

I'll close by saying that I'm always incredulous at most of my myopic friends
and family who can't even tell me their prescription. I'm appalled that they
don't care. Starting to wear glasses in college when I grew up an athlete
completely changed my life and opportunities. It's important to me and I don't
understand why it isn't important to more people.

Chris
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on September 08, 2012, 04:28:34 PM
Hi Otis,

It seems you do not understand my question and furthermore you think that I fail to understand what you have repeated at least a hundred times about the Frank Young study.

I know you wrote in your book that you mentioned there is a price to be paid for wearing the plus at near during the discussion of converging at near and accomodating at far.  I have no idea what you actually meant in your book when you stated that.  If you in fact meant what you state below in this thread response, i.e. you are speaking about the risk of not preventing myopia by not using the plus at 20/40, then I truly am dumbfounded as for why you ever wrote about the price to be paid in your book at all.  It is as if you were talking about the possible side effect of taking aspirin daily when one does so to reduce the risk of heart attack via aspirin's known effectiveness at making blood platelets less stickier.  You can quite easily learn what the other risks of taking that aspirin is and what the likelihood is.  If I match your response to the plus question, you would then answer by saying the possible side-effects of aspirin are if you don't take them, you will increase your risk of a heart attack quoting some study which shows how aspirin prevented heart attacks in a large portion of the study.

Regretfully, I think you fail to understand that very many readers are not asking about what Frank Young's study says as they understand that data.  Similarly, I think you do not believe that they understand your point that a possible side effect of using the plus is that a person  with motivation and strong-will will slowly improve his snellon accuity from 20/40 to 20/20.  It would be better if you just came out and said I do not know of any other side effects of using the plus at near, other than that it can under certain conditions prevent myopia.

Peter


Peter> ... once a person understands fully what the price to pay is for using plus at near to prevent myopia, they can make a reasonable  decision. 

Otis> Agreed. But that assumes a very educated person - who has the motivation for prevention, while they can still read the 20/50 line. The Plus (bifocal) data of Frank Young (combined with the minus-lens primate data) is absolutely convincing to ME - as pure science. It probably is NOT CONVINCING to you - with all due respect.

>Peter>  One will pay the price of tinkering with AC:A and AC:C if one can understand clearly the risk/reward scenario.

Otis> A person with NO INTEREST - should not be involved in "plus prevention" - because he will not be accurate, interested nor consistent.  A pilot at 20/40 WILL take what "risk" you might think exists - and wear the plus and SLOWLY get his 20/20 back.  That is how "calculated risks" are made.

I guess I will remain forever ignorant then. Calculated risks

Peter> Just like there is no shortage of people willing to risk it by having LASIK.

Otis> Or cataract surgery.  We all make that judgment.

Peter>  I would think with all the studies where plus was used and according to the medical establishment having shown to not be effective,

Otis> Peter - this is a false statement.  You should know that by now.

Peter>  then clearly those study investigators had to make some sort of preparations to mitigate the risk concern to the patients.

Otis> The "plus" has been in use for the last 50 years - with NO ADVERSE EFFECT.  Check yourself on this point.

 Peter>  If I can grasp that, and if that message is available to laymen (like myself),

Otis> I do NOT consider myself a "layman". I am an engineer, and a supporter of science and the second-opinion that prevention is possible - if the person makes himself an "expert" on the necessity of plus-prevention.  Choose your experts with wisdom.  Not all of them are "medical".

Peter> then I think you will be surprised by how many people have the strength to "help themselves". 

Otis> People are understandably TIMID.  They don't like their "routine" disturbed.  Unless there distant vision is VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM (at 20/40 to 20/50) they will not take the responsiblity to work there way out of it with a plus.

Peter - thanks for your review!
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on September 08, 2012, 04:34:42 PM
I am very surprised as that seems hardly like an intrusion given the influence you had on their lives in terms of myopia prevention.  And given the known passion they know you had/have for them.

Peter


Hi Peter,

That is indeed a good question!  I do not "intrude" myself into their lives. 

Hi Otis, can you tell me if your nephew and niece that you advocated for have had any children themselves now, and have they been working on prevention with their children.  Peter

I know full-well how difficult it is for a person (at 20/60) to truly "commit" himself to the use of the plus.  In fact it is so difficult, that I only make this advocacy with my sister's children. 
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 08, 2012, 05:17:24 PM
Peter - I like to be told SCIENTIFIC truth.  That is the truth that I tell.  They had a right to know about it - one way or the other.  It was my judgment about Raphaelson that he was telling (intuitive) scientific truth about the natural eye's behavior.  I only sought scientific documentation for what he said about the proven effect of a minus on the natural eye.  I think the self-motivation (for prevention) is truly difficult - I never deny that truth. I also judge that prevention (as I suggest it) is never medical.

But I suggest the following (assuming I am a child).  If my father was successful in using the plus (to keep his vision clear for life), and *I* saw my vision "start down", I would be very upset to think that my father would not help me to protect my distant vision through the school years.  That is where I think true scientific responsibility must exist.

I am very sympathetic with the OD who tells me that public only wants to be "impressed" with a strong minus - and nothing else.  Because he is right for 99.9 percent of the public. After all, he is not conducting an "education symposium" in his office - and most people would be hostile to the doctor who states that prevention would be wise and possible.

How - exactly - should he suggest the use of the plus - when the child is at 20/40, and -3/4 diopters.  I think you know the exact answer.

Otis
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 09, 2012, 03:59:24 AM
Peter - We all live with our "fears".  In fact, as you know, some MDs have figured out that prevention was possible, but only at the threshold.  They then attempted to help "the public", only to find that, like obesity-prevention, the "public" is hostile to the concept.  Let me summarize this success - and then  you can decide who is responsible preventing ENTRY into nearsightedness.

Otis> Medical people -- who have truly recognized the natural eye's behavior, and that, at least at the threshold -- IT IS PREVENTABLE. Here is the commentary by a profoundly insightful ophthalmologist. But, as Dr. Prentice states, plus prevention (at -1 diopter is tedious). But to say that "prevention will never happen" is a tragic statement -- because it prevents a preventive scientific study our effort -- that could be effective.

+++++

Prentice>  Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work. (-1.25 D is about 20/50 to 20/60 on a Snellen)

Prentice> After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4 D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths vision.

Prentice> Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases ...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.

Otis> This is truly the issue. It MUST be the person's wisdom, to accept the "tedious" use of a plus, and to do it with no let up, that would make prevention (at 20/50, -3/4 diopter) possible. THAT is the real and only issue.

++++

Peter - This was part of the scientific explanation I provided to my nephew - about the need to be personally RESPONSIBLE to monitor his distant vision, and to realize that the "public" totally reject prevention - when IT  MUST BE DONE.  This is why I consider successful prevention, whether conducted by Todd, or anyone else to be "not a medical problem".  The "problem" is with the person's long-term resolve and understanding of WHY plus prevention is vital.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 09, 2012, 04:30:26 AM
Peter,

I hope you understand the "Prentice Report".  When I read it I realized that prevention COULD BE ADVISED by "medical people", but the issue is whether the person himself recognized that he was PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE for prevention.  All of this is not "just about - exclusively - the Frank Young "plus" study.  It is about education, responsibility, and an "honest choice". Let me also add that ANY LENS PUT ON A PERSONS FACE - interferes with the AC-C ratio.  To say that ONLY the plus for near does that - ignores the obvious.

Peter> Regretfully, I think you fail to understand that very many readers are not asking about what Frank Young's study says as they understand that data.

