Author Topic: A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.  (Read 1732 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.
« on: November 19, 2015, 10:26:24 AM »
Hi Friends,

I know from your rejection of wearing a plus (for years) that you will not be successful.  Here is the data that suggest that
a person must understand this issue - while he can still read the 20/30 line.

I agree that the person must receive information on both how to measure  his visual acuity, and his refractive status as well.  With a child this is not possible.  But with a mature person, who can take this responsibility, then a degree of prevention is possible.  Here are the remarks of Dr. Francis Young, who conducted this effective plus-prevention study.
 
Otis>  For me, the OD does not have “the time” to help me, with the required explanation.  (The minus is so easy – and prevention requires so much from the individual – as to make prevention impossible in the context of optometry.)

Otis> I accept that ONLY prevention is possible, when I can still read the 20/40 line.   Intense use of the plus – is out-of-scope for any medical person sitting in an office.  I understand that it takes a wise, motivated person to follow the science of Dr. Young.  This study shows that if the plus is not worn properly, the child's vision goes down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year, for each year in school.  If the plus is worn at 20/40, the indication is that the child's refraction will change "positive" by about +1/2 diopter in one year, and the child will get out of nearsightedness.

 Details of “Bifocal Control of Myopia”
======

 Author: Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Kenneth H. Oakley

 In the 1975 Issue of the, “American Journal of Optometry and Physiological Optics”

Let me clarify. What we need to know, in a plus-group versus minus-group, what the effect was over a five year period – on the totally natural eye. (A natural eye can and does have negative and positive refractive states. With a positive state, you have 20/20 or better – if you measure it yourself.)
 
Since a child can not be trusted to wear “just the plus” alone, a “bifocal” was prescribed. This is not a plus-prevention study as such, but with some intelligence and wisdom on the part of the person himself – it would be perceived that prevention would be possible at 20/40 and -1.0 diopters.
 Here was the protocol for children:

 Young> … the parents were offered a discussion about the fitting of a “reading lens” or bifocal which would provide 3/4 to 1 diopter (D), of plus lens magnification over the minus distance prescription which was usually under-corrected by 0.5 diopter.

 Young> For example if the children’s refraction indicated -1.0 diopter, the prescription would be written for a -.5 diopter with a plus 1.5 diopter add.

 Otis> What this study FAILED to do – was to EXPLAIN the need and wisdom of wearing the plus “correctly”.  The child, not understanding WHY he should wear a plus – simply ignores looking though it.  Even with that difficult limitation, this study showed that, with motivation, long-term prevention is possible.

 Otis> If you give a young man a plus – but do not tell him WHAT he is doing or WHY he is doing it, you will find that, when he puts the plus on (say a +2 for reading), and then he will LEAN FORWARD to about 13 inches. When he does this – he totally CANCELS OUT THE INTENDED, AND DESIRED EFFECT OF THE PLUS.

 Otis> This would ruin the study – as a practical manner. But still, even NOT TELLING the child to “push print” (the study DID have a highly significant effect.)
 This does not mean “cure”. It does not mean you can ever “prescribe it”. Further, I limit myself to those who understand these difficulties.
 But this study did proven that a plus (used before you go below 20/40, and -1.0 diopters) could have a MILD “recovery effect”.
 That is the reason why, for a study with intelligent, motivated pilots, you could get recovery from 20/40. But you would have to TRUST both the intelligence and motivation of each person in the study.

 NOT ONE STUDY ever extended that type of trust to the person himself.
 Until THAT is done, all intentional plus-prevention studies will fail.

 Tragically, no OD wants to give you that type of authority and competence to work on prevention (with you in control) because if you succeed, the entire “science” that he thinks SUPPORTS a prescription – will be proven wrong.

 This is why an education is necessary, for a person at -3/4 diopters, entering a four year college.  If he will wear the plus (with this level of knowledge, he can get back to 0.0 diopters, and 20/20.

 But he must understand this difficult issue - if he  wishes to keep his 20/20 though the college years.
 Obviously, self checking of your own visual acuity - is critical to this process.

Enjoy,

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.
« Reply #1 on: November 19, 2015, 09:09:38 PM »

Subject:  The reality is that we must pass the 20/30 and 20/25 line. 

