Author Topic: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.  (Read 27767 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #30 on: July 03, 2012, 08:39:02 AM »
Hi Peter and Proh,

I always like to publish a person's prescription.  Here is Lucian's record. Note: It is hard to read the prescription.  Also note the variation in measurements.

http://www.kaisuviikari.com/Testimonials/Lucian_Damoc_Romania_testimonial_2011.pdf

This is typical - that gross errors in measurement exist. This is why I taught myself how to measure my refractive status myself.  That way I don't get these errors.

Best,

Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #31 on: July 03, 2012, 08:49:23 AM »
Hi Otis


I have no idea how refractive index checked in US .
In India we go for auto refractor first to get only initial point. Then followed by subjective reading.
I do agree that  you may be prescribed at higher number but then it is quoted as 6/5 ( 20/17) .

I have never seen any prescription on autorefractor alone.

Proh

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #32 on: July 03, 2012, 06:42:09 PM »
Thanks Proh.  Watched the video, and I will try it.  Trying to figure out how to watch all the vidoes on that site now that you pointed it out.  Doesn't seem obvious.  Peter

Hi Peter


I suggest you to look at this excersie which helps in improving double image.
http://www.powervisionforum.com/forum/showthread.php?280-PVS-Video-tutorial-2-quot-Ocular-Stretching-exercise-fixing-a-point-quot

Or better is have a look at all of them .

Proh

Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #33 on: July 03, 2012, 07:32:06 PM »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #34 on: July 04, 2012, 07:02:03 AM »
Hi Peter and Proh,

Here is Lucian's site - and his ability to change his refraction from -6 diopters to +2 diopters (estimated).  A refractive state of zero is, for all practical purposes, 20/20 vision.

http://pluslens.wordpress.com/

So it can be done!

Offline PROH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #35 on: July 04, 2012, 08:30:42 AM »
Hi Peter Otis


You have quite good understanding of this topic . I recommand you to read below paper which has done study to prove that defocus has impact on eyeball size. Its again coming from PVS site

http://www.iovs.org/content/51/12/6262.full

Let me know you comments

Proh
« Last Edit: July 04, 2012, 08:38:16 AM by PROH »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #36 on: July 07, 2012, 08:16:25 PM »
Hi Proh,
I like to summarize an idea or concept.  With out that, you have no idea what you are talking about - or doing.  There is one term I object to, it is "de-focus".  When you put a -1 diopters (assuming a normal eye, refractive status zero), you can read the 20/20 line CLEARLY. You can also read at 20 inches CLEARLY.  Therefore a lens does not "de-focus" the image on the retina.  What happens is that the accommodation system changes - to "take up the slack".  The lens, plus and minus were on for only 60 minutes - yet the change in eye-length has been measured.  This intimates, that 1) Long-term near, creates that first negative status for our eyes, i.e., it is in fact our "educated" environment that SLOWLY creates the 'long eye" and nearsightedness. This means that 2) In the short-term in an office, a minus "impresses", but it is primitive, and based on this data - can only make matters much worse.  But let me present the summary of the concept (paradigm) of this paper:

For a minus lens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLv7BIxnIU&feature=g-upl

The plus lens:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPOjOFT0p1g&feature=g-upl

For a person at -1 diopter, and is prepared to make heavy commitment to a plus (when he can still read the 20/50 line - self-confirmed) the prevention is possible, for the exact reason confirmed in science.

But the real issue is not this science - which is very accurate, but our lack of ability to convince the person to AVOID THE MINUS, and always wear the plus when ever that person sits down to read.  This is a real exercise in personal intelligence and motivation.

I hope I have not "lost" you, but this is  how I visualize science.

Best, Otis



Hi Peter Otis


You have quite good understanding of this topic . I recommand you to read below paper which has done study to prove that defocus has impact on eyeball size. Its again coming from PVS site

http://www.iovs.org/content/51/12/6262.full

Let me know you comments

Proh

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #37 on: September 04, 2012, 09:51:30 AM »
Peter's use of a plus lens - FYI:

Peter and I discussed the wise use of a plus, as well as the importance of checking your own Snellen chart.  I thought Peter would take wearing a plus seriously - i.e., with great consistency for MONTHS.  That works with pilots - because they ACTUALLY WEAR THE PLUS WITH THE DEDICATION REQUIRED.