Otis> You "issue", as I understand it, is the question is it "safe" to wear a plus for near. In Frank's study, children were massively wearing a "plus for near", with no adverse effect.  So you might still be in "fright" about wearing the plus - and that will probably stop you from helping your children - but that is your judgment call.

Peter>  Similarly, I think you do not believe that they understand your point that a possible side effect of using the plus is that a person  with motivation and strong-will will slowly improve his snellon accuity from 20/40 to 20/20.

Otis>  I don't know what "third parties" might believe.  I agree that anyone "medical" will not be involved with "plus prevention" - and I understand WHY they can't be involved.

Peter>  It would be better if you just came out and said I do not know of any other side effects of using the plus at near, other than that it can under certain conditions prevent myopia.

+++++

Peter - of course I am concerned with "adverse effects" of a lens. Why do you think I exhaustively studied the effect of a  -3 diopter intentionally placed on the natural eye??  For all practically purposes you can prove OBJECTIVELY, AS SCIENCE, THAT A MINUS CAN "CAUSE NEARSIGHTEDNESS".  Thus to suggest that a "plus" has an "adverse effect" while IGNORING THE PROVEN ADVERSE EFFECT OF A MINUS - is a rather biased point-of-view on this scientific subject.

I know you want a "totally safe world" where EXCLUSIVELY  medical people tell you "what to do" - but I suggest that scientific "world" but be greater than the "medical world".  Yes, a  child with "nose on book" induces (slowly) negative status in his natural eye.  If you and I "owned a shop" and a child comes in, we can IMPRESS THE CHILD with minus lens. 

I know that

You know that.

I don't argue about that issue.  But, I think that we must understand that a "deeper" understanding is required - if there is to be any scientific effort at prevention.

Otis


Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on September 09, 2012, 08:32:21 AM
I don't really understand what you mean when you say the public is hostile to obesity-prevention.  I don't follow the comparison.

The only risk that I know of right now with the myopia prevention that I did (naked eye, pushing print) was that Dr. Judy would have expected me to have caused double-vision at near.  I am sure if a medical professional like herself stated that, then certainly some may have caused it to happen to themselves.  So, this is one risk I have heard of, but I can't quantify it as far as how likely an outcome it actually is. 

As you say, nothing like this happened in the Frank Young study.  I would like to understand how many test subjects have actually had it happen to them in other studies because they (OD community) claim those  otherstudies actually also test the effect of plus at near.  So therefore they must have concerned themselves about those same risk factors during those studies as would have Frank Young.  That is the only data I am looking for, not the actual results of their studies.  Just the risk planning and outcome percentages. 

As a rational individual, it is very reasonable, and not in any way an indication of fear which you seem to presume.  Furthermore, I am sure others coming after me will be very glad to understand this as well.

Peter

Peter - We all live with our "fears".  In fact, as you know, some MDs have figured out that prevention was possible, but only at the threshold.  They then attempted to help "the public", only to find that, like obesity-prevention, the "public" is hostile to the concept.  Let me summarize this success - and then  you can decide who is responsible preventing ENTRY into nearsightedness.

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 09, 2012, 08:54:43 AM
Peter - let me up-date the group about you (and myself).

Peter had contacted me through Don Rehm's site.  I think Peter has a "prescribed" -2.5 diopter -which he had been wearing for some time.  I said that I could never "cure" anything - but that prevention MIGHT be possible for him.  To give him greater "empowerment" I suggested that he 1) Down-load a Snellen chart, and confirm his personal visual acuity -  himself.  Then for a more complete understanding, buy, or "make" some trial-lenses to personally measure his refractive STATE - as I do it for myself.  I think Peter's vision is now about 20/30 to 20/25 (on a well-lit Snellen), so he will pass the STATE DMV test.  I think Peter wore a +2 for a few days - and then quit.  So Peter will be no longer a "layman" but can develop his own ideas.  For myself, I always put on a "plus for near" and recommended that my nephew do the same thing.  Since *I* knew about that "standard" -1/2 diopter per year our eyes GO DOWN - if I do not start the wearing of the plus at 20/40 on  my own Snellen.

Frank Young's data (that I reviewed by Statistics) convinced me that about the only possibility of true-prevention had to start before the person's visual acuity went below 20/50 to 20/60 (about -1 diopter).  A 14 year-old in that range - had better THINK about what is certain to happen - if he "blows off" the idea of systematic wearing of the plus - at that TIME IN HIS LIFE.  I can not make that choice for ANYONE HERE.  In fact, I did not make that choice for Keith. He, however, was wise enough to realize I was telling brutal SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.

It is true that I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT ANY OD OR MD CAN HELP ME WITH PREVENTION.  So I don't ask them for it.  The issue is "who is the professional"?
Is Todd Becker a professional. Yes, as an engineer - as  am I.  I think Peter is VERY INTELLIGENT about these issues - and we learn together for the benefit of all who read this.

The issue of "FEAR" is VERY REAL. On person, Zane, had started wearing a "plus", and had gone from -3.5 diopters to -1.5 diopters, in about one month.  Then he read that a "plus" CAUSES CATARACTS.   That stopped Zane from his wearing of the plus.

But, a point you always miss, if a "Plus" had been PRESCRIBED FOR ZANE, and he "got the idea that the plus caused cataract" he would have filed a major law-suit against the OD who PRESCRIBED that plus for him.

You know what - ZANE WOULD HAVE WON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

So you wonder why no OD will ever "prescribe" prevention.  That is the real answer.  Further - I do not blame them at all. But I just must be smart enough to figure this out for myself - and then do prevention myself - accepting full legal an personal responsibility for my efforts - to include NEVER developing stair-case myopia from wearing that wretched minus lens all the time.

That is how I judge why I must take care of my distant vision - MYSELF.

Best,

Otis




I don't really understand what you mean when you say the public is hostile to obesity-prevention.  I don't follow the comparison.

The only risk that I know of right now with the myopia prevention that I did (naked eye, pushing print) was that Dr. Judy would have expected me to have caused double-vision at near.  I am sure if a medical professional like herself stated that, then certainly some may have caused it to happen to themselves.  So, this is one risk I have heard of, but I can't quantify it as far as how likely an outcome it actually is. 

As you say, nothing like this happened in the Frank Young study.  I would like to understand how many test subjects have actually had it happen to them in other studies because they (OD community) claim those  otherstudies actually also test the effect of plus at near.  So therefore they must have concerned themselves about those same risk factors during those studies as would have Frank Young.  That is the only data I am looking for, not the actual results of their studies.  Just the risk planning and outcome percentages. 

As a rational individual, it is very reasonable, and not in any way an indication of fear which you seem to presume.  Furthermore, I am sure others coming after me will be very glad to understand this as well.

Peter

Peter - We all live with our "fears".  In fact, as you know, some MDs have figured out that prevention was possible, but only at the threshold.  They then attempted to help "the public", only to find that, like obesity-prevention, the "public" is hostile to the concept.  Let me summarize this success - and then  you can decide who is responsible preventing ENTRY into nearsightedness.

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on September 10, 2012, 04:57:57 AM
Subject: The serious risk of wearing an over-prescribed minus lens - all the time.

There has been a great deal of discussion of the ASSUMED risk of wearing a plus (for prevention) when at 20/50 (on your Snellen).  To my knowledge - there are not risks - other than the probability that you will not take prevention seriously at 20/50 - when it must be done.

