Author Topic: Plus-prevention, a success, or a risk?  (Read 794 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Plus-prevention, a success, or a risk?
« on: August 13, 2015, 08:54:59 AM »
These are good questions (from a person who is self-verified at 20/40, and uses a -1 diopter to clear the 20/20 line).

RISK>  People who are "medical" will imply that is you wear a plus (or under-prescribe), you are running a risk.  But they
will never tell you what that risk might be.  It is obviously that they do not want you to wear a strong plus (for all close work)
and to slowly get a change of +3/4 diopters, necessary to get to 20/25 and 20/20.

Otis>  For myself, who is wearing a plus 2.5 as I type this - THERE IS NO RISK.

Otis>  For myself, there is proof that any "minus lens wear", if you are at 20/40, will only make matters far worse - and will
inhibit your ability to slowly restore your Snellen to the 20/25 and 20/20 range.

Otis> We now know, finally, that a few people, who have the long-term motivation to wear, and keep on wearing
a plus, are objectively successful.

Otis> We also know that there are some people (at 20/40 to 20/50) who are not successful.  (i.e., their Snellen
remains the same. 

Otis> I do not see any risk to anyone from "avoiding" the minus lens, and wearing a strong plus for all close work

Otis> This is not a "method".  It is a way of thinking, and of protecting your distant vision for life.

Otis> What is the cost?  NOTHING.

If you wish to learn more, then enjoy these sites:

https://myopiafree.wordpress.com/

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

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

The difficulty for most people, is that they do not see the value of wearing a plus for the long-term.
The "Embry" study - could succeed with pilots.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2015, 08:57:53 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline rtdfgdfgdfgdfg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: Plus-prevention, a success, or a risk?
« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2015, 10:16:13 AM »
is the risk that I become long sighted, the opposite of myopia ?

or is this not true