Otis> The medical community deals with this type of person every day. When "student" asks about "plus prevention",
he is told what student states as "scientific truth". The result? The OD feels prescribing a strong minus lens, is "perfect", and that
long-term near does not create, "negative state" for all natural eyes. (Please respect my choice of words.)
Student> FYI: Sorry, but these types of eye exercises and lens therapies have been scientifically studied.
Unfortunately, they do not work. There is some evidence that plus lenses MAY slightly reduce the rate of
progression of myopia for a limited time in kids. But otherwise, they don't seem to work.
Otis> I NEVER use "medical biased words". They poison a scientific discussion, and produce anger in the "medical person". All the
"medical studies" start with the assumption that you are "stupid" about objective science. That does insult my intelligence, and
my sense of science. The "plus", is NEVER, "eye exercise". Please never think of it that way. Student's point that, "prevention does not
work", is an assumption, because there has NEVER been any attempt to restrict a study to 1) Intelligent people, and 2) Restricted
to people who can confirm 20/40, and 3) A person who will personally measure their own refractive state themselves.
Otis> But the "medical profession", is never the group that will ever run a "pure prevention" study. They have excluded that possibility - for everyone.
For me, I look at the confirmed, -1/2 diopter per year, for students who are 16 years old and in high school. The plus, properly used in that circumstance,
depends completely, no the scientific education of the person himself. That is something that "student" will never understand,
and will never even attempt. That is why he will become ever more nearsighted, and insist that preventing, "negative status",
will never work. His is right. Prevention is not for him - and NO MEDICAL PERSON will ever be concerned about, "Student".