What about the risks of wearing an excessive minus - (specifically over-prescribed by one or two diopters).  Some courageous ODs called the minus, "poison glasses for children.  So where it the proof that a minus has a tragic and adverse effect on all eyes.  Here is a 'summary' of the effect of a -3 diopter lens on the eye - as a visualization.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

I take this very seriously - as they state, a minus lens "INDUCES MYOPIA".  I prefer the more "neutral" words, that this proves that the eye is dynamic, and will change its refractive state - from positive to negative - with an imposed minus.  But as an engineer - I always insist that I personally examine the science and facts themselves.  Here is the study results.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/FundEye.html

Yes, AFTER you induce a slight negative status (i.e., 20/50 vision) it is VERY EASY to be impressed with a minus lens.  But the scientific reality is that the "first" negative status is self-induced.  But the parents and child are never informed of the science of the fundamental eye - and it is sooo easy to impress the child with that "first" minus lens.

This is the real and only issue that concerns scientific prevention.

Otis
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on October 03, 2012, 08:04:26 AM
Summarizing what I have learned as far as risks of using plus therapy at near.  From an OD, what would be expected in my case is that I would only cause double vision at near while using the device, or the plus lenses.  Once I stop using the device, the double vision symptom would go away.  That does not seem to be too harsh of a risk situation.  The other risk is associated with using plus for far as well as near.  I think the idea is to give your eyes/brain breaks to allow them to accomodate and converge under naked eye conditions occasionally.  So I think that risk can be mitigated by taking daily breaks, and not doing 100% forceful plus therapy 24/7. 
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 03, 2012, 09:49:04 AM
Hi Peter,
I greatly respect you for your "follow-through" on these subjects!!  I know how hard it is for a person to "convince himself" as to the necessity of always wearing a plus - for all close work.  What I posted above is what I consider "pure science", and convinces me that  it would be WISE to begin wearing the plus as soon as your Snellen gets "down to" 20/40, or about -1/2 to -1 diopters.  But each of us will have to decide WHAT convinces us to begin wearing the plus before our eyes "fail" the DMV test requirement.  As you know, most people simply can not inspire themselves to 1)  Monitor their Snellen, 2) Where the plus for ALL close work and 3) Keep on doing that, until they exceed 20/20 on their Snellen.  I do not consider any of these steps to be "medical" in any sense of the word, nor do I feel any need for an OD to be involved.  But BOTH of us have our own trial-lens kit, and make our own wise judgment accordingly.  Knowledge is indeed POWER - if you know what you want in your life.  I have NEVER held an OD or MD responsible for my own "bad habits" as a child. I hold myself exclusively responsible.
Otis



Summarizing what I have learned as far as risks of using plus therapy at near.  From an OD, what would be expected in my case is that I would only cause double vision at near while using the device, or the plus lenses.  Once I stop using the device, the double vision symptom would go away.  That does not seem to be too harsh of a risk situation.  The other risk is associated with using plus for far as well as near.  I think the idea is to give your eyes/brain breaks to allow them to accomodate and converge under naked eye conditions occasionally.  So I think that risk can be mitigated by taking daily breaks, and not doing 100% forceful plus therapy 24/7. 
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on October 03, 2012, 11:12:12 AM
Given my son is 8 which is about when you started with eyeglasses and given the immense difficulty I have to even get him to be inspired or listen to my suggestions and self-improvement ideas, then it is clear that no adult (parent or doctor) can be blamed.   There are so many teaching difficulties with a child at that age.  You can teach them how to push print and the concept, but it can't be monitored by anyone but the person doing the therapy himself.  I have taught him some vision tricks, but regretfully I think it is not enough and is just a battle against time.  There are so many other important growing up items I have to help him with, and from a parenting perspective they take precedent.

I think part of the problem with nearsightedness is, the first perscription is "light" and the person functions pretty well without the glasses.  It is unfortunate, but I think with children and perhaps even teenagers, until the perscription increases and the child has been dealing with all the eye glasses inconveniences, only then is a certain amount of motivation and determination more likely to appear.

I have NEVER held an OD or MD responsible for my own "bad habits" as a child. I hold myself exclusively responsible.

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 03, 2012, 12:45:27 PM
Dear Peter,
I truly "woke up" about this issue as I departed from Dr. Raphaelson's home.  I realized that I did all this "damage" to myself - and I regret that truth.  I also resolve to ATTEMPT to help my sister's children -as best I could - but you have spelled out how truly difficult it is to do that - even for your own children.

I think a 13 year-old "kid" could understand - but you can't "nag" a kid to do it. It must be a "spark of genius" in the "kid" if prevention (at 20/30 to 20/40) is ever going to exist!

I am always honest about this issue - as you are!

Thanks,



Given my son is 8 which is about when you started with eyeglasses and given the immense difficulty I have to even get him to be inspired or listen to my suggestions and self-improvement ideas, then it is clear that no adult (parent or doctor) can be blamed.   There are so many teaching difficulties with a child at that age.  You can teach them how to push print and the concept, but it can't be monitored by anyone but the person doing the therapy himself.  I have taught him some vision tricks, but regretfully I think it is not enough and is just a battle against time.  There are so many other important growing up items I have to help him with, and from a parenting perspective they take precedent.

I think part of the problem with nearsightedness is, the first perscription is "light" and the person functions pretty well without the glasses.  It is unfortunate, but I think with children and perhaps even teenagers, until the perscription increases and the child has been dealing with all the eye glasses inconveniences, only then is a certain amount of motivation and determination more likely to appear.

I have NEVER held an OD or MD responsible for my own "bad habits" as a child. I hold myself exclusively responsible.

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on October 03, 2012, 08:05:06 PM
Hi Peter

First of all I thank you & Otis for good discussion on this topic.

The two side effects you discussed can have very low probability .

1) No one will wear plus always. This is because the moment we go out or take a break from near work we have to remove plus  lenses so that we see more clear .
2) If you follow eye exercises like rotation , convergence & divergence , stretching will make the muscles strong enough to remove the blur at close.

What is your view

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on October 03, 2012, 08:36:35 PM
1) No one will wear plus always. This is because the moment we go out or take a break from near work we have to remove plus  lenses so that we see more clear .

On this point I agree.  And also, for those times you take them off, you will also end up giving near glances, whereby your accomodative system will respond or be excercised normally.

2) If you follow eye exercises like rotation , convergence & divergence , stretching will make the muscles strong enough to remove the blur at close.

I am not sure how it happens.  But eventually you consistently make it clear at that distance, and keep pushing the blur out further whereby the same symptom appears.  But take off the plus lenses, and the symptom goes away.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on October 03, 2012, 09:01:32 PM
Peter

I don't have a proof for point 2 & can state only my case.

What I have observed with exercises my peripheral view had improved. Also I feel exercises gives the eye extra flexibility  needed to use plus at near which puts more than natural burden on our system .

Initially when I started with reduced glasses for reading ( My myopia is high) I use to feel a tiredness in eyes & also eyes use to take some time to see clear even with full prescription at near & far.

After following exercises for many months I can switch quickly with no blur or tiredness feeling . I personally follow the exercises supported in PVS by David .


Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 04, 2012, 03:31:03 AM
Proh,

My “Advocacy” and Understanding on these issues:

“If we know a truth then we must do our best to live by it and pass it on to our children.”

Otis Brown

“At some point, the truth you uncover is going to demand a response. And that could change everything.”

- Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator

“Integrity is telling myself the truth. And honesty is telling the truth to other people.”

- Spencer Johnson

“They love us and they love the truth so perfectly that they will not indulge us by collaborating in our lies and leading us to believe we’re doing right when we’re not.

When we’re mired in any degree of self-deception, we cannot fathom how desperately we need the solid, immovable truth that true friends revere.

– C. Terry Warner, Bonds That Make Us Free, Healing Our Relationships, Coming To Ourselves


Hi Peter

First of all I thank you & Otis for good discussion on this topic.

