Author Topic: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.  (Read 20087 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1734
AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« on: June 27, 2012, 03:37:54 PM »
Subject: When suggesting a new concept - you are certain to hear objection to plus-prevention.

I will attempt to answer or review some of these concerns.  Let me start by saying that anytime you put a lens on - you interfere with the AC:C ration.  You can not avoid that from happening.

AC = Accommodation-Convergence
C = Convergence

Those who suggest that there is a problem or risk in wearing the plus, must remember that if you do not, your vision (refractive state) goes down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year - for each year in school and college.  Thus you have a known fact - versus your wise choice to begin the plus before your Snellen goes below 20/40, and reafractive status of about -1 diopters.

Pilots over-come their fear - because they need their distant vision. Most people can not make that kind of educated choice. More on this subject by those who wish to contribute to the controversy.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1734
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #1 on: June 27, 2012, 07:06:45 PM »
Subject: Helping your child with plus-prevention.

I have no doubt that I "self-induced" negative status in my eyes. In fact any ophthalmologist can 'see this coming' - from the beginning.  The doctor who examined me when I was 6 years old - told my parents that I was GOING TO BECOME NEARSIGHTED? 1) How the hell did he know that and 2) Why did he not SAY SOMETHING??

First, if you measure a child's refractive state - as I showed you how to do it - and you measure 0.0 diopters  - that child will become myopic, at a rate of -2/3 diopter per year.  That is issue #1.  He was absolutely correct.  All the studies SHOW THIS.  (Existing bi-focal studies).

Second, why did he not say anything??  The answer is more difficult.

a) It would have meant that I  would have had to start wearing a +2.5 - when my distant vision was in fact 20/20.  That seems to be an IMPOSSIBLE ISSUE THAT THE PUBLIC CAN NEVER UNDERSTAND.  That leads to
b) Prevention is not a medical issue or problem - at all.  Why is that.
c) Because the optometrist can be accused of screwing up the AC:C ratio - and that would "mess your eyes permanently" - maybe even making you go blind - or the plus could "cause catracts". So:
d) NEVER expect any OD or MD to VOLUNTEER to you that  your child's refractive state of zero - is going to lead to stair-case myopia through the school years.

This greatly improves MY UNDERSTANDING - of why Todd had to do prevention all by himself.
Do any of you think I an kidding about this issue of "medical silence"?
Thanks!

Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #2 on: June 27, 2012, 11:16:54 PM »
Otis can you please explain

Quote
Because the optometrist can be accused of screwing up the AC:C ratio - and that would "mess your eyes permanently" - maybe even making you go blind - or the plus could "cause catracts".


AC:C ration undersstand what about others

Proh

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1734
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #3 on: June 28, 2012, 08:58:38 AM »
Hi Proh,

I am not sure what you mean, "... about others".  It depends on WHO you talk to and their qualifications.  Here is a woman (who promotes Bates) who states that the wearing of a plus lens, "..causes cataracts".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8J1vhCt3SM&list=UU8f8jhrxbwrHc-4v0fz7qcQ&index=9&feature=plcp

If you think that wearing a plus, "causes cataracts" - then don't wear the plus.  Same with the AC:C ratio.

I have attempted to show a rational basis for preventing negative status for the fundamental eye.  The ODs/MDs think prevention (of that -2/3 diopter is IMPOSSIBLE). They simply state that, "its heredity" ... ) and that should answer all your questions and problems.

The "fear factor" in a person is great.  I don't know how to deal with that issue.


Otis can you please explain

Quote
Because the optometrist can be accused of screwing up the AC:C ratio - and that would "mess your eyes permanently" - maybe even making you go blind - or the plus could "cause catracts".


AC:C ratio undersstand what about others

Proh

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #4 on: June 28, 2012, 10:12:46 AM »
Hi Otis, this is the AC:C ratio you are talking about.  Any views on the AC:A ratio?  Usually that is the one I see in internet archives being questioned by Neil Brooks the most, although he also mentions CA:C (or AC:C) as you write it.  Peter

Hi Proh,

I am not sure what you mean, "... about others".  It depends on WHO you talk to and their qualifications.  Here is a woman (who promotes Bates) who states that the wearing of a plus lens, "..causes cataracts".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8J1vhCt3SM&list=UU8f8jhrxbwrHc-4v0fz7qcQ&index=9&feature=plcp

If you think that wearing a plus, "causes cataracts" - then don't wear the plus.  Same with the AC:C ratio.