I don't blame a person who does not wear the plus - but they you can hardly claim that it "does not work".

I respect Peter.  Here is his commentary for your interest.

+++++


Dr. Judy OD:

Based on your explanations below on what an optometrist can recommend, I thought
I'd outline a current scenario for me and whether there is any standard optical
practice deviation I could possibly expect.

Although I have not been using pluses, I did try however briefly to use them
many months back (for perhaps an hour 2 days in a row).

In any case, I have several times when measuring myself against my snellon put
on plus 1.25 standard readers, and attempted to see which lines I could bring
into focus. Based on your previous explanation of fusional vergence, I wanted
to ask you if that still makes sense for me.

A few times when I put on the +1.25 readers to look at the snellon, I have
succeeded into bringing into clarity the 20/25 line. Most of the time I will
bring into focus the 20/30 line as well. Again, this is brief (from 20 seconds
to a minute) that I am able to hold it. I suspect this aligns with fusional
stimulation helping me verge.

My question is whether my momentary ability to read the 20/25 line on the
snellon would in any way suggest that I might be able to improve my vision
further with less change of that double-vision at near risk you explained. You
also suggested earlier I may have taught myself how to constrict my pupils in
order to see at distance, and so this may be also be the +1.25 explanation as
well.

I guess it all comes back to the frustrating situation that I can only find out
within a research setup exactly what I am doing. If you have any
recommendations on someone with that setup that may be interested in seeing me,
please let me know. You can email me privately on that.

Thanks,
Peter
++++++

As always, if you don't take plus-prevention seriously, you obviously will see no "effect" at all.

Otis


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #38 on: September 04, 2012, 12:45:15 PM »
Why I advocate the wearing of the plus - for chldren.

Why Peter rejects wearing the plus - for himself and for his child.

Here are the statistics.  For myself, I would want to be taught to use the plus, while still at 20/40.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAiMkT4vn9E

This is always PERSONAL.  You can NEVER prescribe personal wisdom, knowledge and force-of-will.

Otis

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #39 on: September 05, 2012, 06:28:22 AM »
FINAL SCIENCE, and FINAL TRUTH.

Very few people have the strength to "help themselves".  They want to see a "problem" with wearing the plus - while ignoring what serious science (and statistics) tells us if you decided you WILL NOT WEAR THE PLUS WHEN YOU ARE AT 20/40 TO 20/50, AND IN SCHOOL.

Here are the objective facts.  Kids with the plus - DID NOT GO DOWN.  (They did not go "up" by much - but they had no instruction on how and why it was necessary to wear the plus.{  Tragically, any wearing of the plus is an honest "intrusion" in a person's life.  He he takes it "that way" he will not wear the plus properly. 

http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm

For those who are "in fear" of wearing a plus (at 20/50, about -1.0 diopers), and in high  school - and going to college -  I say I regret your choice.

BECAUSE EACH YEAR YOU DO NOTHING (DO NOT WEAR THE PLUS) YOUR VISION GOES DOWN BY -1/2 DIOPTER FOR EACH YEAR IN SCHOOL.

I hope a person understand this proven issue.  I will argue for "recovery" - if a person has a reasonable chance of success.  This statement that I make is not a "threat" -- it is objective reality.

Otis


Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2012, 07:09:13 AM »
Hi Otis,

I expect Dr. Judy will suggest I may be training myself to constrict my pupils through the +1.25s, and thus improve my depth of vision. 