The two side effects you discussed can have very low probability .

1) No one will wear plus always. This is because the moment we go out or take a break from near work we have to remove plus  lenses so that we see more clear .
2) If you follow eye exercises like rotation , convergence & divergence , stretching will make the muscles strong enough to remove the blur at close.

What is your view

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 04, 2012, 09:28:55 AM
Hi Proh,
I truly don't know what you mean by this statement:

The two side effects you discussed can have very low probability .

1) No one will wear plus always. This is because the moment we go out or take a break from near work we have to remove plus  lenses so that we see more clear .

Otis>  Of course - but I don't know what you mean.  The OBVIOUS thing to do, when our eyes have a SLIGHT negative status (i.e., 20/40, -1 diopter) is to immediately "fix" it with a minus lens.

Otis> I truly understand that issue.  But, it takes a first-rate mind, and a hell of a lot of motivation to NOT FIX IT THAT WAY. 

Otis> It take a mind that realizes that this (at 20/40) is simply the NATRUAL EYE "adapting" to long-term near, and can never be considered a "failure".  I know you want to "fix the error" - but that never helps.

Otis> The only other alternative, is to realize that you "fix the near" with a plus.  That truly does require BOTH good insights, and long-term persistence in wearing the plus (which gets the "near" into the "far distance". 

Otis> Thus NO minus, and heavy, persistence of the plus 2.5 for ALL CLOSE WORK.

Otis> That works, but it is not a "cure" in any sense of the word.

Otis - I don't see "exercise" as being a solution.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on October 04, 2012, 08:32:47 PM
Hi Otis

I was referring the peter post.

Quote
Summarizing what I have learned as far as risks of using plus therapy at near.  From an OD, what would be expected in my case is that I would only cause double vision at near while using the device, or the plus lenses.  Once I stop using the device, the double vision symptom would go away.  That does not seem to be too harsh of a risk situation.  The other risk is associated with using plus for far as well as near.  I think the idea is to give your eyes/brain breaks to allow them to accomodate and converge under naked eye conditions occasionally.  So I think that risk can be mitigated by taking daily breaks, and not doing 100% forceful plus therapy 24/7.

Also I have posted what my observations are .
I also agree with you that exercise alone  are  not cure but they are helpful. There are many posts by Todd who has also supported that we should work at edge of focus with eye exercises. I feel Todd & others who have done the combination of both can add.

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 05, 2012, 04:18:05 AM
Hi Proh,

You are correct. David DeAnglis and others made HEAVY use of a plus - and exercise of various sorts.  I have no argument, or dispute about that.  But if you are asking what "I" would PERSONALLY do, the I would make heavy use of the plus, because that is incredibly easy to do. But it does take knowledge that this process must be started - AND CONTINUED - as long as you are in a "school environment".

If you think getting a "young person" to wear a plus is difficult - you can only imagine how impossible it is to get them to do "exercise" on a regular or long-term basis.

It is my choice if I only wear the plus for prevention, and always confirm that I pass the 20/40 line.  Peter mentions a "risk" from wearing a plus for near - implying that we should NOT wear the plus when our Snellen is at 20/40.

I study the entire primate eye, and know for certain that ANY WEARING OF A MINUS LENS IS "HIGH RISK" FOR CREATING MUCH MORE MYOPIA.  But, as before, I wear the plus for this typing that I am doing - to protect my distant vision.  I have no "fear" of wearing the plus in this manner.  I would FEAR losing my distant vision (if I verified 20/40) and DID NOT WEAR THAT PLUS.

Thus, there is fear.  I fear the minus lens for scientific reasons, and the fact that it helps nothing at all.  I do agree that (for my own testing purposes)  that when I have 20/40, I will use a -1/2 to confirm I HAVE THE CAPABILITY OF 20/20 ON MY RETINA. Then, I would not wear the minus - because of the danger of it. I would obligate myself to make heavy use of the plus, until I confirmed 20/20.

I know people "fear" the plus, as described by Zane.  That is tragic, because now Zane is at -3.5 diopters - and if in school, his vision will continue down, down, down.  No one can help him - because he was in fear of using the plus correctly.

This is truly and "educated choice" for a parent of child.  You can neglect it - but if you ignore it - there is no "second-chance" in my opinion.

Otis



Hi Otis

I was referring the peter post.

Quote
Summarizing what I have learned as far as risks of using plus therapy at near.  From an OD, what would be expected in my case is that I would only cause double vision at near while using the device, or the plus lenses.  Once I stop using the device, the double vision symptom would go away.  That does not seem to be too harsh of a risk situation.  The other risk is associated with using plus for far as well as near.  I think the idea is to give your eyes/brain breaks to allow them to accomodate and converge under naked eye conditions occasionally.  So I think that risk can be mitigated by taking daily breaks, and not doing 100% forceful plus therapy 24/7.

Also I have posted what my observations are .
I also agree with you that exercise alone  are  not cure but they are helpful. There are many posts by Todd who has also supported that we should work at edge of focus with eye exercises. I feel Todd & others who have done the combination of both can add.

Proh

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on October 05, 2012, 04:45:16 AM
I agree with you that wearing plus is difficult for kids & exercises more than that . But a good mix of  both will produce more favorable effects . we should al least try .
I am doing some mild  exercises with my daughter , only 5-10 min but least have a habit for future .

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 05, 2012, 05:06:24 AM
Hi Proh,

I went through this with my sister and her children.  Since we all "love" convention and the minus lens -  it was very hard for her to accept the necessity that, with wisdom, her children should wear the "plus", when required, through the school years.  Virtually NO ONE is told about that "down" rate of -2/3 diopters per year - or if told this truth - WILL TAKE IT SERIOUSLY AND WEAR THE PLUS WHEN AT 20/40.  Thus true success is to know this - EXACTLY - and know you can't teach the Eskimo children to wear the plus when at 20/40.  I have no objection to "exercise", but I think a person must concentrate on the "long-term" down rate, and understand that success is to personally verify WHEN YOU OBJECTIVELY SEE YOUR VISION GOING DOWN - and start prevention as soon as possible with a strong plus. 

No I can't "proven" that my sister's children were successful - because success (always pass the 20/40 line under YOUR control) - is NEVER CONSIDERED A SUCCESS.

That is the "pure hell" of even attempting to talk about prevention with a plus (when at 20/40).  They have no interest, and will never do it.  The consequence of neglect are very serious - but they don't understand WHY you must do it yourself before you go much below 20/40. 

People in medicine, simply can only "react" to a self-created negative status that we CREATE by our 'long-term near work".  It would be my intention to TAKE TOTAL PERSONAL responsibility (as Dr. Colgate did), always verify 20/40 or better at home, and then never "accept" a bad prescription in an office.

In fact, from my videos, you see me verifying 20/20, and positive status of +3/4 diopters - because I am an engineer, and know exactly what I am doing and why I am doing it.

Last time I went to an OD (with my 20/20) HE WANTED TO PRESCRIBE A STRONG LENS.  I took it home, again read 20/20 on my Snellen - and tore up the prescription.

Otis




I agree with you that wearing plus is difficult for kids & exercises more than that . But a good mix of  both will produce more favorable effects . we should al least try .
I am doing some mild  exercises with my daughter , only 5-10 min but least have a habit for future .

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 05, 2012, 05:21:23 AM
Hi Proh,

Subject: People who take total control with the plus - and always wear the plus when necessary - because they are smart.

Even Dr. Colgate did not "know" about that -2/3 diopters per year.  You now know this for your own child. The Eskimo children did not know this (because no one would tell them).