I have attempted to show a rational basis for preventing negative status for the fundamental eye.  The ODs/MDs think prevention (of that -2/3 diopter is IMPOSSIBLE). They simply state that, "its heredity" ... ) and that should answer all your questions and problems.

The "fear factor" in a person is great.  I don't know how to deal with that issue.


Otis can you please explain

Quote
Because the optometrist can be accused of screwing up the AC:C ratio - and that would "mess your eyes permanently" - maybe even making you go blind - or the plus could "cause catracts".


AC:C ratio undersstand what about others

Proh

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #5 on: June 28, 2012, 10:19:00 AM »
Otis - I think you sent the wrong youtube link.  The woman in this youtube link shows talks about her eye convergence problem being caused by a bad chiropractor who mis-treated her with some neck adjustments.  It talks about her using Bates to help her overcome double-vision, although she still gets episodes of double vision.  Very interesting testimony about a chirpractic incident.  Peter

Hi Proh,

I am not sure what you mean, "... about others".  It depends on WHO you talk to and their qualifications.  Here is a woman (who promotes Bates) who states that the wearing of a plus lens, "..causes cataracts".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8J1vhCt3SM&list=UU8f8jhrxbwrHc-4v0fz7qcQ&index=9&feature=plcp

If you think that wearing a plus, "causes cataracts" - then don't wear the plus.  Same with the AC:C ratio.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1734
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #6 on: June 28, 2012, 12:34:00 PM »
Hi Peter,

This Clark-Night/ Mary person has attacked me several times because I SUGGEST the use of the plus when you are at 20/40 - and -1 diopter.

Here is Don Rehm's site - where she posts against the pluls.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiuC7a1lkrk&feature=relmfu

This is your typical patient - sorry to say.

It take real motivation and intelligence to wear the plus with the dedication it takes - just to get out of 20/40 vision.

Otis



Otis - I think you sent the wrong youtube link.  The woman in this youtube link shows talks about her eye convergence problem being caused by a bad chiropractor who mis-treated her with some neck adjustments.  It talks about her using Bates to help her overcome double-vision, although she still gets episodes of double vision.  Very interesting testimony about a chirpractic incident.  Peter

Hi Proh,

I am not sure what you mean, "... about others".  It depends on WHO you talk to and their qualifications.  Here is a woman (who promotes Bates) who states that the wearing of a plus lens, "..causes cataracts".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8J1vhCt3SM&list=UU8f8jhrxbwrHc-4v0fz7qcQ&index=9&feature=plcp

If you think that wearing a plus, "causes cataracts" - then don't wear the plus.  Same with the AC:C ratio.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1734
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2012, 05:37:45 PM »
Subject: Does the NIH believe in, or do they conduct true PREVENTION studies?

No, they spend massive amounts of money to RESEARCH WHAT THEY DO IN THEIR OFFICE.  But, since prevention MUST involved the intelligence and resolve of the person - outside the office - it is considered IMPOSSIBLE.  This is true "office myopia". But here is the proof of this "mind set" for your interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlrrc2Zq8Hs

I truly don't blame them - but it comes down to YOU realizing that  fact.

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2012, 06:17:45 PM »
I misunderstood your original message to Proh. Thought you meant the video said plus causes cataracts.

I had found her posts about plus/cataracts months ago.  I just went and searched them out again.

However, you did not fairly quote her Otis.  Unless you can show it to me somewhere, she doesn't say "plus lenses cause cataracts".  What she said on some message boards is that "plus lenses ***may*** cause cataracts".  Big difference. She then states 2 different people she knew where it occured.  With one of them she says, the person stopped using plus, went to Bates, and cataracts disappeared.   I remember many months ago looking for any other links between plus and cataracts after coming across her comments, and didn't seem to find them anywhere and dropped that search.

Hi Peter,

This Clark-Night/ Mary person has attacked me several times because I SUGGEST the use of the plus when you are at 20/40 - and -1 diopter.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1734
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #9 on: June 28, 2012, 08:24:08 PM »
Hi Peter,

There are a lot of strange people in this world - no doubt about it.  I hope you watched her video.  I am an engineer. I am BLESSED!  I do not have to think about, nor deal with such people.  But anyone with a medical title MUST ACCEPT, TALK, AND REASON WITH THESE PEOPLE. That is beyond my purview.  I bless these doctors, and think about such people - and WALK AWAY FROM IT. There is no reason why I should ever be involved.

This is why you will never hear me say, "CURE", of ANYTHING. I say "dynamic eye" having (potentially) a negative STATE, which, with wisdom (in the person himself) can slowly be changed from a value of -1/2 diopter to a value of +1/4 diopter - if the person is willing to make long-term systematic use of the plus, and also measure his own refractive status HIMSELF.

