Subject: Todd was/is successful. I think we all agree on that point.
Equally: There are people who see no change or no results after seemingly doing "the same thing". I do not think that Todd has an obligation to explain the fact that some people see, "no results". The "man in his office", will refer to those people who "see no results", and say, that "... there is no way I can ever prescribe something or anything that, does not work ...". That is why a "man in his office", is always going to insist that, "... wearing a strong plus, and "pushing print", does not work for EVERYONE. In a technical sense he is correct. You can not prescribe this as "working for everyone". In fact, I restrict myself to mild prescriptions (like Todd had), and people who develop their understanding that long-term plus wear, is indeed required though the school years.
I separate pure-science, where a strong minus lens ALWAYS CREATES NEGATIVE STATUS, in all natural eyes, from a "man in his office", who does not want to, "talk about it".
Let me state strongly that I am friends with ODs and MDs. But on the issue of pure-science, and prevention, I realize that, "I MUST do it myself".
Otis> But - let us be fair. Prevention is difficult, as Chris, and others have discovered. Since I totally support Todd's success, I would like to add these scientific remarks.
%%%%%%
Todd> I think that this criticism is both fair and unfair. Fair, to the extent that Jim is right that there are no studies (yet) that specifically and conclusively demonstrate the long-term, irreversible adaptation that Jim is looking for. The few studies so far show smaller, more transient improvements.
Todd> However, the criticism is unfair for several important reasons:
Todd> 1. The "failed" studies that Jim cites didn't really study the technique that I advocate. They studied the passive, mindless wearing of plus lenses. Subjects were not advised to read at the edge of blur, either with or without glasses. They just wore plus lenses all day long, regardless of what they were looking at. If you really understand the IRDT theory and the importance of the "edge of blur" effect, it is not at all surprising that these "passive" protocols did not result in reduction of myopia.
Todd> 2. I see no reason to challenge the integrity or honesty of those of us who have succeed by doubting our claims, or suggesting that our measurements are false, imprecise, biased, "corrupt" or based upon wishful thinking. It would be nice if I could have wished myself into reading movie subtitles from the back of the theater or getting my optical restriction removed by the DMV. But at some point, reality intrudes. If those of us with success stories were just deluding ourselves, we sure have one big amazing conspiracy going on here at Getting Stronger!
Todd> 3. While I believe that success speaks for itself, I would like to see more scientific evidence to explain our success. Sometimes scientific and medical progress is made by first achieving a result, even if the original explanation is wrong, or incomplete, or there is no explanation. The lack of an explanation does not mean the phenomenon is not real. But to convince others and make progress, I would still like to see more convincing evidence.
Otis> Some people "pick up" the idea of REJECTING minus lens wear (if at 20/40), and totally avoid wearing it - as Todd did. They then, "pick up" on the success of Brian Severson, and wear the plus, in combination with push-print. They are VERY persistent. As Todd suggests, he is successful, then, in retro-spect, he reviews the science behind his success - and sees WHY he was successful. This is not "hoped for" success. It is objective success, since Todd objectively reads the 20/20 line. You can deny this success - but you should know better.
Otis> Yes, plus-prevention is never going to be easy. It is an educated choice, never a guarantee. If you expect this to be guaranteed - you know little about science and scientific proof. Do not expect an OD to help you with this issue.