Colgate was wise, and started before he went "below" 20/60. He did not support "exercise" as he states. He had a hard time getting a "plus" when necessary.  Whenever he saw his vision "go down", he just re-started wearing the plus.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/AboutUs.txt

I think any "wise, motivated child" at age 14 could do this - with STRONG PARENTAL SUPPORT.  Real solutions come, to from "external" people - but from the "internal" wisdom of the person himself.

That is the real lesson we should teach ourselves.

Otis
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on October 05, 2012, 06:36:39 AM

Last time I went to an OD (with my 20/20) HE WANTED TO PRESCRIBE A STRONG LENS.  I took it home, again read 20/20 on my Snellen - and tore up the prescription.


There was no harm in keeping the perscription for your records.

The OD gave you a perscription that compensated for your refractive error as they measured it.

This is why if I ever improve my accuity and get to the 20/25 level or better, I am not going to expect sharp distance vision.  But I am expecting it will be good and clear enough as I assume I will continue to have a refractive error.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 05, 2012, 06:48:47 AM
Hi Peter,

I know that both of us are honest about these issues.  I don't have a "refractive error", and my Snellen is 20/20.  To "prescribe" a +3/4 diopter lens for me, that would cost me $175 - is JUST WRONG!  Further, I don't 'argue" with an OD in his office.  Keeping a "record" of an excessive an inaccurate measurement, is never "good science".  My measurements are far more accurate than an OD in his office - who does not have the time and devotion to "measurement science" - that I do.

I am indeed "on the hook" to pass the 20/40 or better myself.  I wish that everyone did this - and had my experience making these accurate measurements.  In fact I have promoted a "engineering study" where each would-be student would be taught HOW the measure their refractive state - PERSONALLY.

I truly believe that if you EXPLAIN to a person HOW to make a measurement, and then INSURE he is accurate, he will be successful.  Perhaps I have more confidence in the motivation and intelligence in my fellow engineers than you do.  I don't dispute you, however.

I only state that MOST PEOPLE don't have the intensive motivation that I do.  Remember, I think a pilot (at 20/40, and -3/4 diopters) WOULD have the motivation, and with the addition of self-measurement - would succeed.

Maybe I am a "wild optimist" - but I think that type of scientific study would succeed.  It succeeded with Brian Severson and Todd, why not others who are at 20/40?

Otis




Last time I went to an OD (with my 20/20) HE WANTED TO PRESCRIBE A STRONG LENS.  I took it home, again read 20/20 on my Snellen - and tore up the prescription.


There was no harm in keeping the perscription for your records.

The OD gave you a perscription that compensated for your refractive error as they measured it.

This is why if I ever improve my accuity and get to the 20/25 level or better, I am not going to expect sharp distance vision.  But I am expecting it will be good and clear enough as I assume I will continue to have a refractive error.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 05, 2012, 08:24:05 AM
Hi Peter and Proh,
Subject: Why I have great respect for medical people - including the fact that they can't help anyone with prevention at 20/50

I would suggest you read the remarks of "Zane" here.  They show a young man "interested" in plus-prevention, and then developing a GREAT FEAR OF WEARING A PLUS.

http://gettingstronger.org/2012/04/how-one-person-improved-his-vision/#comments

This is why I do everything myself.  I don't ask anyone to do something that I would not do.  I think you both know that I have objective, 20/20 vision.  I think you both know I am competent to measure my own refractive state - ACCURATELY.

You ask WHY I do not "trust" and OD or MD measurement, or why I ask a person to  verify his own Snellen chart.

I had a friend, Dennis Romish.  He has a -4.00 diopter prescription.  I asked him to READ HIS OWN SNELLEN.  It was about 20/50.  This seemed impossible.  The eye does not change by 3.5 diopters in three weeks.  But, since  he was at 20/50, I asked him to wear the plus - and continue.  In due course he read the 20/40 and went and passed the DMV requirement in Maryland.  You ask me why I should BLINDLY trust any "prescription"?  That is why I do not "TRUST".  I hope you understand.

Otis
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on October 05, 2012, 12:21:07 PM
Hi Peter,

I know that both of us are honest about these issues.  I don't have a "refractive error", and my Snellen is 20/20.  To "prescribe" a +3/4 diopter lens for me, that would cost me $175 - is JUST WRONG!  Further, I don't 'argue" with an OD in his office.  Keeping a "record" of an excessive an inaccurate measurement, is never "good science".  My measurements are far more accurate than an OD in his office - who does not have the time and devotion to "measurement science" - that I do.


Hi Otis,

Like I've said before I'm no expert.  I can clear the 20/30 line and even the 20/20 line, and sometimes even the 20/15 line.  But I can also barely clear the 20/100 line at other daylight times of the day depending on how much I choose or don't choose to work my eyes.  So there is quite a variable nature to my eyesight.  I also know if I place -1.25 lenses on my eye, that my Snellon is clear top to bottom - no need to even test my accuity.   So, my assumption on those in my situation (like the pilots you mentioned) is that they have improved their accuity to the point that they consistently read the 20/20 line with much less variable accuity than me. I tip my hat to them as I would love to be in that situation. 

Peter
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 05, 2012, 12:55:41 PM
Dear Peter,

I take this situation as we "learn together". I can think and work only that way.  As you said, you simply do not wear the plus.  I accept that truth - and I don't expect you to do so.

The "variable Snellen" is completely NORMAL!!  The fact that you PERSONALLY check it yourself - is of extreme value. Only in this way do you FIND OUT.

I know you have your own "trial lens" kit - as I do.  Certainly  a -1 will "clear" all the way down  to 20/15.  That is a FACT.

Now if you were like Brian Severson who did not "hold back" from HEAVY USE OF THE PLUS, you MIGHT find that this "variable Snellen" would be come less and less. But, with respect to YOU - I don't thing you have a strong reason to wear the plus.  Brian needed to get "rid" of the "variable Snellen" and you do not have the motivation to do it. (Again, I never deny the truly intense motivation it takes to wear a plus for nine months - to finally change your refractive state by +1 diopters.)

This is again why I consider this as NOT a medical problem.  Most people will "choke" if an OD makes the recommendation - because he knows for DEAD CERTAIN that the "general public" will NOT wear the plus - for the same reason that I know you are not going to wear the plus.  (But that is the problem of the "general public".)

Otis



Hi Peter,

I know that both of us are honest about these issues.  I don't have a "refractive error", and my Snellen is 20/20.  To "prescribe" a +3/4 diopter lens for me, that would cost me $175 - is JUST WRONG!  Further, I don't 'argue" with an OD in his office.  Keeping a "record" of an excessive an inaccurate measurement, is never "good science".  My measurements are far more accurate than an OD in his office - who does not have the time and devotion to "measurement science" - that I do.


Hi Otis,

Like I've said before I'm no expert.  I can clear the 20/30 line and even the 20/20 line, and sometimes even the 20/15 line.  But I can also barely clear the 20/100 line at other daylight times of the day depending on how much I choose or don't choose to work my eyes.  So there is quite a variable nature to my eyesight.  I also know if I place -1.25 lenses on my eye, that my Snellon is clear top to bottom - no need to even test my accuity.   So, my assumption on those in my situation (like the pilots you mentioned) is that they have improved their accuity to the point that they consistently read the 20/20 line with much less variable accuity than me. I tip my hat to them as I would love to be in that situation. 