It is clear that the only people who are successful - are the ones who do not involve themselves with medical people. (With GREAT respect to medical people). I now know your refractive STATE is about -1/2 to -1 diopter (and you pass the DMV at 20/40).

AS PURE SCIENCE, and if it were me, I would wear the plus 2.5 and PUSH MYSELF - to see if I could get that +3/4 diopter chage in my refractive state. But I am not you - so I don't know what you will do.

If you wanted to be a pilot, and your career was worth $100,000 per year - I think your motivation would be very strong.  I truly respect your intelligence, and YOU obtaining your own "Trial Lens" set.  It is now all up to you!

There is no threat to anything - from wearing the plus.  But even so, it is very hard to make a long-term commitment to doing it. That is the real difficulty of prevention under YOUR control

Best,




I misunderstood your original message to Proh. Thought you meant the video said plus causes cataracts.

I had found her posts about plus/cataracts months ago.  I just went and searched them out again.

However, you did not fairly quote her Otis.  Unless you can show it to me somewhere, she doesn't say "plus lenses cause cataracts".  What she said on some message boards is that "plus lenses ***may*** cause cataracts".  Big difference. She then states 2 different people she knew where it occured.  With one of them she says, the person stopped using plus, went to Bates, and cataracts disappeared.   I remember many months ago looking for any other links between plus and cataracts after coming across her comments, and didn't seem to find them anywhere and dropped that search.

Hi Peter,

This Clark-Night/ Mary person has attacked me several times because I SUGGEST the use of the plus when you are at 20/40 - and -1 diopter.


Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2012, 01:31:22 AM »
Otis

you can understand that whenever we try something new we always have to overcome fear of unkown & unfavorable


Also want to know that You always limits to 20/50 . If some is dropped below ( say -3 to 4D ) then what is your view on reversal.

Proh

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1734
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #11 on: June 29, 2012, 03:37:30 AM »
Hi Proh,

I truly rely on scientific tests of the primate eye - having refractive states.  Using words like "failure" to describe natural refractive states - causes total mis-communication of the objective facts.  Thus Peter has a mild negative status - of about -3/4 diopters.  The issue for him, is this, can he change that status by 1) NOT wearing a minus lens (consistent with safety) 2) Wearing a +2 to +2.5 diopters (for near - when near is clear for him) 3) Keep this up for six months - as a scientific experiment.

If Peter has good reason to do this - then I think he can change his refractive state (objectively measured) by about +3/4 diopters in nine months (from -3/4 diopter to 0.0 diopters. THEN his Snellen will be clear (read the 20/20 line).  From the data from an OD - I limit that "clearing" to that rate.

Remember kids go down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. Thus if you are at -6 diopters, you MIGHT be able to work your way out in 6 to 12 years.  By my question is this - why not STOP IT AT -3/4 DIOPTERS.

We know Todd worked his way out of -3 diopters. I don't know what Todd's Snellen is, but I assume he passes the State DMV test. That is all that matters. I don't make predictions about WHO can  get out of it - or from what "LEVEL".  That is where I "draw the line".  For reference, here is an OD that SLOWLY got out of -3 diopters.  Her "improvement rate" was +1/2 diopters per year.  That is the only statement I will make or support.

http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/od-success/

This is like "selling weight loss".  If a person is not "successful" in a few months - he says "diet never works".

Best,



Otis

you can understand that whenever we try something new we always have to overcome fear of unkown & unfavorable


Also want to know that You always limits to 20/50 . If some is dropped below ( say -3 to 4D ) then what is your view on reversal.

Proh

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1734
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #12 on: June 29, 2012, 08:39:31 AM »
Hi Proh and Peter,
Subject: Talking to a "tough-minded" engineer - who is passionate about prevention-only.

I would like to have a person talk to me when I was at 20/50, and about -1 diopters - AND EXPLAIN MY CHOICE TO ME.  Like Peter,  I would like to be shown that my Snellen is 20/50, and have it explained to me (assuming age 16) that, the natural eye goes down by -1/2 diopter per each year in school.  Then I would want to MEASURE MY REFRACTIVE STATE MYSELF.

Then I would want to be told how VERY easy it is to "fix" a person - and send him away, "happy".  Then, I would  want to understand that - THAT IT THE LAST CHANCE I HAVE TO "WORK" TRUE-PREVENTION - under *my* control.