The demand for 20/10 vision - is not reasonable.  But if the "plus" were truly pushed for several  years - you could succeed.  Here
is the commentary.   That proven -1/2 diopter per year, must be taken very seriously.

By Dimitriy -

Hey Jake,

I am not really sure if this email will be sent to you directly but I figured I would give it a try.  Let me start of by giving you a little history about myself.  I first noticed a change in my vision when I was around 14 to 15 years old.  I can still remember it as though it was yesterday.  It was my freshmen year of high school and I had moved from the front of the classroom to the back.  As I attempted to take notes I noticed that I couldn’t make out the small shrift.  At first I assumed there was something wrong with the lighting or the angle at which I was sitting, but no matter what I did I simply couldn’t make it out.

                Shortly after that event,  I had my first visit to the optometrist and prescribed negative lenses with -1L and -1.25 R.  A year and a half or so later my vision took another step into the myopic direction giving me -1.5 L and -1.75R.  I was quite distraught with my visual decline and went on mission to reverse my myopia.  So I tried pinhole glasses, eye exercises, Bates method and later stumbled on the first thing which showed some promise: plus lens therapy.

                Around the time I turned 18 I began experimenting with plus lenses.  To my amazement within a mere four weeks I noticed a definitive improvement in my acuity and could suddenly see perfectly in my old pair of -1’s.  Filled with a sense of hope and jubilation I pushed forward by wearing strong plus lenses most of the time excluding activities where I absolutely needed to see well in the hopes that soon my vision would return to its perfect glory.  Over the next 1 to 2 years I tried many variations of plus lens therapy but unfortunately my vision wouldn’t budge and despite having occasional flashes of perfect vision without glasses there was no stability to my improvement.
Finally at the age of 20 I decided that I have been punishing myself by walking around with blurry vision for too long and  wanted to see clearly like everyone else.  So I went to the optometrist and to her surprise my new prescription was a little lower than my previous one at -1.25L/-1.5R.  I started wearing contacts on a fairly regular basis and my vision began to slowly decline into a myopic fog.  10 years went by as my vision deteriorated to -2.25L/-2.5R
At this point I had a sudden awakening and decided to revisit the subject of myopia reversal.  I first stumbled onto a website called Getting Stronger and later found my way to your blog.  Since then I have become somewhat obsessed reading everything I could find regarding optical physics the inner workings of the eyes and articles on lens induced myopia.

It has been about 5 month now since I have started applying the principles of your method and the results are nothing short of amazing.  I can now see nearly 20/10 in fluorescent lighting in -1.25L/ -1.5R and have crystal clear clarity at night time with that prescription.  In a mere 5 month I have knocked out a diopter of blur and currently wear -0.5L/-0.75R for my normalized prescription.  I plan to soon equalize that normalized to-0.5/-0.5 and continue the march toward perfect clarity.  My goal is to eventually be able to see as well in a +0.5 prescription as I currently do with the -1.25.  Hopefully by that point I will have perfect vision without glasses during all lighting conditions

Lastly I just wanted to say that I absolutely love your blog and to keep fighting the good fight against myopia.  So here is to kicking myopia ass 1 cm at a time.
Take care Jake,
Dmitriy

This is why I recommed a STANDARD Snellen, with 20/25 to 20/20 a success.  (Yes, you can probably read 20/13 though a -2 diopter - but why do it?

http://endmyopia.org/three-stories/

I did not give up on an  OD - who does not give a damn - i give up on the person who does not understand personal responsibility  - and
goal setting that is reasonable.

Do not depend excessively on "third parties", depend on yourself.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.
« Reply #2 on: November 20, 2015, 07:50:58 AM »
Personal communication about "children reading" - that most people will refuse to believe.

Reading at 20 inches, would produce very  mild nearsightedness, i.e., 20/40, at about age 16 - if the child
did not read at 4 inches (-10 diopters).  But few children will take the advice, or "force" to stop reading at 4 inches.
I take this a neglect.