Peter
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 06, 2012, 11:12:03 AM

Subject: Peter and I are friends

I am always curious about these issues.  Peter took some steps that I consider crucial - for an intellectual, and a scientist. He actually obtained a Snellen and a trial-lens kit.  Further, he even check his Snellen by reading THROUGH a +1.25 diotper lens - and could read 20/25 - briefly.  I think we both agree, that Peter has no interest in wearing a plus for prevention.  I am often asked to help people who are SIMILAR to Peter.  It is truly impossible to do that.  What it really difficult it that prevention (reducing "Variable Snellen") is that you MUST make a long-term commitment to the plus.  Pilots can an have done it - because they value their distant vision - more that their "fear" of wearing the plus properly.  This was posted on I-SEE, but I think that any scientific preventive program must understand Peter's point-of-view.

++++++

Dr. Judy OD,

Based on your explanations below on what an optometrist can recommend, I thought I'd outline a current scenario for me and whether there is any standard optical practice deviation I could possibly expect.

Although I have not been using pluses, I did try however briefly to use them many months back (for perhaps an hour 2 days in a row).

In any case, I have several times when measuring myself against my snellon put on plus 1.25 standard readers, and attempted to see which lines I could bring into focus. Based on your previous explanation of fusional vergence, I wanted to ask you if that still makes sense for me.

A few times when I put on the +1.25 readers to look at the snellon, I have succeeded into bringing into clarity the 20/25 line. Most of the time I will bring into focus the 20/30 line as well. Again, this is brief (from 20 seconds to a minute) that I am able to hold it. I suspect this aligns with fusional stimulation helping me verge.

My question is whether my momentary ability to read the 20/25 line on the snellon would in any way suggest that I might be able to improve my vision
further with less change of that double-vision at near risk you explained. You also suggested earlier I may have taught myself how to constrict my pupils in order to see at distance, and so this may be also be the +1.25 explanation as
well.

I guess it all comes back to the frustrating situation that I can only find out within a research setup exactly what I am doing. If you have any recommendations on someone with that setup that may be interested in seeing me, please let me know.

Thanks,
Peter

++++++

I want to make it VERY CLEAR that I am not a critic of either Peter or Judy.  But I do suggest that Todd's recovery from -3.0 diopters (about 20/60), is confirmed by objective science.  What is also confirmed is that people love to TALK about prevention - while doing absolutely NOTHING to implement it.

Thanks!
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 07, 2012, 04:42:00 PM
Dear Peter and Proh,

Here is the MEDICAL opinion.  Even PREVENTION - will ALWAYS BE IMPOSSIBLE. It is just your 'bad heredity". NOTHING CAN BE DONE.

Just "give it up".  If you wish to get "medical help' with prevention - here is what you will get -  ALWAYS.  I simply will not argue with this man - he thinks he is totally RIGHT. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDTbtpfpac&feature=related

But, I also agree with this man - about THRESHOLD prevention - by the person himself - but ONLY if the person's Snellen is no worse than 20/40 to 20/50.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/prent.txt

So I acknowledge that ONLY prevention is possible - and NEVER under ANY KIND OF MEDICAL CONTROL. 

Make your choice accordingly.  I am not a "hard ass" about this - but I know a "losing situation" when I see one.

Otis

Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 08, 2012, 07:51:50 PM
Hi Peter and Proh,

It always amazes me.  The OD will talk about "slowing myopia down" when you are at -1.5 diotpers.  But they will never talk about Preventing (getting out of it) under YOUR control. (i.e., no minus lens, and accept 20/50 - until you get your Snellen better-than 20/25).  There is an intellectual blindness that says that ONLY a OD in his office can "prescribe prevention" - so do not do this under your control.

Here they also confirm that a MINUS on the natural eye CAUSES MYOPIA.  Thus that "minus lens" can only exacerbate the original "adaptation" of our natural eyes to long-term near.  I hope you enjoy this video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH_H4BRJMLk&feature=related

Otis
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on October 08, 2012, 09:48:52 PM
Thanks Otis for Video


I still raise the question . If someone is having a vision at 20/60 obviously he cannot see clearly board & has to use minus.

Also If you are below 20/60 about 20/200 what should he do .
You provide very good guidance for prevention but I want to know what to do once you are below 20/200 .

May be other members  can also add

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 09, 2012, 04:42:56 AM
Hi Proh,

It should become clear that if *I*, verified that 1) I was reading 20/50 to 20/60, and 2) A -1.25 would clear the 20/30 line, I would 3) NOT WEAR A MINUS LENS. 

For children - it is possible to do that.  The ENTIRE PURPOSE OF WEARING A +2.5 DIOPTER FOR ALL CLOSE WORK, IS TO VERIFY THAT YOUR SNELLEN IMPROVES TO 20/40.  That would take about six months of WEARING THE +2.5 FOR ALL CLOSE WORK.

That takes total commitment.  Perhaps beyond the ability of most people.  I truly don't know who has that ability.  But the ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE PLUS IS TO GET TO 20/40. If you verify this, you can avoid the minus - and if you verify this, you are likely to CONTINUE TO WEAR THE PLUS 2.5 THROUGH THE SCHOOL YEARS.

Thus the question of "going down" below 20/60 - is academic - once you verify you can get your Snellen to 20/40 or better.  If you can't do that - then that is the end of this story.

That is my judgment about this issue.

Todd managed to get his vision clear.  You can choose to believe him - or not.

No one can guarantee results - not me - no one.

Otis


Thanks Otis for Video


I still raise the question . If someone is having a vision at 20/60 obviously he cannot see clearly board & has to use minus.

Also If you are below 20/60 about 20/200 what should he do .
You provide very good guidance for prevention but I want to know what to do once you are below 20/200 .

May be other members  can also add

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on October 09, 2012, 05:25:43 AM
Hi Proh,

It should become clear that if *I*, verified that 1) I was reading 20/50 to 20/60, and 2) A -1.25 would clear the 20/30 line, I would 3) NOT WEAR A MINUS LENS. 


Hi Otis,

The confusion lies in your lack of clarity and not whether we doubt Todd cleared his vision.   We do not doubt the latter at all.

Where we need clarification is prevention under these two scenarios:

Scenario 1:  Person has mild myopia, with an error of -1.25 and no perscription but able to see the 20/60 line. This person has never practiced any form of prevention.  Under this scenario, we know that this person can successfully practice prevention.  This is the scenario our children are in.

Scenario 2:  Person has slightly stronger myopia, with a perscription of -3.00 (as Todd had) and is barely able to clear the 20/200 line when he begins prevention.  Due to prevention and use of the plus, this person clears the 20/20 line with -1.25 perscription and naked eye can clear the 20/60 line. 

Both candidates are now at 20/60 and you chime in on them both being possible candidates for prevention.  Do we consider them equal?  That is where our confusion lies as clearly candidate in Scenario 2 started out beyond the boundaries of being a prevention candidate.

Further, both Proh and I would be candidates in Scenario 2.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 09, 2012, 05:43:29 AM
Dear Proh and Peter,

As you know, I refuse to get into a "fight" with an OD.  They simply get angry, and no rational discussion can develop when they do that.

When I talk about prevention - you must keep in mind that I don't want to make "false claims", or encourage a person to ATTEMPT to do somthing - when success is out of the question.  Let me state the problem with item #2:

Yes, Todd has a prescription for a -3.0 diopter.  But what I have found is that an OD - in an office - never bothers to even CHECK what you read on a Snellen chart.  What they do is to crank your OLD PRESCRIPTION into their Phoropter, and start increasing the strength of the minus FROM THAT POINT ON.  This means that, while you MIGHT have 20/60 vision (if you ACTUALLY CHECKED) you wind up with a minus stronger than -3.0  diopters.  This is why I ask a person to ACTUALLY CHECK - which MOST REFUSE TO DO IT.