I might ask - why do you want me to "fix" my eye by wearing a "plus" for near - when my "problem" is in the distance!!  (That does require a very intelligent, wise man.)  If the reason is clear as to WHY I should NOT WEAR THE MINUS (with passing the 20/50), and I had a STRONG REASON to get to naked eye 20/20 (with the plus) *I* would do it myself.

But that "strong persistent drive" to keep up wearing the plus - and understand this "subtle logic" (of not fixing the obvious) is totally missing in most people. 

It is not there intelligence (so much) - it is just that they have no interest.  I accept that truth as the reason few people will "commit" to wearing the plus when it could be effective for them.

Best,

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2012, 07:07:22 PM »
The main issue most of us have Otis, is that it doesn't make sense with all the national jurisdictions all over the world that not one jurisdiction has second-opinion eye doctors who will offer their patients to consider the treatment plan of wearing a strong plus.  A medical doctor gives an overweight person or even others who are not overweight advice on how to eat, excercise, and rest in order to prevent obesity and remain healthy.  That is why I find it very challenging to understand the reason ODs that believe in the power of the strong plus do not offer that advice except to their children for fear of losing their licence or being sued.  Especially in the US, where such a pool of ODs could I am sure sue in some sort of federal class-action lawsuit allowing them to offer their medical advice as far as vision correction is concerned.

Patients who go to see a behavioral optometrist in order to try to prevent myopia end up getting advice that has been shown in scientific studies to be ineffective at treating myopia.  I've read industry advice, which essentially says, if you are considering vision traiinig ask the OD to show you the scientific studies that show the outcome will be favorable as well as how much it will cost.  I have no doubt a behavioral optometrist would perscribe a strong plus if they believed in its effectiveness as well.  So, it doesn't make sense to me.  You would figure somewhere there is a national jurisdiction with a group of eye doctors who band together and decide to do the right thing.  But we can not find them the world over. 

By the way, my behavioral optometrist does use the strong plus in certain situations, just doesn't perscriibe it.  For example, sometimes I will wear a +2 for certain excercises at the office.  Then there are the flippers that I use for tiring out my accomodative response.  Usually +2/-2, but was told when it gets too easy perhaps I will need to go larger - either +2.5/-2.5, +3/-3 etc.

Hi Proh and Peter,
Subject: Talking to a "tough-minded" engineer - who is passionate about prevention-only.

I would like to have a person talk to me when I was at 20/50, and about -1 diopters - AND EXPLAIN MY CHOICE TO ME.  Like Peter,  I would like to be shown that my Snellen is 20/50, and have it explained to me (assuming age 16) that, the natural eye goes down by -1/2 diopter per each year in school.  Then I would want to MEASURE MY REFRACTIVE STATE MYSELF.

Then I would want to be told how VERY easy it is to "fix" a person - and send him away, "happy".  Then, I would  want to understand that - THAT IT THE LAST CHANCE I HAVE TO "WORK" TRUE-PREVENTION - under *my* control.

I might ask - why do you want me to "fix" my eye by wearing a "plus" for near - when my "problem" is in the distance!!  (That does require a very intelligent, wise man.)  If the reason is clear as to WHY I should NOT WEAR THE MINUS (with passing the 20/50), and I had a STRONG REASON to get to naked eye 20/20 (with the plus) *I* would do it myself.

But that "strong persistent drive" to keep up wearing the plus - and understand this "subtle logic" (of not fixing the obvious) is totally missing in most people. 

It is not there intelligence (so much) - it is just that they have no interest.  I accept that truth as the reason few people will "commit" to wearing the plus when it could be effective for them.

Best,


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1734
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2012, 07:34:55 PM »

Hi Peter,

As always, you ask wise questions.  As always - I never say "cure". It should be clear that I agree that ODs can not CHARGE MONEY FOR PREVENTION.  Further, the word "cure" remains a problem.  But then that is indeed an honest disagreement.  This opinion comes from my conversation with Raphaelson and HIS prescription of the plus. (But parent a child had NO CLUE AS TO WHY WEARING THE PLUS WOULD BE WISE - AND HAVE TO BE CONTINUED AS LONG AS THE CHILD WAS IN SCHOOL.)  This statement convinced me that PREVENTION (versus cure) had to be in the mind and by the wisdom of the person himself.  I regret that I can never put that kind of "wisdom" in a person's brain.  I do not consider prevention (at 20/40 and -3/4 diopters) to be medical in any sense of the word.  It will always be PERSONAL. We will consider COSTS and TIME to do this also.


