Author Topic: The Pinhole lens and personally safe prevention.  (Read 1128 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
The Pinhole lens and personally safe prevention.
« on: March 12, 2016, 06:21:41 AM »
Dear Friends,

Above all else, I want to be safe, when I use preventive methods (while I can still read the 20/40 line).  I would not plunge into any prevention program, until I had the wisdom to use a pinhole (check) lens to verify that, with that lens I can read the 20/20 line.  This would be a starting point for a prevention program.

The plus defines a normal negative state, versus a medical problem that would require medical-doctor involvement.  Here is my evaluation of  this issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLZosttURWs

Here is a 12 minute video, where you are regarded as a patient.  The key issue is how he uses a pinhole to check for ANY MEDICAL PROBLEM. 
If you can read the 20/20 line - you simply do not have a medical problem - and wearing a plus for all close work - will SLOWLY get
you back to naked-eye 20/20.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsKb_dcPsTw

The other issue of this video, is the manner in which he PRESCRIBED a minus lens.  He will crank the strongest minus possible, (giving you 20/15 and 20/13 vision), when we know for certain (as pure science) that any minus lens solves no problem, and creates stair-case myopia.

The OD's spend all their time telling you the minus lens is "safe" and does not create much worse vision.  Pure science (and the bifocal studies) show how destructive this profound error is - to all of us.

But equally, finding the courage for long-term plus wear is difficult.  It takes motivation - that few people have.  For me, success is 1) Exceeding the 20/40 line, then after six months, 2) Exceeding the 20/30 line, and 3) If in college, accepting that proven -1/2 diopter per year, if I refuse to continue to wear the plus during the college years.

All of this - is not medicine. All of this DEPENDS on qualities of the person himself.  That is why pure-prevention will always be a black-hole for medical people.  They can not do - what you must do for yourself.

« Last Edit: March 12, 2016, 07:38:47 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: The Pinhole lens and personally safe prevention.
« Reply #1 on: March 12, 2016, 11:04:48 AM »
Dear Alex,

Subject: The SATURATING, intellectual blindness, of a medical person.

[ I will take me some time to respond to Franks misconception, but, in the sense of pure science (and ONLY prevention at 20/40) I will attempt to do so.  I still say that pure-prevention, is a black-hole in the mind of medical people. ]

I recommend that you read this person's statements, that prevention is totally impossible.

http://www.dw.com/en/nearsightedness-and-the-education-connection/a-18767917


Otis> Let me be clear. I bear NO ILL WILL, towards a man  and his minus quick-fix in  his office.  I understand him perfectly.  But I also understand fundamental, or pure science.  For me, that FIRST minus, will kill your distant vision, ALMOST permanently.  Therefore I do not argue about, "getting out of it", UNLESS you can still read the 20/40 line, on a bright Snellen.  Be clear, prevention does not exist in the medical mind, but the potential does exist in the scientific mind. 
My posts are about the person who chooses to reject the minus (when he can still read the 20/40 line), and will commit to wearing  a strong plus, all the time (for all close work).  For those who say, "throw away all glasses", there is no solution.  It is clear that long-term plus wear, is wearing glasses - but the goal and reason are profoundly different.

Otis>  Bates was right about one thing.  Conventional medicine is bullshit, based on a bad and false theory - that has been disproven in pure science:

http://endmyopia.org/its-time-to-make-fun-of-the-bates-method-again/

Otis> I was in fact my interest in Bates that STATED my interest in pure science, and prevention at 20/40.

Otis> This Frank person, believes that only he is perfect, and that every one else must be wrong about everything.

Otis> He has a false belief, that NOTHING affects the refractive STATE of all natural eyes.  (The issues is pure science, never medicine . )

Otis> I personally agree, that true-prevention, is extremely difficult, and if you even START wearing a minus lens, there is no recovery. (This us Frank's argument - I ALMOST agree with it. )   The basis for that statement, is a matter of pure science, of which Shaeffel, knows nothing, and prefers to learn nothing. 

Otis> I know that few people have ANY interest in prevention (when still reading the 20/40 line, entering a four year college), and few people will take the WARING about this type of intellectual ignorance of the esteemed doctor.  So he "laughs off", any an all presentations that show that prevention is possible.

+++++++++++++

Frank> Many people believe that glasses only worsen vision,

Otis> Far more a belief  - the minus lens causes negative STATE in all natural eyes.  That is pure science - that Frank chooses to totally ignore. It would be un-comfortable if he admitted to a pure-science argument. Here is objective, a pure science - for the fundamental eye:

https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

I would like Frank to look at pure-science, and this always repeatable scientific experiment.  Because it shows that putting a child into a strong minus (when the kid can still read the 20/30 line) will directly CAUSE PROGRESSIVE MYOPIA, and is the world WORST treatment.  But this is pure science, that Frank will find an excuse to IGNORE. 

Frank>  and they try to get by as long as possible without.

Otis> Far more that "get along with out a minus lens when at -1 diopter, and 20/40", I recommend a person go though a pure-science educational process, where he understand that agressive wearing of a strong plus for NEAR, is required, if the person wishes to sustain 20/40, and in fact, move VERY SLOWLY towards 20/30, and 20/25. 