I have seen SO MANY TRULY BAD PRESCRIPTION, that I truly don't believe them - nor trust them.  Further, Peter, even you discovered some interesting facts.  1) You have "Variable Snellen" - which NO OD COULD FIND OUT OR CHECK.  You can read the 20/25 line at time, but also make your Snellen very sharp with a -1.25 lens. (I congratulate you for your self-checking).  You also found out you can read your 20/25 line THROUGH a +1 lens.  This gives you the ability to CONTROL YOUR DISTANT VISION - if you choose to do so.

I am not going to "conflict" with a prescription - or get between a "patient" and a "doctor".  If you consider yourself a "patient" - then I should not be talking to you.  If you consider yourself a wise person, and are willing to start prevention under YOUR TOTAL CONTROL - then  I think you could always verify you always pass the 20/40 line - by wearing a strong plus for all close work.

But for the three of us - I don't know where you will be in ten years.  We will be long-gone.  But for Proh's child (if she does not wear a strong plus now), I can predict that, in 10 years she will be a -6 diopter myope.  (That is just an objective fact - which I am certain he does not believe.)  So it will make no difference to me - what he might do.  I have no control over Proh or his child.

I only suggest the wise use of the plus - while there is still time....

But it is all up to you.

Otis




Hi Proh,

It should become clear that if *I*, verified that 1) I was reading 20/50 to 20/60, and 2) A -1.25 would clear the 20/30 line, I would 3) NOT WEAR A MINUS LENS. 


Hi Otis,

The confusion lies in your lack of clarity and not whether we doubt Todd cleared his vision.   We do not doubt the latter at all.

Where we need clarification is prevention under these two scenarios:

Scenario 1:  Person has mild myopia, with an error of -1.25 and no perscription but able to see the 20/60 line. This person has never practiced any form of prevention.  Under this scenario, we know that this person can successfully practice prevention.  This is the scenario our children are in.

Scenario 2:  Person has slightly stronger myopia, with a perscription of -3.00 (as Todd had) and is barely able to clear the 20/200 line when he begins prevention.  Due to prevention and use of the plus, this person clears the 20/20 line with -1.25 perscription and naked eye can clear the 20/60 line. 

Both candidates are now at 20/60 and you chime in on them both being possible candidates for prevention.  Do we consider them equal?  That is where our confusion lies as clearly candidate in Scenario 2 started out beyond the boundaries of being a prevention candidate.

Further, both Proh and I would be candidates in Scenario 2.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on October 09, 2012, 06:27:04 AM

I have seen SO MANY TRULY BAD PRESCRIPTION, that I truly don't believe them - nor trust them.  Further, Peter, even you discovered some interesting facts.  1) You have "Variable Snellen" - which NO OD COULD FIND OUT OR CHECK.  You can read the 20/25 line at time, but also make your Snellen very sharp with a -1.25 lens. (I congratulate you for your self-checking).  You also found out you can read your 20/25 line THROUGH a +1 lens.  This gives you the ability to CONTROL YOUR DISTANT VISION - if you choose to do so.


Thank you Otis.  I am pretty confident, that my first many attempts to read my snellon gave at most 20/150 vision.  So, my variable vision was not all that crash hot for the first several days after I got my snellon.  Afterwards, as I started to do the equivalent of using plus lenses, that is pushing print with no glasses at all, I recovered from 20/150 to about 20/50 or 20/60 with flashes of better vision.  I must be clear, they were only flashes of better vision, and nothing I could hold steady.

Also, the first thing the OD had me do in Dec. 2011 was have me look at a regular snellon and tell me what I see, and I told him barely the big E.  Again, consistent with my own findings a few weeks later when I got my own snellon and before I started learning.

I think it is fair to say, I did not in any sense of the word begin with variable vision that allowed me at times to see 20/60.  This was at a time when I wore -2L & -2.5R.

So, given this scenario, and based what you have stated, I think you rightfully don't make claims of recovery.  I think that is sensible.

At 13, when I got my first glasses and the OD told me I was 20/30 L and 20/50 R, I was definately in the situation where I could have applied prevention with a strong plus lens and gotten out of it.   Right now, I can apply the same plus principle, as I did in January 2012 but this time with plus glasses, and over 6-9 months I may potentially begin to more consistently see the 20/40 line and have less variability in my vision.  But when I get to that level, I don't think I reset physiologically to where I was when I was 13.

As I've read from Don Rehm's site, your info, info from Alex Freinfeld, and other like minded sites, I fall outside the prevention sweet spot, and likely am attempting to recover from physiological changes.  No matter how forcefully I apply the plus lens, I may not recover.  We never know from each individual, whether they end up successful like Todd or Brian Severson.  I am sure others have applied themselves just as forcefully as those two gentlemen, and failed to get out of it.  As I've heard from most prevention minded practitioners, everyone is different.

I do hope to attain consistent 20/30 or better accuity, understanding completely that if I get there, it will likely not give me the same visual experience as a person who has never worn glasses but also has 20/30 accuity.  I am thankful for Shadowfoot who has achieved 20/15 accuity, for helping me understand this.  He stated it was frustrating to have 20/15 self-measured accuity, but also experiencing that a person with "perfect" uncorrected vision is still able to outsee him in real life scenarios.  I would gladly be in that situation.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on October 09, 2012, 08:34:19 AM
Hi Otis

I carry a more point apart from your below commwnt

"It should become clear that if *I*, verified that 1) I was reading 20/50 to 20/60, and 2) A -1.25 would clear the 20/30 line, I would 3) NOT WEAR A MINUS LENS. 

For children - it is possible to do that.  The ENTIRE PURPOSE OF WEARING A +2.5 DIOPTER FOR ALL CLOSE WORK, IS TO VERIFY THAT YOUR SNELLEN IMPROVES TO 20/40.  That would take about six months of WEARING THE +2.5 FOR ALL CLOSE WORK.

"
The use of +2.5D will not provide much reduction in diopters unless the person do slight defocus reading .

The correct use of plus a child will never learn unless he attains a particular age. So what is the alternative

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 09, 2012, 08:39:15 AM
Dear Peter,

What you now state - is IDENTICAL to the "thinking" I arrived at - after 10 years of exhaustive review.  I know that no OD or MD "intends harm".  Indeed - far from it.  They simply DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.  That would be an admission of "tragic ignorance".  Yet the even "deeper" ignorance is in the person himself.  (I truly do NOT know how to break this cycle.)

Let me relate this - as conversation with my parents.  I began to realize that a negative STATE of the natural eye - is always "self-induced".  

I found out that our medical doctor - told my parents that I would going to be "myopic" - when I had 20/20!!!

I wondered - how the hell did he know that.  Its easy.  If my refractive state was +3/4 diopters - I would have been safe.

But even the slightest "plus" would blur the 20/20 line. That simple test will confirm that a child WILL BECOME MYOPIC.

This is confirmed by Dr. Young's study.  But how do you tell  a parent, that because he has a refractive STATE of zero - that he MUST BEGIN WEARING A STRONG PLUS FOR ALL CLOSE WORK.  That is the "tough lesson" we must indeed "learn".

But who the hell is going to teach us that lesson?  Futher, what parent will ever LISTEN to and OD or MD who TELLS YOU THAT EXACT TRUTH??

That is what *I* see as the ONLY POSSIBILITY.

Since the OD or MD will NOT VOLUNTEER THIS TYPE OF INFORMATION (about pure prevention) this I will volunteer it to you - AND I EXPECT YOU ALL WILL IGNORE ALL THAT I TELL YOU.

Peter - I profoundly appreciate you honesty and experience.  I think you are at a point (or will be) where you pass the 20/40 line - and can avoid the minus.  I hope you can convince yourself to always wear a plus for all close work.  If it were *ME* - I would be doing it.

