Subject: Yes, plus prevention has been successful for Todd and others. But don't bother "arguing" with this Blue_OD.
I have taught myself how to 1) Read my own Snellen. 2) Respect the requirement that I PASS the 20/40 line -- and do better than I can 3) Measure my refractive state MYSELF -- because I don't trust this type of OD any more.
I consider plus-prevention to be difficult, because it requires so much
intelligence and SELF-MOTIVATION to keep up the effort. I further, put a
restriction, in that the person MUST START before his Snellen goes much below
20/40. Here is the reason why there is no choice but to be wise, intelligent
and self-motivated -- because these ODs tell you (despite Todd's success) that
PREVENTION, EVEN AT 20/40 IS ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE.
Otis > Subject: Why is there "medical silence" on the subject of successful prevention?
BlueOD> The is no "silence". However, there has been "science" and those
studies (done in HUMANS, done with untreated control subjects) shows that plus
prevention doesn't work. You can claim conspiracy, or whatever you want but the
data is the data. Sorry Otis Brown, Engineer.
Otis> When we put our kids in our "modern" world, they put their NOSE ON THE
BOOK. That is not 20 inches (or -2 diopters stress). No, it is more like 4
inches (or -10 diopters stress). Yet no one SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT
THIS ACTION INDUCES NEGATIVE STATUS FOR THE NATURAL EYE. Why not? I think the
reason is LEGAL — and the fact that "correct use" of the plus when, you are at
20/40, does not produce "instant results".
BllueOD> Nor any results at all apparently. Why do all the control subjects, in
all the studies, develop myopia at the same rate as the plus
prevention subjects if plus lenses really do work? I supposed the
subjects just aren't trying hard enough, right Otis?
What about the possibility that plus lenses have no beneficial
effect? If there is a simple prevention scheme as you claim Otis,
what is it? What's certain is it has nothing to do with plus lenses
or using minus lenses on real myopia. Hell, in one of the studies,
the only truly proven preventative treatment was actually OVERminusing
children a little bit.
Otis> fact to DO IT YOURSELF — accepting full legal responsibility, because no
OD wants to deal with you on this issue.
BlueOD> For sure. Because it doesn't work.
Otis> I certainly do not excessively claim for "prevention" -- and I do not
consider that it will ever be "easy".
Otis> But the issues of WISE use of the plus (as I describe it) and SCIENCE, and
the effect of a plus when (push print) is used CORRECTLY is show here:http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/pos_lens_induce_hyperopia.swf
Otis> This to me is "pure science" that I respect. This does confirm (on a pure scientific level) Todd's success.
Otis> Blue_OD makes one false statement. He states that, "... the plus has not been effective". That is truly an "office lie". A true plus study would require an "informed, intelligent person", to wear the plus in a logical manner, when he was at 20/40, and about -1/2 diopter. YOU CAN NOT GIVE A CHILD THAT KIND OF INSTRUCTION AND EXPECT HIM TO DO IT. So this is why the Francis Young study -- must be used. It is a close as you can get to a pure plus study -- with children.
Otis> The motivation factor would be a pilot at 20/40 who MUST get to 20/20. While we know that most people don't have that kind of fortitude, when it comes to PERSONAL SELF INTEREST -- then the entire picture can change.