Otis> But that does require, in the person, a total commitment, to wearing a strong plus for all close work.  This is a type of commitment, that few people will be willing to make, when at 20/30.  But, if you want to get back to 20/20, then that is going to mean, strong plus, worn for four year, and personally monitoring and exceeding the 20/30 line, and self-measureing your own refactive state.  There is no compromise on this issue.  You can not "share" responsiblity with a man like Frank - with all due respect.

Frank>   Is this preconception justified?

Otis> To avoid wearing a minus (at 20/30) and long-term plus wear, effectively do prevention yourself.  Far more that just "avoid wearing a minus".  It is knowing your refraction WILL go down at -1/2 diopter per year, and taking yourself very seriously.  (In a pure-science sense.) 

Frank> There was a time when I would have subscribed to that view, as well.

Otis> He never subscribed to the concept of wearing a plus for prevention, when you can still read the 20/30 line, and doing prevention yourself.  The concept has NEVER EVEN BEEN ATTEMPTED.

Frank>  If you put lenses on an animal, it will become far-sighted.

Otis> General and stupid statement.  If you put a minus lens on the natural eye, "it moves in a negative direction" (does NOT become defective).  In the same way,  you put a plus lens on the normal eye, and IT MOVES IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION, i.e., does NOT BECOME DEFECTIVE.  Franks language is totally screwed up, and is a matter of his bias.

Frank>  So it’s a vision correction that makes the eye go nearsighted.

Otis> I hate the word, "nearsighted".  I prefer pure-science, and call  it a negative state of the natural eye.  That is why Frank is screwed up  - with all due respect.

Frank>But on people, it doesn’t work.

Otis> That is becuse Frank never taught a person how to wear the plus correctly when at 20/30.  Extreme bias on his part.

Otis> What doesn't work.  I do not agree to "not wear" glasses at 20/30 - as a solution.  Because we know the un-protected eye goes down at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year.  Frank gets this wrong - every time.  I say, DO NOT wear a minus lens, when you pass the 20/30 line. THEN study pure science, and choose to being wearing a plus for all close work.  Plan to do this for  4 years if you wish to keep your vision better than 20/30.  Do not ask for medical help - they have none to give.

Frank>  In general you can say, whether you wear glasses or not hardly makes any difference in the progress of nearsightedness.

Otis> This is totally false, in pure science.  When a plus is used, pure prevention is possible.  (Study by Frank Young, for 5 years. )

Frank>  The same goes for under-correcting,

Otis> Typical medical bias - of course.  I say, look at Frank Young's study.  Under-correction solved NO PROBLEMS.   Wise wearing of  a plus, and you can avoid going down at -1/2 dioper per year.  But I do agree that it is difficult to inspire yourself to do it. 

Frank> ...which is supposed to bring the progress of a vision problem to a halt by using lenses that are a bit too weak.

Otis> I never said that, and I do not believe it.  What I said was, if you are at 20/30, self-measured -3/4 diopters, you need to look at pure science, and choose a life time course of action.  That means wearing a strong plus though four years of college.  That is a type of pure-science study that would succeed.  But never by Frank.

Frank>  Based on animal experiments, I would have also subscribed to that view,

Otis> Animal experiments (for the dynamic natural eye ) is what pure science is all about.

Frank> but the data from children are less than convincing.

Otis>  Who is convinced?  Frank has no interest in prevention, why ask him for it?

Frank>In studies where subjects wore lenses under-corrected by three quarters of one diopter, sometimes, the myopia progressed even faster

Otis> This was the pure bullshit O'Leary study that was stopped before it was completed.  No even a valid medical study.

Otis> The study by Francis Young showed that the plus STOPPED MYOPIA.  But that is pure science that this man hates.

Fanks> than it did in the control group wearing lenses that fully corrected for it.

Otis> In the plus study by Young, the plus group DID NOT GO DOWN.  The minus group, went down at a rate of -1/2 dioper per year,
for a 5 year study.  This man should be prepared to look at that study.

Frank>  That indicates that not correcting for nearsightedness does not result in any improvement.

Otis> I never said that.  If you do NOTHING, your refraction will go down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year, from age 5 to age 15.
Wearing a strong minus (as per pure science) can only accellerate that down rate.

Otis> When a plus is worn, the rate at which you "go down" is 0 diopters per year.  Thus, the plus can be effective, against
that -1/2 doipter per year. This means having the wisdom to review the actual study.

Frank>  But more research needs to be done here.

Otis> I have seen this statement, for the last 40 years.  It is cover your ass, so you do not have to face pure-science.

Otis> For those who wish to review pure-science, and prevention restricted to 20/30, here is Dr Francis Young's data:

https://myopiafree.wordpress.com/study/


Enjoy,
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 04:21:13 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: The Pinhole lens and personally safe prevention.
« Reply #2 on: March 13, 2016, 11:58:18 AM »
The doctor above wears glasses. More than 8 years studies in the university and he cannot test in himself if plus lenses can do good to him?