The purpose of the question to Dr. Judy and perhaps Dr. Tyner (or anyone else out there) is to try to qualify more closely what is the risk.  As you have always stated, the person who would consider using the plus at near needs for himself or herself be perfectly comfortable with the risk and taking that decision on their own.  It is very, very difficult to quantify and understand what the actual risk is.  I did read one person's post from Turkey (about 6-7 years ago)  who undertook to strong plus at near and caused himself double-vision and gave explicit warnings.  Unfortunately, he used an alias name for posting his internet message, and it was only one post where he wrote.

Also, given the OD community knows use of plus at near has been tested thoroughly in overwhelming numbers of studies, then I would expect in all those studies that they would have also been concerned about the risk of that plus use.  Just as you say that there is a price to pay in doing it in your book.  So, I know they must have been monitoring participants in the studies.  As Dr. Judy told me, even with me doing this without the use of glasses, she said she would have expected me to have caused myself issues of double-vision at near.  I would imagine they must have seen this in studies.

Peter

Peter's use of a plus lens - FYI:

Peter and I discussed the wise use of a plus, as well as the importance of checking your own Snellen chart.  I thought Peter would take wearing a plus seriously - i.e., with great consistency for MONTHS.  That works with pilots - because they ACTUALLY WEAR THE PLUS WITH THE DEDICATION REQUIRED.

I don't blame a person who does not wear the plus - but they you can hardly claim that it "does not work".

I respect Peter.  Here is his commentary for your interest.


Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #41 on: September 05, 2012, 07:22:01 AM »
Hi Otis - once a person understands fully what the price to pay is for using plus at near to prevent myopia, they can make a reasonable  decision.   It is understanding what that price to pay is which is the trick.  I don't have a good clarity on what the current risk probabilities are, so how can I reasonably weigh the risk?   One will pay the price of tinkering with AC:A and AC:C if one can understand clearly the risk/reward scenario.  Just like there is no shortage of people willing to risk it by having LASIK.   I would think with all the studies where plus was used and according to the medical establishment having shown to not be effective, then clearly those study investigators had to make some sort of preparations to mitigate the risk concern to the patients.  If I can grasp that, and if that message is available to laymen (like myself), then I think you will be surprised by how many people have the strength to "help themselves".  Peter

FINAL SCIENCE, and FINAL TRUTH.

Very few people have the strength to "help themselves".  They want to see a "problem" with wearing the plus - while ignoring what serious science (and statistics) tells us if you decided you WILL NOT WEAR THE PLUS WHEN YOU ARE AT 20/40 TO 20/50, AND IN SCHOOL.

Here are the objective facts.  Kids with the plus - DID NOT GO DOWN.  (They did not go "up" by much - but they had no instruction on how and why it was necessary to wear the plus.{  Tragically, any wearing of the plus is an honest "intrusion" in a person's life.  He he takes it "that way" he will not wear the plus properly. 

http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm

For those who are "in fear" of wearing a plus (at 20/50, about -1.0 diopers), and in high  school - and going to college -  I say I regret your choice.

BECAUSE EACH YEAR YOU DO NOTHING (DO NOT WEAR THE PLUS) YOUR VISION GOES DOWN BY -1/2 DIOPTER FOR EACH YEAR IN SCHOOL.

I hope a person understand this proven issue.  I will argue for "recovery" - if a person has a reasonable chance of success.  This statement that I make is not a "threat" -- it is objective reality.

