Author Topic: The FUTURE of "Myopia Control".  (Read 1342 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
The FUTURE of "Myopia Control".
« on: May 05, 2014, 12:31:54 PM »
Here is the reason why I do not "bother" ATTEMPTING an intelligent discussion about threshold prevention using a plus - with an optometrist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz2UHcmyR4E

Since the time of Raphaelson, I always appreciated optometry HONESTY.  This honesty would make me 98 percent responsible for

1) Monitoring my own Snellen, and

2) Responsible for wearing a plus for all close-work, if I started to go below 20/40.  In fact it was Raphaelson, who described the "default minus" as poison, that convinced me that there ARE honest optometrists.

Their idea of "prevention", by ANY preventive measure, is that such a thing CAN NEVER EXIST. 

In that sense I praise Bates for his courage.  These are the type of arrogant people who Bates had to deal with.  This is why there has never been a "follow-up" study or induce a scientific effort on pure prevention.

It is this type of self-serving arrogance that is the REAL problem. 

We know that highly motivated and insightful persons, being aware of this type of intellectual blindness, and gets their own plus, and wears it, are successful. 

At 20/40, we need and education, not the arrogance - in my opinion.  We need a "Raphaelson" who will tell us the truth - however difficult plus-prevention is going to be.

But, equally, when discussing the use of the plus on the "ignorant" and " not-motivated" general public, what is said is that this ignorance would prevent ANY use of the plus at 20/40.  In other words, we are condemned to be myopic, because we will always refuse to wear the plus when it can have the desired long-term effect.

What the optometrist in the above video states is that, "the plus will never work, even at 20/40".  If he said, the "public" will not stand for it - if he attempted to PRESCRIBE it, I would agree with him.

But, as it stands now, if I wish true prevention - I will have to avoid this self-satisfied optometrist and his "office blindness."

People are successful with the plus - but not if an optometrist is involved.

As an engineer (assuming I still read the 20/40 line), I say that if I want prevention done RIGHT, then I must do it myself.

After 100 years of tragedy, it truly does come down to that issue.

The FUTURE of myopia-prevention, for an optometrist, is that it can never even exist.  They have "written off" your long-term vision, before you even enter their offices.  They spell out that attitude - exactly.

That is why I would never go to them for prevention.  They believe you do not deserve a choice.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 06:17:16 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: The FUTURE of "Myopia Control".
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2014, 11:06:02 AM »
Subject: This might be sarcasm - but the only "future" exists for the person who will wear the plus at 20/40.

Item:  There are few leaders in prevention - who are ophthalmologists.  But here is one of them and her commentary for your interest.

+++++

By Kaisu Viikari

Sent: Friday, September 12, 2014 9:44 AM

This translation is actually for my coming compendium but in order it not to become unnoticed, I send it already now.

Kaisu

A kind of epilogue

When you live a long life and are allowed to keep your faculties intact, and when all these years coincide with a period in which the humankind is faced with an exceptionally dramatic transformation (=the digitalisation), a single person may get the privilege of observing the great patterns of change.

I cannot help feeling that this is what happened to me.

I had decided to become an ophthalmologist.

In a relatively early stage of my career I realised that the key role played by accommodation strain was not understood adequately at all.

This was the starting point of my varied battle, and in a relatively early stage of it, I already pointed out in my articles how great an impediment to treatment it was to strive for accurate vision and, above all, indulge the patient’s quite human need to focus and, at rather short intervals, control how the “treatment” was progressing. This action, on the contrary, is apt to tighten the accommodation as a result of aiming for sharpness of vision, i.e. focusing.

Over the years I further started making the point that there will never be another Kaisu Viikari, as I realised that in today’s conditions it is impossible for a single ophthalmologist during his or her career to accumulate all the experience that I have benefitted from:

1) the number of glasses prescribed, and more specifically incorrectly prescribed

2) the large number of instructive migraine patients with a great variety of symptoms that came to me for treatment

3 the number of years during which I monitored the improvement of my patients, and their letters, both before and after their symptoms had been relieved, etc.

And now, after all these years, I have to repeat the same observations, made multiple times more obvious and predicting the destruction of humankind!

After observing this development of the world for almost half a century:

The same requirements to relax the accommodation muscles are still valid, and no significant progress has been made.

It should all start from the parents of children understanding this physiological event, which is simple in itself. The parents should make sure
that the child wears plus glasses regularly, already from the age of 2 or 3, and stronger ones as he or she gets older – even if the child could manage without the glasses for several decades to come.

This would secure the future of the younger generation.

Once children grow up, they should be persuaded to personally understand the necessity of wearing glasses.

All it takes for the treatment to be successful is to get on with your life, only alleviated by the wearing of glasses, as the aforementioned digitalisation has irrevocably brought about an immense increase in the need for demanding close work.

But where in today’s society could you find a person who would consent to living like a dreamer, only inactively staring into infinity, without controlling the acuity of their vision, when society itself demands detailed information about our vision for many tasks and professions?

However, as I said, if the situation is handled correctly from the beginning, everything becomes possible with plus glasses, without any supporting action.

We could do even less and still manage reasonably well, however not always overcoming damage already done, but the ideal for preserving our vision is as I described above. Even in retirement age and later years of your life, it is always possible to take steps to improve the situation.

I do not know of any other person with my experience who could talk about this subject and provide advice – in the entire world!

Kaisu Viikari

++++++

Dear Kaisu,

Subject:  "Lead, follow - or get out of the way".

I have been in many (intellectual) fights about the intelligence and  FORTITUDE that a person must have - that required for "just prevention".

I enjoy intellectual analysis (because I fight for scientific truth), and I  do not enjoy "fighting" with people who have no interest in protecting their DISTANT VISION, by wise wearing of a plus for near.

I TRIED VERY HARD to find an ophthalmologist who would evem DISCUSS plus-prevention (40 years ago).

I could not find one.

So I had to do the "pushing" to wear the plus - myself.  For that, I get  "beat up" on a regular basis.  People just do not like intellectuals - who challenge, "existing authority".

If there is to be "plus prevention", of "negative status", it will have to originate in and educated, mature person, who can make this preventive choice for himself.

But your 50 year leadership - must stand alone - for all time into the future.

A true leader (as you are), insists on destroying the minus lens that her son had been wearing.  The the true-leader, insists that her son ALWAYS  WEAR THE PLUS FOR ALL CLOSE WORK.

That is your gift - to all of us.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2014, 11:11:53 AM by OtisBrown »