Author Topic: Todd's success, pure science and the "man in his office"  (Read 1863 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Todd's success, pure science and the "man in his office"
« on: September 24, 2015, 09:05:28 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2015, 05:12:35 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Todd's success, pure science and the "man in his office"
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2015, 06:59:42 PM »
A picture - is worth 1,000 words.  A video is worth 10,000 words.  Here is the reason no OD can fight against the minus lens. Can you fight against it?

Jake –
Kudos on that video of a minus lens, with leaves falling, and a garden path. That is what truly what sells the minus lens – with all due respect. The minus is like a “drug”, in that we love that extreme sharpness, as per your video. But a great deal that is pure-science suggests that we should teach ourselves to avoid wearing it – as much as possible. I know you get frustrated, when you feel people are not learning – but equally, it takes great personal success – to become the leader we need for effective preventive work. Thanks !

Here is the video.

http://endmyopia.org/matt-50-prescription-reduction-since-2014/

Note: That when you get "down to", -2.5 diopters - you have a good chance of getting to 20/40 or better. But it does take a long time to get there.

If I were an OD, and showed this - could I then "argue", with you that YOU SHOULD NOT WEAR IT??

In the sense of pure-science, you can show that how ever "good the intent", the minus lens not only does not "help", but just makes a poor situation, much worse.  As far as I am concerned, I should be told this, while I can still read the 20/40 to 20/50 line - as I enter a four year college. 

So - what is your choice?  The minus lens? 
« Last Edit: September 26, 2015, 05:13:43 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Todd's success, pure science and the "man in his office"
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2015, 06:27:16 AM »

Challenge #1 to Jim's assertion.

Jim is probably an optometrist.  He believes that any an all prevention is a fraud.  He has a right to his belief, of course.  He also DID NOT WEAR A PLUS LENS - which is the entire point of recovery from 20/40, and self-measured -1 diopter.  Yes, a person at 20/40 (such as Todd) did achieve a refractive change in a positive direction of about +1 diopter in about six months. More to the point, he made the measurements himself.  Here is why Jim loves these "failed studies.

Todd> 1.  The "failed" studies that Jim cites didn't really study the technique that I advocate. 

Otis> 100 percent correct.  A person must be smart and educated, and have the measurements under THEIR control.  They must understand the nature of "optometry bias", that will never empower you to make these critical measurements.

Todd> They studied the passive, mindless wearing of plus lenses. 

Otis> Yes, that is indeed correct.  A "passive person" can not wear the plus correctly.  It takes insights and great motivation, to ALWAYS wear a plus for near, and to "push print" to get maximum effect from the plus you are intentionally wearing - for your personal benefit.

Todd> Subjects were not advised to read at the edge of blur, either with or without glasses.

Otis> They were never advised as to the proven consequences - if they declined to wear the plus though four years of college.   That is the most important issue of all these issues.

Otis> Absolutely. They were never "intellectually connected" to the goal and purpose of their own study.  One study WITH A PLUS 2, (even with passive children) showed that MORE MOTIVATED, intellectual people, could get out of it, i.e., from 20/40 to 20/20, but this means the person understands WHY it is necessary.

Todd> They just wore plus lenses all day long, regardless of what they were looking at.

Todd>  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.

Otis> That is indeed exactly why an optometrist conducting the study (which the OD wants to fail) will never succeed.  Where a person is MOTIVATED, and fortunately, can read the 20/50 line, and go "cold turkey", (for that reason), and will dedicated himself to long-term plus wear for a year, then it is possible to drastically exceed the 20/40 line, and indeed get to self-verified 20/20.

Otis> But this level of desire, understanding and motivation, never exists in medicine.   Nor do I expect it ever will.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2015, 01:21:26 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Todd's success, pure science and the "man in his office"
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2015, 01:20:49 PM »
Challenge 2 to Jim's sweeping assertion, that all successful prevention (under control of the person himself) is a fraud.

Otis> The ONLY person who believes that Todd was objectively successful - is Todd.  Everyone else will believe he "cheated" in some way.

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.

Otis> I completely agree with Todd, because he objectively exceeded the 20/40 line - at home.  In due course, by being PERSISTENT with these two methods, "plus" and push-print" he exceeded the 20/40 line, and passed the 20/20 line.  But this is simply not "part of optometry".   But the ODs, to "save" there profession, must insist that, 1) This NEVER HAPPENED, 2)  Todd is not "medical" so he is not authorized to practice preventive medicine - on himself. 3)  You can't prescribe this.  There is no "wishful thinking", if you make objective measurements yourself.