Best,

Otis




I have seen SO MANY TRULY BAD PRESCRIPTION, that I truly don't believe them - nor trust them.  Further, Peter, even you discovered some interesting facts.  1) You have "Variable Snellen" - which NO OD COULD FIND OUT OR CHECK.  You can read the 20/25 line at time, but also make your Snellen very sharp with a -1.25 lens. (I congratulate you for your self-checking).  You also found out you can read your 20/25 line THROUGH a +1 lens.  This gives you the ability to CONTROL YOUR DISTANT VISION - if you choose to do so.


Thank you Otis.  I am pretty confident, that my first many attempts to read my snellon gave at most 20/150 vision.  So, my variable vision was not all that crash hot for the first several days after I got my snellon.  Afterwards, as I started to do the equivalent of using plus lenses, that is pushing print with no glasses at all, I recovered from 20/150 to about 20/50 or 20/60 with flashes of better vision.  I must be clear, they were only flashes of better vision, and nothing I could hold steady.

Also, the first thing the OD had me do in Dec. 2011 was have me look at a regular snellon and tell me what I see, and I told him barely the big E.  Again, consistent with my own findings a few weeks later when I got my own snellon and before I started learning.

I think it is fair to say, I did not in any sense of the word begin with variable vision that allowed me at times to see 20/60.  This was at a time when I wore -2L & -2.5R.

So, given this scenario, and based what you have stated, I think you rightfully don't make claims of recovery.  I think that is sensible.

At 13, when I got my first glasses and the OD told me I was 20/30 L and 20/50 R, I was definately in the situation where I could have applied prevention with a strong plus lens and gotten out of it.   Right now, I can apply the same plus principle, as I did in January 2012 but this time with plus glasses, and over 6-9 months I may potentially begin to more consistently see the 20/40 line and have less variability in my vision.  But when I get to that level, I don't think I reset physiologically to where I was when I was 13.

As I've read from Don Rehm's site, your info, info from Alex Freinfeld, and other like minded sites, I fall outside the prevention sweet spot, and likely am attempting to recover from physiological changes.  No matter how forcefully I apply the plus lens, I may not recover.  We never know from each individual, whether they end up successful like Todd or Brian Severson.  I am sure others have applied themselves just as forcefully as those two gentlemen, and failed to get out of it.  As I've heard from most prevention minded practitioners, everyone is different.

I do hope to attain consistent 20/30 or better accuity, understanding completely that if I get there, it will likely not give me the same visual experience as a person who has never worn glasses but also has 20/30 accuity.  I am thankful for Shadowfoot who has achieved 20/15 accuity, for helping me understand this.  He stated it was frustrating to have 20/15 self-measured accuity, but also experiencing that a person with "perfect" uncorrected vision is still able to outsee him in real life scenarios.  I would gladly be in that situation.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 09, 2012, 08:47:53 AM
HI Proh,

In my judgment - your child has been 'reading' from a young age - with all due respect.  Children simply don't get "down" to about -1 diopter - unless they have been doing that type of work.  (I am not a critic - but I an certain - for myself - that is how I started to "go down").

I don't know how to address this issue to a four year-old child - and it would be presumptuous of me to even attempt to do so.

Otis


Hi Otis

I carry a more point apart from your below commwnt

"It should become clear that if *I*, verified that 1) I was reading 20/50 to 20/60, and 2) A -1.25 would clear the 20/30 line, I would 3) NOT WEAR A MINUS LENS. 

For children - it is possible to do that.  The ENTIRE PURPOSE OF WEARING A +2.5 DIOPTER FOR ALL CLOSE WORK, IS TO VERIFY THAT YOUR SNELLEN IMPROVES TO 20/40.  That would take about six months of WEARING THE +2.5 FOR ALL CLOSE WORK.

"
The use of +2.5D will not provide much reduction in diopters unless the person do slight defocus reading .

The correct use of plus a child will never learn unless he attains a particular age. So what is the alternative

Proh
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on October 09, 2012, 08:54:47 AM
 

I think you are at a point (or will be) where you pass the 20/40 line - and can avoid the minus.  I hope you can convince yourself to always wear a plus for all close work.  If it were *ME* - I would be doing it.


And I think you understand my question, and Proh's question.  Essentially, both he and I are in the "rehabilitiation" scenario and so you know neither he or I are prevention candidates physiologically.

It seems that from what I have heard from others, that first .5 to 1 diopters is fairly easy to drop.  The net balance remaining is the problem.
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: PROH on October 09, 2012, 09:04:37 AM
Otis It's true that she has started reading at the age of 2 & writing at the age of 3.

May be this is the reason. We were not even aware at that time of any impact on eyes due to this work.

But since last 6 months we are taking care of good vision habits & ensuring to use plus of 1.5D for near work
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: OtisBrown on October 09, 2012, 09:30:25 AM
Hi Proh,

I know how hard parents want there children to "develop".  I never stand in there way.  But this "galloping' myopia must be called a 21 th Century problem.

As you know, I feel I can only promote a "pure prevention" study at a four year engineering college (where no student is below 20/50).  You can EXPLAIN to them that they can expect their eyes to go down by -1.5 diopoters in four year - IF THEY REFUSE TO WEAR A +2 FOR ALL CLOSE WORK.

But you never know what any person might decide to do.  I am a pilot. If some one told me (when I was at 20/40, and -1 diopter) that by steady wearing of a plus, that I could get back to 20/20 (as Shadowfoot did it) believe me - I would do it - for the four years I was in college.

But you see the problem here.  Eveyone wants a quick-fix in a month.  So they QUIT with the plus in that time frame. Or they "fear" that wearing the plus - will CAUSE THEM TO GO BLIND - OR SOME OTHER FALSE BELIEF.

I had guessed your child was a "reader" at a young age. 

I do not know what you plan to  do - but, however difficult, I would say NO MINUS LENS.  Then, get a +2.5 diopter, and see that she always puts this on for all reading.  (She can use a "half glass" so she can look over the tops for distant vision.) Yes, I know this will look "strange" - but it is indeed, "now or never".

If you could do this - for the next six months, then there is a reasonable chance she could begin to read the 20/40 line. This is truly tough - but I do not have anything else to suggest.

Otis



Otis It's true that she has started reading at the age of 2 & writing at the age of 3.

May be this is the reason. We were not even aware at that time of any impact on eyes due to this work.

But since last 6 months we are taking care of good vision habits & ensuring to use plus of 1.5D for near work
Title: Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
Post by: peterg on October 09, 2012, 10:57:26 AM
Otis It's true that she has started reading at the age of 2 & writing at the age of 3.

May be this is the reason. We were not even aware at that time of any impact on eyes due to this work.

But since last 6 months we are taking care of good vision habits & ensuring to use plus of 1.5D for near work

Hi Proh,

I think the key is trying to teach your daughter to read just inside the blur point, which takes a lot of discipline from adults.  Perhaps you will be able to slowly coach your daughter on that over the next 2 years.

It may be likely that you will succeed in slowing down her myopia development if you continue with plus lenses but can't get her to read at just before blur.

The OD I visited in Dec. 2011 who believes in myopia reduction via plus lenses, indicated that the main problem with giving children plus lenses of any strength is that they will just pull their eyes closer to what they are looking at.  Therefore it is implied, they are still exerting as much accomodation as they were before the lenses.   Otis knows the ballpark numbers a little better and what they mean, but if your daughter was reading at 8 inches, and then put on plus 1.5 but reads at 4 inches some of the benefit of the plus is negated as far as strain reduction.