Otis



Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #42 on: September 05, 2012, 08:09:54 AM »
Peter - I greatly respect your words and encouragement.  I also respect medical people - as I think you understand it.  But I "draw a line" to determine, or establish exactly what I am responsible for - and what a "medical person" MIGHT be responsible for.  It is that "line" that is never established when you "walk into an office" (having never checked your own Snellen) and are prescribed a very strong minus lens.  I truly understand that no one "medical" can take the time to explain any of these "issues" to a person, (layman).  But by now, neither you nor I, nor Todd Becker are "laymen" - in any sense of the word.  We are becoming "educated experts" on how to prevent (but not "cure").
Peter - because you obtained your own Snellen, and verify that you exceed the 20/40 line (with no lens) have become your own expert.  Further, you have your own plus and minus lens, and can confirm how "sharp" you can make your Snellen with a minus lens.  You can do this for your son also - when it becomes necessary.  The major purpose of these discussions is to make you PERSONALLY wise and responsible. I know full-well how difficult it is for a person (at 20/60) to truly "commit" himself to the use of the plus.  In fact it is so difficult, that I only make this advocacy with my sister's children.  But the salient point (for me) is that Table 4 by Francis Young.  So I never use the words "cure myopia" because of the adverse "implication" of saying something like that.  I will use the words, "anti-prescription" glasses, or "avoid negative stauts for your natural eyes".  But the intent is for the person to LOOK at a Snellen, and realize what is certain to happen if he does not take plus-prevention seriously, when he can still read the 20/40 to 20/60 lines.  That is why, if there were ever to develop a PREVENTION (not cure) study, your "experts" would have to include the advice of people who are NOT-MEDICAL. 
If I wanted to be a pilot, (at age 17), and my refractive STATE were -3/4 diopters, I would want to know FOR CERTAIN that my "state" would go down by -1.5 diopters in four years.  That would mean fully understanding the Frank Young tables, and the Military Academy Statistics.  It would the be completely up to my own intelligence and self-protective motivation to do WHAT NO MEDICAL PERSON COULD DO FOR ME.  That would be very active use of a +2.0 for all close work.  This is not simple - due to the long-term persistence it takes to be effective.  I find it IMPOSSIBLE to describe this process as "medical", and I would regret anyone who attempted to call prevention of this nature, "medicine".
But I am very happy that you now exceed the required 20/40 line, and have become expert in your own right.  In this endeavor - even the experts disagree - and that is as it should be.
Sincerely,  Otis

Offline peterg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 136
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #43 on: September 07, 2012, 07:42:30 AM »
Hi Otis, can you tell me if your nephew and niece that you advocated for have had any children themselves now, and have they been working on prevention with their children.  Peter

I know full-well how difficult it is for a person (at 20/60) to truly "commit" himself to the use of the plus.  In fact it is so difficult, that I only make this advocacy with my sister's children. 

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: AC:C Ratio - The Presumed Risks of Wearing a Plus.
« Reply #44 on: September 07, 2012, 12:18:07 PM »
Hi Peter,

That is indeed a good question!  I do not "intrude" myself into their lives.  Wearing the plus, in the manner that it MUST be used, requires a parent who has understood the true implications of Dr. Francis Young's "Plus" study.  (That's not easy.)  Further, and in my opinion, the "wearing of the plus" must start before the person's "Snellen" goes below 20/40.  I prepared my book so that they could understand the scientific basis of (threshold) prevention. But the issue of "nagging" a child to 1) Monitor his Snellen 2) Wear the plus when he sits down to read and 3) Understand that you you allow your vision to go much below 20/60 - you probably will not be able to get out of it.

This is truly a "tough issue".  I maintain it is like "obesity prevention".  The parent might have the tough body of an athlete - and the child, having no interest in his body, becomes seriously obese.  So no, I can not "control" any child with this issue.

Equally, I admire you, in that you got your own Snellen and trial lens kit - so you KNOW what your are doing - and can make your own judgments of these issues.  You also, perhaps have children, and will face these issues in the future.  I know I can not "intrude" myself in that area either.

But I do say this - if your child (at age 16) expressed a strong desire to qualify as a military pilot (which requires 20/20 vision), and was at 20/25 to 20/30 (about -1/2 diopter) you would inform him of this type of choice he would have.  1) Wear the plus through college, or 2) Face the additional -1.5 diopters he would develop through four years of college - if he did not wear that plus, and monitor his own Snellen.

That is how difficult it is for a parent to support his own children - even if he has been personally successful in PREVENTION by "doing it himself".

Otis



Hi Otis, can you tell me if your nephew and niece that you advocated for have had any children themselves now, and have they been working on prevention with their children.  Peter

I know full-well how difficult it is for a person (at 20/60) to truly "commit" himself to the use of the plus.  In fact it is so difficult, that I only make this advocacy with my sister's children.