But this is NOT what these children are doing.  Reading at 13 inches (-3 diopters stress) would not be too bad.  But
here are the statistics, of, a child's truly BAD HABIT.  Yes no parent seems to be "smart enough" to stop them
from doing this "lean forward" and read at 4 inches (-10 diopters - stress).


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

Kids do this for hours on end.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/Kid10D.jpeg

Only our "educated children" get into this problem.

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

Obviously - even if you know all of this - it is still very hard to convince your child to:

1) Sit up, and 2)  Read though a plus,  3) Always keep the reading at 13 inches - when reading though a plus.

This is very serious self-discipline.  It is also the reason why prevention is a matter of personal education and long-term motivation.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2015, 12:07:12 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline strongmama

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 25
Re: A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.
« Reply #3 on: November 20, 2015, 01:17:10 PM »
Thanks for the info. I have already seen my 3 year old try to get too close while coloring and scribbling, and I said, "Sit up straight and tall. No nose on the paper!" And I threatened to take away her tools if she did not. If we had been around others I'm sure it would've seemed very harsh, but I know what is at stake. I am trying to lay a foundation of good habits. I've only had to remind her a handful of times and she does sit up straighter now.

I imagine it would be harder to correct bad habits in the elementary years after they've been used to doing it for so long, and I suspect teachers can't say anything because it would seem unreasonably harsh to those who don't understand and they have so much to deal with as it is. Waiting until they are reading chapter books like and developing myopia that is waiting too long. I hope more people will wake up and become proactive.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.
« Reply #4 on: November 21, 2015, 07:23:57 AM »
Hi Strongmama -

I am a "freedom of speech" type of person.   I blame myself (my nose on book habits) as a child, for inducing "negative status".   Yes, the minus kills our vision - permanenlty.  Here is a discussion I would encourage with an OD - if he would just answer the questions.

Jake –

I have OD friends that agree with you – that prevention is possible at 20/40. With your permission, I will ask them to state the problems of introducing your concept to prevent when the young person can still read the 20/40 line (self-measured -1 diopter).

Jake> If you noticed the little “for professionals” link, yes. I wasn’t kidding about being friendlier to the optometrists. Interestingly enough the response has been more than just a little bit encouraging.

Otis> This would be a “no holds barred” discussion. Where the doctor can complain about the ignorance of the public he is attempting to serve. I know that almost all ODs will tell you that recovery (from 20/40) is TOTALLY OUT OF THE QUESTION. I do not agree. We should find out why they tell the public that story. Your Daily Blog – is a perfect site to hear this objection and absolute statement. Thanks!

http://endmyopia.org/eyesight-health-topics/

Since Jake sometimes erases my response - I post it here.

Otis

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2015, 04:43:23 AM »
Subject: Is protecting your distant vision (at 20/40) for life - with 1)Sitting up, and 2) Wear a plus when necessary - a scam?

For me - I simply refuse to make "excessive claims" - I have seen too many of  them.  Here are some more remarks by Jake.
If money were involved - is might be a scam.  But if you have the insight and motivation to understand it  - it is basically free.

http://endmyopia.org/vision-improvement-is-a-scam-she-said/

From long experience - and OD will tell you NOTHING?  He has his minus lens, and it works.   It is easy - and you are "happy" - until you
find out that the minus lens causes nearsightedness. 

I think the biggest mistake a person makes - is to demand vision way in excess of 20/25.  They have a minus, and see 20/13, and even 20/10 vision
though it.  Then they are in love with that -2 diopter.  They are in love - until they start crashing though -6 diopters.  They they "wake up" one
day, and ask - how did my vision "go to hell" so fast.  Then the person wants, "out of it", pronto.  But - they should have "woke up" to the
necessity of prevention, while they could still read the 20/40 line.

Is plus-prevention a scam?  Always a good question.  One thing for certain.  It requires great insight in the person, and perhaps a compromise - to
always exceed the 20/30 line.  It also requires final acceptance - that if you are in high school with marginal 20/40 vision - your vision will go
down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year - for each remaining year in school.

That science - is not a scam.  To ignore it - is to "scam yourself".

===================

Jake –

You hit a deep truth here. After many years I found an optometrist Guru, who told the truth you are talking about. So I thought about it this way:

Jake> Every time I post something here. Jake. Idiot. Nobody cares. You know as well as I that not one single person in the whole world actually cares about their eyes.