Todd>   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. 

Otis> This is the most critical standard of all.  What Todd saw at home (say 20/30) does not matter.  But going and passing the DMV with "flying colors", is indeed objective by a third party.

Todd> But at some point, reality intrudes. 

Otis> In optometry - this reality NEVER INTRUDES.  There are people who try to convince an OD that they were successful.  Do not even bother thinking that way.

Todd>   If those of us with success stories were just deluding ourselves, we sure have one big amazing conspiracy going on here at Getting Stronger!

Otis> As far as all "office persons" are concerned, all success stories are fraud - based on the idea that Todd, describing his success, is having a desire to "sell you something".

« Last Edit: September 26, 2015, 05:14:24 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Todd's success, pure science and the "man in his office"
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2015, 05:19:39 PM »
Challenge #3

Otis> Yes, Todd was successful with a combination of "print pushing", and plus-lens wearing.  But what does science say about the need to start this process, when you can still read the 20/40 line (self-measured -1 diopter)?

Todd> 3.  While I believe that success speaks for itself,

Otis> With great respect to you, Todd, success only speaks to you.  Everyone else will choose to ignore your success, and with ODs, will simply say that you were getting "presbyopia", and that explains why you can now read the 20/20 line. 

Todd>  I would like to see more scientific evidence to explain our success. 

Otis> The "dynamic eye" concept" (IRDT Theory) explains why prevention can be effective at 20/40.   But the OD, "in his office" wants none if it - with all due respect.  He just calls anyone who is successful, "a flake" who does not understand anything about "medical science".

Todd> 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.

Otis>  I am certain we all want an "explanation".  But the only reality, is for a person (at 20/40) to aggressively wear a strong plus (and push print while wearing a plus), and SLOWLY get better-than 20/40, and eventually to 20/20.  No OD will ever tell you about this process - because (1), you will not believe it is necessary, (2) It is not medical  (3) you will be to lazy to do it.   (All these are VALID reasons, in medicine, to say nothing. )

Todd>  The lack of an explanation does not mean the phenomenon is not real.

Otis>  Absolutely.  The correct answer will be discovered by careful study of the objective dynamic-eye concept.  The reality is that you can personally get a change for about +1 diopter in one year, by (1) Wearing  a plus for all close work, and (2), doing "print pushing" while wearing a strong plus - for all close work.  This is not for the "weak willed."  I think we can ALL AGREE ON THAT POINT. 

Todd>  But to convince others and make progress, I would still like to see more convincing evidence.

Otis>  With great respect, Todd.  It depends on who you want to be convinced.  It is certain that no "office person" will ever be convinced by any science or fact that now exists.  That leaves it up to the person (like yourself) to convince himself that "plus wear" is both wise and necessary.  This is why true-prevention will always be either "out of scope" for optometry, or "never discussed", by optometrists. 
« Last Edit: September 26, 2015, 06:40:38 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Todd's success, pure science and the "man in his office"
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2015, 07:39:20 PM »
Subject: The "man in his office".

They absolutely believe that prevention, from 20/40 is totally impossible.  They are sincere, believe, and think, YOU CAN NOT GET OUT OF IT.  Here is the commentary by an ophthalmologist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OAI8QKwQF4

I ALMOST agree with him.  But this is why, I reject wearing a minus lens (when at 20/40), do my own self-measurements, and wear a plus 2.5 as I type this. 

There are many who will object to this type of required long-term plus wear.  That is your right.  But because of a "plus study" that I trust, (Dr. Young) I know that only long-term plus wear will be effective.  This is not a "cure" at all.  It means almost permanent plus-wear during the school years - for all close work. 

I NEVER go for an exam, until I am certain I exceed the 20/30 line.  That way I can avoid an un-necessary prescription. 

But equally, if I am objectively at 20/30, you can bet that I will be wearing a +2.5 for ALL CLOSE WORK, until I objectively read in the 20/25 to 20/20 range.  (In fact I am in the range of 20/20 to 20/15 - but I STILL wear the plus to protect *my* distant vision - because I know what I am doing - and why I am doing it.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2015, 05:54:33 AM by OtisBrown »