Author Topic: Conpendium of success stories with the plus  (Read 3109 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Conpendium of success stories with the plus
« Reply #1 on: January 25, 2015, 10:04:39 AM »
Subject: Optometry and successful return to 20/20 vision - by use of a plus for near.

There are some ODs who recognize the need for the plus, from "prescriptions" of -1 to -2 diopters (with mild astigmatism.)

But, the ODs find (for the most part) that the person will not wear the plus at the -1 and -2 diopter stage.

Tragically, few ODs will take the time to EXPLAIN WHY it would be wise and necessary to wear the +1.5 diopter,
when you can see very sharply through a -1.5 diopter lens.

NOTE:  School boy, with refraction of -3 diopters, both eyes.  REFUSED to give the -3 diopter, and
INSISTED that a plus be worn for all close work.  After six months, the student's eyes were
20/30 (6/9).  But did the boy and parent's understand this success??

Thanks to published research (today) we know that the  minus lens is the worst possible solution.

It would be nice if we were in formed of this truth, while we have a mild prescription, and could
get out of it, as described by Dr. Rasmussen.

I would recommend that all of us, who can still read the 20/40 line, take this report very seriously.

NOTE: The one failure of this report was this: He states he gave a child a +1.5 diopter, and, after
three months, her eyes were normal.

I have no doubt that he was objectively accurate and correct.  The problem, the PARENTS NEVER

This is the great failure in optometry.  You are not "trusted" to make the measurements.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 11:28:07 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Conpendium of success stories with the plus
« Reply #2 on: January 25, 2015, 11:41:45 AM »
When the person "figures out" the need for the plus, (at 20/40) the result is success.

NOTE: This is objective science, and can not be "reduced" to a magic-pill in ten minutes.

Commentary by Dr. Stirling Colgate:


Dr. Stirling Colgate, a research scientist with the Los Alamos National Laboratory, correctly deduced the behavior of the normal eye, and began using a plus 2.5 diopter lens to reverse the effect of a confined environment on his eyes. By doing this, he successfully recovered from a slight amount of myopia.

"Fortunately, I understood most of this for myself when I was studying biology and physics when I was 14. I first started to become nearsighted at 13 to 14. As soon as I noticed it, I immediately acted upon it by buying a pair of reading (farsightedness) glasses, (positive lenses), at the dime store. I used these for reading. A positive lens substitutes for further contraction of the ciliary muscle; thereby allowing the eye focus to remain in the relaxed state of infinity when reading a book up close. Within several weeks my eyesight had returned to normal -- relaxed state of focus at infinity."

"Since I am a physicist I am not dependent upon optometry or ophthalmology for my professional peer group. I have managed my own eyesight all during my life (now 63). I have undertaken to try to explain this because I believe that the condition of myopia (and then having to wear nearsighted glasses for life) is totally unnecessary for the majority of the human race. I believe that the condition of progressive myopia is a grotesque and needless distortion of human physiology, created by our intellectual environment of reading and continued because of our collective denial of that very intellect."


If a fourteen-year-old can figure out how to act effectively to avoid myopia then you should be able to duplicate his successful preventive effort.

This book contains a detailed scientific and engineering assessment of the normal eye's behavior. If you wish to develop a complete understanding of eye's behavior under testable conditions, then review Chapters Four through Ten. The previous discussions about problems of the eye have been qualitative. A qualitative statement is very difficult to test in a scientific sense, and often has imbedded bias and assumptions. These arguments (about the cause of the defective eye) have not led to a clear understanding of the normal eye's behavior. To encompass a full and accurate understanding of the eye it is necessary to develop a precise quantitative model of the eye's behavior.

It is always difficult to develop a book that advocates change in existing medical practices. However, if we are ever to come to grips with a major scientific problem, we must be willing to generate criticism of existing practices so that at least a few of us will have the opportunity to effectively defeat the problem of nearsightedness.

This book applies only to nearsightedness that is preventable. You should consult with an ophthalmologist or optometrist if you think that the blur at a distance is a result of a diseased condition such as detached retina, glaucoma, etc. After you are assured your problem has to do only with the refractive state of your eyes, you should proceed with the preventive approach recommended in this book.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 11:48:50 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Conpendium of success stories with the plus
« Reply #3 on: January 25, 2015, 11:47:11 AM »
It was difficult for Dr. Colgate to understand or "figure out" why optometrists refused to help with threshold prevention. 

Here are his further comments.

I can not dispute Dr. Colgate's success.  There is a great deal of objective science, that shows that his results can be predicated.
But the real issue is this -- HE DID IT ALL HIMSELF.

The only issue, was that Dr. Colgate started EARLY, and got out in about several weeks as he states.  For most of us, I believe that we will take six moths. I make no claims of success - since you must verify your own results yourself.


