Subject: Why science and analysis supports Todd's personal success.
Re: I believe in science -- but I always ask to "see the science" that supports personal prevention.
Re: It is one thing to talk about it -- but difficult to show it.
Re: We know from Chalmer Prentics' statement that it takes strong personal resolve to "recover" from 20/40 to 20/60 (about -3/4 to -1.25 diopters) Chalmer estimated about nine months. But we also know it sure is not easy. But what does science show about this issue. If you made the personal commitment, could you, on your own, clear your distant vision by 1) Not using a minus (unless absolutely necessary) and wearing a plus (read at just blur point) for the nine months required.
Re: In this study, the kids wore a plus for five years -- and it prevented it from getting worse (i.e., they did not change). I think that a more mature person, at 20/40 could do bettter than a child who has no idea what he is doing or why he is doing it. We as mature adults (and engineers) COULD understand WHY we are doing it. Here is the science of it.
Subject: You can not have science, unless you understand the statistics.
Re: But what is the significance of this excellent scientific study conducted by Dr. Francis Young?
I pointed out that you can not run a plus-prevention study with children. For that reason, the CLOSEST study we have about the
effect of a correctly used plus -- is in this "plus study" conducted by Francis Young.
Because you could PRESCRIBE a plus ( ONLY in the form of a bifocal) you could effectively force a child to wear a plus for all close work. A control group was maintained (See "N" in this table). http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm
So what were the results. (Note the "plus" was placed HIGH in the glasses, so the child could not avoid looking THROUGH the plus. In these other studies, they use a small "chip" plus, which the child naturally avoided LOOKING THROUGH -- thus negating the entire effect
of the plus.
Thus, unless you can insure the child actually looks THROUGH the plus -- the result is meaningless. What was the result of the plus -- when correctly used.
Well read the table of kids wearing the plus for about five years.
The "plus" group did not
go down -- read the table. (In fact the plus group went up slightly.)
The control group --with just a minus lens? Over five years? They went down at an average rate of -0.65 diopters per year for five years, thus increasing their myopia by -3.35 diopters.
Obviously the major issue it that with a engineering college student, you could TEACH him how to wear the plus when his Snellen was 20/40, and his refractive state was -3.4 diopters.
The indication is that, with wisdom and persistence, as person who values his distant visoin could change his refractive state by +3/4 diopters, and clear his Snellen to normal.
I post these remarks to help Todd help others with prevention. I know that few people will wish to examine the science behind plus-prevention, but I think it is necessary to understand it. I hope this helps people who are at 20/40, (-1 diopter) continue to wear the plus, for the next nine months, until they get their Snellen back to the 20/25 to 20/20 range. It can be done, and this is the rock-bed science that supports you.