Otis> Then I thought – this is exactly how I was “kicked down that flight of stairs”, because no one cared about me and my distant vision – when I could have been effective in prevention. While frustrating for you, I am sure, you are telling an honest scientific story on your Daily Blog. Your personal sacrifice is worth it – for all of us. I certainly do care – to be told the truth.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2015, 04:56:24 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline j23

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.
« Reply #6 on: November 09, 2016, 04:25:31 AM »

Subject:  The reality is that we must pass the 20/30 and 20/25 line. 

The demand for 20/10 vision - is not reasonable.  But if the "plus" were truly pushed for several  years - you could succeed.  Here
is the commentary.   That proven -1/2 diopter per year, must be taken very seriously.

By Dimitriy -
...
  To my amazement within a mere four weeks I noticed a definitive improvement in my acuity and could suddenly see perfectly in my old pair of -1’s.  Filled with a sense of hope and jubilation I pushed forward by wearing strong plus lenses most of the time excluding activities where I absolutely needed to see well in the hopes that soon my vision would return to its perfect glory.  Over the next 1 to 2 years I tried many variations of plus lens therapy but unfortunately my vision wouldn’t budge and despite having occasional flashes of perfect vision without glasses there was no stability to my improvement.
...
It has been about 5 month now since I have started applying the principles of your method and the results are nothing short of amazing.  I can now see nearly 20/10 in fluorescent lighting in -1.25L/ -1.5R and have crystal clear clarity at night time with that prescription.  In a mere 5 month I have knocked out a diopter of blur and currently wear -0.5L/-0.75R for my normalized prescription.  I plan to soon equalize that normalized to-0.5/-0.5 and continue the march toward perfect clarity.  My goal is to eventually be able to see as well in a +0.5 prescription as I currently do with the -1.25.

Hi Otis

When I am reading this lines, that one can succeed to "squint" his eyes by only around 1D (and the first visible sign of better acuity is after 4 weeks which can be attributed rather to ocular muscles training or ciliary spasm release than to reshape of the eye) and then plus lens didn't work any further despite trying different techniques with the PLUS.

Also I wonder about any negative effects - a case described by Rheim: http://www.myopia.org/ebook/13chapter8.htm
that convergence is broken after e.g. a year thus giving no further help or prevention effect for a mild myope (was -1D only) !

More about the convergence topic - http://www.minnesotavisiontherapy.com/convergence-insufficiency-excess


Thus question arise - maybe a modified version of plus teraphy to WALK with plus lenses (to have more natural conditions) is more suitable for eye, than take them for reading  ?

Then the person is using "active focus" teraphy of Jake rather than PLUS lenses (maybe he was using PLUS, but it is not mentioned)
Anyway a more proof would be if Dmitriy really re-gained another diopter.

And Jake is saying about PLUS that try to avoid if possible to replace with pulling at natural distance (yes I know not reasonable for an office white collar workers)
http://endmyopia.org/pro-topic-my-take-on-plus-lens-use/


regards
j23



« Last Edit: November 09, 2016, 07:12:09 AM by j23 »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1738
Re: A scientific plus-prevention study - conducted for five years.
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2016, 09:38:06 AM »
Hi -
I truly like Jake. He is at least MAKING A START.
I personally never say, "therapy", or "cure", or anything medical.  I object to those who think that the plus is "therapy" - at all.
I also limit myself to people who can still see the 20/40 line (self-measure -1 diopter) and are in high school.

The person who can not "commit" to long-term plus wearing - will not succeed.
As I posted above - our natural eyes, "go down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year - of that I am totally certain -as pure science.
The "kids" wore a plus - and were successful - over five years. That means INTENTIONAL and long-term plus wearing.

A person who thinks that the plus ls "short term" - is in total ignorance of the problem.

I am a friend of Don Rehm.  He argues for the plus, of course, and would add a "myopter" - if you wished to use it.

But simple spherical lenses (as I am wearing them) cost me $10.  My trial lenses, about $30. 

But - it takes a very strong will - to do it.

Enjoy,