We should learn from the man who successfully defeated the myopia situation. Dr. Stirling Colgate details his struggle and success with the problem in the following paragraphs.

"Science has progressed to understanding this mechanism of slow adaptation of the relaxed focal length (focal state) of the eye to its average focal environment. A significant number (several dozen) professional people in ophthalmology and related disciplines have empirically and intuitively come to the same conclusions (that nearsightedness is preventable) and unsuccessfully attempted, even with the dedication of a lifetime, to reverse the orthodox view of solely genetically determined eye focus."

"Many individuals in the ophthalmology profession have not yet recognized a mechanism of slow adaptation of the relaxed focal length (focal state) of the eye to its mean focal environment for various reasons. Among these reasons are:"

"There is a long-standing orthodox view that all focal states are hereditary and therefore nothing affects focus after conception."

"The public demands instantaneous sharp vision; i.e. Johnny can't read the black board and I won't stand for any nonsense about getting glasses that make it still fuzzier -- even temporarily."

"The scientific understanding of the (normal) eye's development is not yet widely published, so there is always an excuse to ignore it."

"There have been many non-scientific books about sight-without-glasses that have not logically argued the reasons, not given the physics background, nor have they discussed the biological mechanism. For example, eye exercises involve contracting the ciliary muscle, causing a nearer more myopic focus and, therefore, resulting in a negative change of focus for the eye."

"If reading glasses were used at the onset of myopia, up to 90 percent of nearsightedness could be avoided. Furthermore, reading glasses should cost no more than $5.00 to $7.00 to manufacture and sell for $10.00 to $15.00 without a prescription."

"Many optometrists and even some ophthalmologists believe that myopia and wearing glasses is not such a bad thing; after all, many people want to buy glasses in order to look chic. The very many that undergo the discomfort and expense of wearing contact lenses is an overwhelming vote to the contrary. People would rather not be nearsighted."

"Finally, social pressure of intellectual achievement is forcing the age of first reading to an earlier, even preschool age, hence causing earlier myopia, and a potential for further progression."


"It is perhaps worth speculating why there has not been any prior recognition by the medical and optometry professions of the approach to the management of eyesight focus. I believe there are many additional 'reasons' but I have heard these:"

"Nearsightedness is not a very severe handicap, and mostly those affected are studious anyhow and don't need distance vision."

"It is not a problem for medicine and so medical doctors are not concerned."

"If you don't want to be nearsighted, give up reading."

"Negative lenses that correct nearsightedness are relatively cheap and easy to wear so why bother with another approach."

"Glasses are a status symbol of the intellectual."

"Contact lenses make nearsightedness even less of a problem."

"Only recently has nearsightedness become a severe problem -- it is both more prevalent and, because of earlier onset, leads to progressive myopia."

"Traditionally, medicine treats or cures the symptom and, only recently, is preventative medicine respected."

"Only very recently is there a rational scientific explanation for the scientific observation of the developmental mechanism of the normal eye."

"Only the last statement is acceptable to me. So now that there is such a scientific basis, let's get on with the solution."


"Now I assume that you are young, 8 to 20 years old; have recently (within months) started or gone nearsighted and don't want to go on with thicker and thicker negative lenses for distant vision. You buy and wear positive lens reading glasses for all your reading -- or anything up close, and even for some of the rest of the time. You might get a bit of a headache at first; if so, decide which comes first -- the headache or myopia, and adjust the use of the positive lenses accordingly. Monitor your own mean relaxed focus, i.e., distance vision at least once a day.

"I may or may not be average but it took me only 2 weeks when I was 14 years old to return my initial myopia (about 20/80) to normal vision, i.e., (20/20) eyesight. (20/20 vision means that you can see at 20 feet what a "normal" person sees at 20 feet.) Twenty feet is almost the same as infinity; (20/80) vision is the start of myopia. I could see at 20 feet what good eyes could see at 80 feet. I was studious, slightly shy, introverted type -- which also included, fortunately for me, a course in physics at that age. That is when I first understood the simple facts about lenses and optics and the absurdity of using a negative lens when I was becoming nearsighted.

"I bought my own reading glasses in the dime store. They were plus 2.5 diopters and stronger than I needed, but they did the trick in a hurry. If you catch the start of myopia before the lens muscle spasm leads to irreversible lengthening of the eyeball (change of focal state), then it seems that the eyesight returns to 'normal' rapidly.

"If you make up your mind what value the mean relaxed focal distance you want in life, you can manage or lead your eye to that condition. When several times I lost my reading glasses during the war (World War II), I could not get them replaced by military optometrists because my glasses were not orthodox. I rapidly became myopic again; at 17 I read a lot in the Merchant Marine. I restored my vision to 20/20 as soon as I could purchase positive lens reading glasses when I returned to the States.

