Why people fail.

[OtisBrown]

Subject: Why people FAIL.

There is NO "magic pill". There is no "instant sharp vision".  There is ONLY long-term wearing of a plus - and always exceeding the 20/30 line.
Is that too tough for 99 percent of the population at this time.  I think that is the truth of it.

I will list my reasons - as to why most people will fail.

1) You are too "deep" into myopia.  (i.e., you can not read the 20/100 line, or you are wearing a -10 diopter lens.)
Answer:  I agree that wearing any minus lens, rapidly makes the problem far worse.  As a basic principle - I do not make
"claims" of any results.

2)  The person believes that "short term plus-wearing will produce instant results".  When a person is over-prescribed - then
I agree -  quite a few people, who actually check their own Snellen, succeed. The pass the 20/40 line, and then
VERY SLOWLY, on their own Snellen, the begin passing the 20/25 to 20/20 line.  That is indeed
the only success that is possible.

3) The person was promised fantastic success (i.e., reading the 20/10 line).  When he does not get that result - he quits.

In my judgment, a person is very lucky, if he checks his own Snellen, and can read the 20/40 line.  Prevention does mean
exactly this.  Long-term plus wear though the school years.  Otherwise - you can not expect any success.

[OtisBrown]

Subject: Does anyone actually put up a Snellen and read it.  Here are the reasons I doubt that they do it.
 
After I had my cataract surgery (I would have been happy with 20/40 vision, with no glasses), I down-loaded this Snellen.
 
I figured I could “recover” from 20/40 (self-measured –1 diopter) if I had to.  I have no fear about doing that effort.
 
After I put up the Snellen, and started reading it – I realized that I HAD NO IDEA WHICH LINE I WAS READING.  I had to walk towards the chart – to see which line.
 
That was OK, except that I wanted to check on a regular basis.  That is why I had to write in big letters, 20, 25, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70.
 
The fact that no one complained about this problem – leads me to believe that no one checks (or is not very serious).
 
 
http://endmyopia.org/the-ciliary-pop-a-simple-trick-for-healthy-eyes/
 
In fact I see “variation”.  That means SOMETIMES, I read the 20/25 line.  But I would say 90 percent of the time, I read the 20/20 to 20/15 line.
 
In fact, I do not eve bother with a 20/15 line.  The 20/20 letters are very sharp – so I can step back to 30 feet and continue to read them.
 
In fact this is why I use low-cost test lenses.  That is to measure “positive status”, i.e., see if I can read the 20/20 line THROUGH a +1/2 diopter lens.
 
For me that is the real, “final result” – that I can do that.
 
For me, I consider difficulty reading the 20/40 line, to be the real problem.  If you have your own –1 diopter, you can just check to see
if you can read the 20/20 line though it.  (The intention is NOT prescription.)
 
It is to show that you have NO MEDICAL PROBLEM.  I think anyone serious – should know and check that way.
 
This is why I call it a “negative state”, not a failure.
 
At that point, I would start full time plus wear for all close work – and keep doing it.
 
When you make measurements yourself – you tend to believe your own measurements.
 
If you do not do it – you are wasting your own time.
 
I like ODs.  But they do not believe that I have the capability of doing this myself.  That is the line that divides science – from everything else.
 
Best,
 
Otis

[OtisBrown]

“There are no hopeless situations. There are only men who have grown hopeless about them.”

Anonymous

Did you every try to ask intelligent questions of an optometrist?  Did you ever get any intelligent answers that made sense?  Here is the video.

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

(Doctor discusses everything - except your right to be informed of plus-prevention when at 20/40, with a weak prescription.  This is the great failing of medicine - they do not trust your intelligence.  They have every right to distrust your motivation. )

An equal question is this - why do ODs fail us so badly?

I "gave up" on this type of conversation  - a long time ago.  In the video, you can see that any minus causes myopia.  But do you think an OD will tell you about science?  If you believe that optometry is "based on science" - you are kidding yourself.  It is based on  your ignorance, and the fact that a minus lens is "instantly effective", and the public is hostile to ANYTHING ELSE.

There is no "easy way".  There is no, "throw away your glasses".  There is no "free ride".  If you are looking for that - you might as well just learn to love being permanently myopic.

[OtisBrown]

Subject: The famous "Clear Flash" of Bates.

The conflict – of Bates, who talked about “getting out of it”, and the optometrist, who insists that “getting out of 20/40 is impossible”, is the issue of the, “clear flash”. “EndMyopia” is doing a number of things correctly. Your OD “gives up” on you, (in an absolute sense) when you can still read the 20/40 line (if you checked). Here is the discussion on the “clear flash” issue.

http://endmyopia.org/you-cant-force-the-clear-flash/

The problem with most people is this: They never objectively look at, and read a Snellen!!  I personally agree that getting out of it, is a very slow process.  I also think that any "minus lens" wear, kicks you down a long stair case.

But it is good to know, with certainty, that the OD only believes in his strong minus lens.  For me, that first minus truly ends the possibility of objective recovery.

[OtisBrown]

By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.

Subject: He showed how prevention is possible – before you start wearing a strong minus lens:

———-+ | Chapter IX | +——–

The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia
which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at
the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to
reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more.   In most
cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and
patience; but a few experiments after the following example will
suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is
possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by
repression at the near point.

This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes
an open question.

EXAMPLE CASES

Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
-1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no cchange for the space of
two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point.   I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
just perceptibly less.
=====================
But here is the problem that the person must face:

Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;

…but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Otis> Anyone considering “prevention” must understand this
issue. There is no “easy way” of prevention. As Chalmers
said — the person must fully understand this issue. It is
for this reason that I suggest full transfer of “control”
to the person himself. If he lacks the motivation to look
at the chart, and “clear” himself, then no “third party”
(i.e., OD) can do it for the person. This is why I
separate a true-medical problem from preventing a negative
refractive status in the natural eye. I believe that the
above statement simply clarifies that point.

Otis> Plus-prevention is a long-term proposition. The science of the last 50 years have proven
this – and Dr. Prentice is quite correct. You could say it is harder than even he thought it would be.