Peter> Patients who go to see a behavioral optometrist in order to try to prevent myopia end up getting advice that has been shown in scientific studies to be ineffective at treating myopia.

Otis> AFTER they are severly myopic. I has stipulated that is TOTALLY TRUE. We are not talking about "treating myopia", but rather PREVENTING ENTRY before a negative status goes below -1 diopters.  Only in that range do I judge that "recovery" is possible. BUT only if the person has considerable force-of-character to make continous use of the plus. Given this severe nature of "wearing the plus" - it is clear that the public will have NO PART OF IT.

Peter>  I've read industry advice, which essentially says, if you are considering vision traiinig ask the OD to show you the scientific studies that show the outcome will be favorable as well as how much it will cost.

Otis> If you have the wisdom to relize that UNDER OD CONTROL - the COST WILL BE HUGE.  By if you figure out how to INTENTIONALLY DO IS YOURSELF - the COST IN 1) Price of your own test lenses 2) Snellen chart 3) VERY STRONG, CONTINUED RESOLVE.  As far as I am concerned, no OD will be ever able to do this - tragic but so, so true.

Peter> I have no doubt a behavioral optometrist would perscribe a strong plus if they believed in its effectiveness as well.

Otis>  I have said, it is only POTENTIALLY effective if used by the wisdom of the PILOT himself - WHO TRULY REALIZES THAT THIS TYPE OF TOTAL COMMITMENT CAN NEVER BE PRESCRIBED. 

Peter -  I will post the remarks by Raphaelson (who had the greatest interest in THRESHOLD PREVENTION WITH PLUS) and the parents reaction - AFTER THE PLUS WAS SUCCESSFUL.

Best,

Otis





The main issue most of us have Otis, is that it doesn't make sense with all the national jurisdictions all over the world that not one jurisdiction has second-opinion eye doctors who will offer their patients to consider the treatment plan of wearing a strong plus.  A medical doctor gives an overweight person or even others who are not overweight advice on how to eat, excercise, and rest in order to prevent obesity and remain healthy.  That is why I find it very challenging to understand the reason ODs that believe in the power of the strong plus do not offer that advice except to their children for fear of losing their licence or being sued.  Especially in the US, where such a pool of ODs could I am sure sue in some sort of federal class-action lawsuit allowing them to offer their medical advice as far as vision correction is concerned.

Patients who go to see a behavioral optometrist in order to try to prevent myopia end up getting advice that has been shown in scientific studies to be ineffective at treating myopia.  I've read industry advice, which essentially says, if you are considering vision traiinig ask the OD to show you the scientific studies that show the outcome will be favorable as well as how much it will cost.  I have no doubt a behavioral optometrist would perscribe a strong plus if they believed in its effectiveness as well.  So, it doesn't make sense to me.  You would figure somewhere there is a national jurisdiction with a group of eye doctors who band together and decide to do the right thing.  But we can not find them the world over. 

By the way, my behavioral optometrist does use the strong plus in certain situations, just doesn't perscriibe it.  For example, sometimes I will wear a +2 for certain excercises at the office.  Then there are the flippers that I use for tiring out my accomodative response.  Usually +2/-2, but was told when it gets too easy perhaps I will need to go larger - either +2.5/-2.5, +3/-3 etc.

Hi Proh and Peter,
Subject: Talking to a "tough-minded" engineer - who is passionate about prevention-only.

I would like to have a person talk to me when I was at 20/50, and about -1 diopters - AND EXPLAIN MY CHOICE TO ME.  Like Peter,  I would like to be shown that my Snellen is 20/50, and have it explained to me (assuming age 16) that, the natural eye goes down by -1/2 diopter per each year in school.  Then I would want to MEASURE MY REFRACTIVE STATE MYSELF.

Then I would want to be told how VERY easy it is to "fix" a person - and send him away, "happy".  Then, I would  want to understand that - THAT IT THE LAST CHANCE I HAVE TO "WORK" TRUE-PREVENTION - under *my* control.

I might ask - why do you want me to "fix" my eye by wearing a "plus" for near - when my "problem" is in the distance!!  (That does require a very intelligent, wise man.)  If the reason is clear as to WHY I should NOT WEAR THE MINUS (with passing the 20/50), and I had a STRONG REASON to get to naked eye 20/20 (with the plus) *I* would do it myself.

But that "strong persistent drive" to keep up wearing the plus - and understand this "subtle logic" (of not fixing the obvious) is totally missing in most people. 

It is not there intelligence (so much) - it is just that they have no interest.  I accept that truth as the reason few people will "commit" to wearing the plus when it could be effective for them.

Best,