"During the war there was much social pressure to get into the officers' college training programs, but 20/20 was required. A few optometrists recognized the need and they prescribed positive lens glasses for myopic young people who desperately wanted to get into the Navy V-12 training program. This technique worked for many who were moderately myopic. An optometrist at Cornell was surprised that I had been doing this successfully since the age of 14.


Nearsightedness prevention is possible -- if the work is done properly.

You must have the internal competence and desire to do the job logically and consistently, and must have a compelling personal reason to want to succeed.
The effort must be conducted as soon as the situation is detected (20/40, -1/2 diopter myopia)

You must take the time to learn and understand the proven behavior of the normal eye.


Tragically, no optometrist will tell you anything of Dr. Colgate's experience and personal efforts. 

But then, they feel that they must find a strong minus, that satisfies you "instantly", and nothing else WILL EVER BE POSSIBLE.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 08:19:00 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Conpendium of success stories with the plus
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2015, 11:41:17 AM »

SUBJECT: While a mature adult, at age 18, and 20/40, can "figure out", the plus, a child is in a more difficult situation.

What we DO KNOW, is that if the plus is not used, the child's vision goes down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.

Dear Prevention-minded parents,

     I have received this from a parent.

     I have changed the names of the people to protect them.




From: Ron

Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Subject: Mike's vision 20/70 to 20/30

Dear Otis,

     I am Ron and my son is Mike.  Mike is eight years old now and
can read most of the 20/30 line of i-see random Snellen chart.   He
has been using plus for three months.

     In 2004 when he was 6.  My wife and I took him to see the
optometrist in a university.  We were told that Mike's vision was
farsighted +0.75D both eyes and the eyes were healthy.

     In 2005 he was 7.   We went to the same optometrist.  We were
told that Mike's farsightedness was gone.  We worried he would be
myopic soon.  But nothing we could do at the time.  The
optometrist said that they suggest some children to use the hard
contact lens to slow down the myopia if myopia grows fast.  But he
said Mike was not myopic yet and did not need at the time.  My
wife and I also think the hard contact lens is too dangerous for a
young boy like Michael.  We do not consider.  What we could do was
just keep an eye on his vision.

     At his regular body check early August this year.   The doctor
told us Mike needed to see an optometrist.  My wife and I took him
to see an optometrist on the same day.   We were told that Mike was
R -1.25 D and L -1.00 D nearsighted.  That guy said Mike needed a
pair of nearsightedness glasses.  I told him Mike's refractive
state was 0 diopter last year.   That guy said know..  he has
grown.   he has grown taller.  his eyes have grown longer.  and
heredity.  so myopia.  I thought only the heredity made sense (not
any more now).

     I think the NBA players are much taller.  Are they all
myopic?  We rejected to let Michael wear glasses the guy wanted to
sell.  We went to two more different optometrists at different
places in the week (because I don't really trust some of them ).
One said Michael was R -1.25 D and L -1.50 D.  Another said he was
-1.50 D both eyes.  Sure enough he was nnearsighted.  We did not go
to the university because it takes months for an appointment.  We
needed to know earlier.

     My wife and I were very sad.  We have been doing everything
we can to protect his vision since he was a baby, no close reading
at home (in school we don't know and can not control), 12 feet
away from the TV and only two or three hours a week, no TV game
and no computer etc.  Unfortunately, he can not stay away from

     In that week.  My wife and I searched on the net.   We wanted
to find some methods to slow down Mike's myopia progress.  We
found O.K lens then we found plus method on Steve's site and your
site.  We read as much as possible in a week.  Though we read a
lot.  We could not let Mike try the plus.  Because we didn't know
too much about this.  We worried.  So we decided to try the plus
lenses by myself first.  After a few days using plus lenses.  I
felt good and my vision improved little.  It was no harmful at
all.  Then we got a pair of +1.50 D lenses for Michael starting.
Mike started using plus in the end of August 2006.

     Mike's vision improved a little bit in a month.  I always
check his vision at home with the eye charts on the net.  I have
read a lot about plus prevention on the net.  Too bad Steve
doesn't update his website any more for some reason.  Some people
accused him.

     I have read a lot on your site, your forum, the Yabb vision
improvement forum, and i-see etc.  I realize the
+1.50 D lenses are not strong enough for Michael when he reaches
20/50 or better.  So I gave him a pair of +2.50D lenses on 26
September 2006.  He uses plus at home and his class room.  He now
can read most of the 20/30.  Sometimes 4 of 6 sometimes 5 of 6.
His vision was about 20/60 - 20/70 three months ago.  He has
improved a lot through three months.

