Errors and assumptions people make - when working on plus-prevention.

[OtisBrown]

Subject: Why you must make your own objective measurements, and avoid the OD's measurement "system".

For background, most of these concepts come from an optometrist.  He made these statements that I made an exhaustive effort to verify.

a)  The minus lens is "poison". (Verified as pure science.  People who wish to argue against, plus-prevention, should look at this science.)

b) The public will never wear a plus lens - for prevention.
His statement, about the "public" -- he attempted to serve -- was that, if he attempted to get the child to even begin to wear the
plus, then, "...the parents will not stand for it".  In other words, the real "limit" is the public's universal rejection of the
concept of wearing a plus for near, while the child can still read the 20/40 line.

I have had a number of pleasant discussions with members on Todd's site, (and my own family) about the true difficulties of, "just prevention".
I will compile the problems, most people will encounter.  Here is my list.

1)  That myopia is a disease, and therefore, only a "medical person" can solve the problem.

2) That the optometrist has an interest in prevention (when you can still read the 20/40 line, and have a refractive state of -1 diopter.)

3) That the optometrist, can help you in any way with prevention.  (The sad truth, is that he will not even help his own children to
AVOID ENTRY. That is most damning, if you have an interest in prevention at all.  I would read, "My Children are nearsighted -- Too.)

http://forum.gettingstronger.org/index.php/topic,1105.0.html

4) That recovery is going to be easy.  That recovery is going to be fast.  That anyone can do it from any degree of nearsightedness.

5) That you must go to an optometrist to have your "eyes measured".  In fact, almost always their measurements are not
accurate at all.  You almost always are over-prescribed by from -1/2 to -1.0 diopters.

6) That you can't measure your visual acuity and refractive state - yourself.

7) That no one has ever changed his refractive state by +1 diopter, and has gone from 20/40 to 20/20.

8 ) If you are going to work on "plus prevention", and have a mild prescription, of say -1.0 to -2.0 diopters, I strongly suggest you
down-load this Snellen chart, and determine which line you can read 1/2 the letters on.  It is completely common, that
a person with a -1.0 "prescription", can read the 20/60 line on a "bright Snellen" at home. (Many people can
do far better than that.)

If you can, that is a good starting point for prevention - completely on your own.  This is a simplified video, to show the basic idea. 
You can not become successful, if you never look at your own Snellen.  (The Visual Acuity chart, is in the first paragraph of this video.)

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

9) I do not ask a person to work on prevention unless I believe that he has a chance to make himself successful.  (That limits my statement to
people who have at least 20/40 to 20/70 vision.  I personally wear a plus, to avoid getting back, "into" neassightedness.)  I do not ask
a person to do something that I am not doing.

+++++

I will add more ideas to this list, as I believe that only an, "independent mind", with long-term motivation and commitment can or will
be successful with plus prevention.  From the above, it is clear that no one in an office, can ever "prescribe" this type of
insights and efforts.  That is the real problem that most people will have with plus-prevention.  They think that an
OD must be involved, when they can't be involved.

The other problem, is that most people simply do not value their distant vision enough - to face all the above difficulties. 

[OtisBrown]

Subject: The "compromise" you must make, when you are still reading 20/40 (-1 Diopter) on your Snellen.

Issue:  Do you truly NEED 20/10 vision with a -2 diopter, when you can still read the 20/30 line - naked eye?

I deeply appreciate all the insights of Dr. Alex.  Prevention will involve compromise - for some time - if you can read the 20/40 line.

PLATEAU:  By its very nature - recovery is in deed a slow process.  It just takes long-term persistence.

+++++

Dr Alex>  Imagine you went for an annual physical, and it is determined that you are unable to run five miles in 35 minutes.  Since that number is achievable by any superb athlete, it is assumed that your body should be able to do this as well.  And since you are unable to do so, the doctor recommends that you either a) get a wheelchair to fix the apparent problem with your legs, or b) start taking HGH (human growth hormone) and other performance enhancers to improve your physical condition.

Dr. Alex>  That sounds insane, doesn't it?

http://frauenfeldclinic.com/prescriptions-like-steroids-glasses-might-give-unnatural-vision/

+++++

Yes, it is more than "sound insane", with some wise research, the strong minus lens you are "prescribed", (in good faith), in
fact, causes myopia all by itself.  When will we learn this as "pure science".  But no one, in his office, wants to
discuss why any wearing of a minus lens (however easy and comfortable) can never fix the issue of negative status
for the natural eye.  (Note the choice of words I use.)  Can you?

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

I consider a person lucky, if he has a -1.5 diopter, but on self objective checking he can read most of the 20/40 line.

That is a STARTING point - not an "end point".  But he will have to choose to wear a plus during the school years, to
get back to "positive status" for his natural eyes.

This is indeed a tough, challenging choice.

[OtisBrown]

For me, I asked the OD these pointed questions.  I never got an honest answer.  That is why that animation of
the minus CAUSING, negative status (and serious myopia) is so important to me.

When I was growing-up I had these questions:

1) Did my reading habits create a negative status in my totally normal eyes.

2)  Does the minus lens (you provided) fail to solve any problem, other than to make my distant vision superficially “sharper”?

3)  Does the minus lens (however sincere your intention) only make my refractive status much more negative?

4) Does science prove that long-term wearing of a minus lens on the natural (emmetropic) eye, cause entry into myopia?

5) Do wise (second-opinion) doctors, recognizing the truth in the above questions, teach their own children to wear a “preventive plus” lens during the school years to avoid all of the above problems?

I know that each of us are going to ask, and answer these questions – in their own way and by their own scientific analysis.

I ask and plead with you to understand that I want NO FIGHT with any medical person on this site, or  this subject.  I think the word, “nearsightedness”, is tragic, because people then think, “nearsightedness-CURE”.  There is no cure, that can be provided by a medical person.

The word I use to describe the eye, is “negative status”, where the eye is measured with a trial lens set, and a Snellen, with the person himself making these measurements.

I have never gotten "straight answers", in pure science from a medical person.  I do accept that no OD has any interest in helping anyone with, "just prevention".

There is no "money in it" for them. But that is not the complete answer.  The other part is legal, they can not "prescribe" what you can
do better for yourself.

But the scientific issues, of pure-science, are as I stated them.