     Last week Mike had a vision assessment in the department of
health.  The optometrist put the -0.50D lenses on Mike's face.
Michael could read the smallest line each eye separately with
those lenses.  The optometrist said Mike was -0.50 D nearsighted
both eyes.  I asked him if the smallest line was 20/20.  He told
me that was 20/15.  He said Mike didn't need glasses.

     Otis, is that kind of over-prescription you always say?
Anyway, we are so happy about that Michael is just -0.50D
nearsighted (may be) confirmed by a professional optometrist
though I know his vision level on the eye chart at home, though I
don't trust some of them too much.

     Mike improves his vision by using plus.  So do I.   But my
vision is too bad can not be restored.   One thing is certain.
Plus prevention works.   Mike doesn't do any eye exercise like
zooming, sunning and palming etc.  He doesn't even know it.  I
have given him some blue berry extract with DHA since October
2006.  I don't know if it helps.  Who knows?

     One more thing is certain.  God has been helping us.  Thank

     Otis, you are doing great.  You are helping a lot of people.
Some people overcome myopia with your help.  I have learnt much
about plus-prevention on your site.  Mike can avoid the stair-case
myopia.  His vision doesn't need to be sacrificed.  I can't tell
you how excited I am that he doesn't need the nearsightedness
glasses in his life even he is just 20/30 now.   You are making
things better.

     I have seen some people bash you unreasonably.  So I just
want to write this letter to say thank you and encourage you.  It
is not easy for me to type an English letter like this.  But I
have to.

     I don't know if Mike will reach 20/20.  I believe he will.  I
will let you know on the day.

     Thank you very much again Otis.

Best regards,



Part 2

Subject: Mike's vision now 20/25

Dear Otis,

     Thank you for your message.  I read those pages of Wildsoet
Lab and Good Vision.  I understand the effect of the minus lens.
When I was teen.  I needed stronger minus lenses every one or two
years.   I don't want my child to do the same thing that I did.  I
value his vision.

     I test Mike's vision once a week.  Yesterday I tested his
vision again.  He could read 4 of 5 letters of IVAC 20/25 line.
It amazed me.  Last week he could just read 5 of 6 letters of
I-SEE Snellen 20/30 line.  He is getting better and better.  I
think kid's vision can be restored much easier than adult.

     As you know.  There are so many people nearsighted in Hong
Kong.  I am one of them.  Michael is in a grade 3 class with 20
classmates.  Unfortunately there are already five students wearing
minus glasses in his class.  My wife has talked about plus
prevention to a parent whose child is -1.50 D nearsighted.  But
she didn't really believe it.  People prefer the minus lens the
optometrists suggest.  You are right.  The Lord helps the people
who help themselves.

     I will get Mike proper medical checks certainly and we will
go to the Polytechnic university to see the optometrist again when
his vision gets better.

     Thank you very much for your attention.

Best regards,


Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
Re: Conpendium of success stories with the plus
« Reply #5 on: February 16, 2015, 10:49:29 AM »
With the above letters I can see that plus lenses in kids who have just started being myopic is more effective than adults with greater rate of improvement.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Conpendium of success stories with the plus
« Reply #6 on: February 17, 2015, 04:15:54 PM »
Subject:  Wearing a plus, when necessary, for 27 years, by Alex Eulenberg

Listen to people who are successful - they will be your leaders.

Some very wise experts, overcome their "fear" of wearing the plus intelligently - and protect their distant vision - for life.


Question> What about yourself, Alex? I'd be very interested to know your story --  And Happy belated birthday to I-SEE!!

Alex> Still going without minus lenses. Last prescription was -1.50 at 18
years old. I stopped using them pretty much for good at age 22. Now I'm
turning 45. and I can't remember the last time I even put a pair on. I
can see 20/20 in the sunlight. Still pushing print with plus lenses to
keep my distant vision sharp. No single thing seems to work as well for



Alex conducts the site, "I-SEE".  This is mostly an Bates and exercise site.

However, it is interesting  that he has the  wisdom and knowledge about wearing a plus - for his own personal benefit.

Is the plus "safe".  Well he wore it for 18 years, with no "ill effect", but rather, the
"good effect" that he got out of -1.5 diopters, and never failed the DMV - ever again.

« Last Edit: February 18, 2015, 09:58:04 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Conpendium of success stories with the plus
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2015, 01:34:37 PM »
so after 20 years of using the plus alex eulenberg can only see 20/20 in sunlight.

I assume his snellen is like 20/30 in room lightning.

That is not very good. After 20 years, i expect him to be able to read the 20/20 in ROOM (not sunlight) lightning with a +0.5D or +0.25D.