Is the cure - worse that the disease?

[OtisBrown]

Subject: While I argue for plus-prevention - as Todd has done it

Regarding:  I will play "devils advocate" here.

The minus is very easy.  It has been used with no  change for the last 400 years.  It is so easy to do it - that you have to ask yourself, "... why bother with anything else"?

As far as I am concerned, the only "place" a plus can be used, is when the person still has 20/40 to 20/60 vision, and an intense need to change his refractive STATE by about +3/4 diopters.

It would take about nine months, of intensive wearing of a plus, just to get to a consistent 20/25 vision.  Who would want to do that much "plus wearing", when the minus is so easy and obvious.  Further, no one can guarantee that you will succeed.  These are all the reasons that an OD has no interest in you, our you interest in plus prevention.  There also some "legal" reasons - why he will not "touch" this type of advocacy.

If he did, and you wore a plus, for even a month - you could sue him for fraud - if you see no results. Further, if you judged that your eyes were "hurt" by wearing the plus, you could sue  him for mal-practice, and YOU WOULD WIN about $10,000 from him.

But why do we argue for a person to "do it himself"?

You opinion and thoughts?

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  The official medical opinion - and a review.

AFTER a child induces slight "negative status" in his natural eyes - it is indeed VERY EASY to impress the child (and parent) with a strong minus lens.  Because very few people (and their parents) will take prevention seriously (at the 20/40 level) the medical doctor simply "throws in the towel", and declares it is "all heredity", and you would be crazy to think that even prevention would be possible. 

I DO respect medical people, and I ALMOST agree with them.  But think we all must listen to them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDTbtpfpac&feature=related

Here is the dispute.  He assumes that it is all "heredity".  There is indeed no proof that PREVENTION is impossible. 
He also assumes that the minus has NO EFFECT on the eye - as a  matter of proven science.  I must dispute that statement in this way.  Here is an animation of what actually DOES HAPPEN, when you place a minus lens on the natural primate eye.

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

This is true for all eye's available for test.  It is essentially a universal scientific constant.  Carried to its logical conclusion, it implies that our reading "habit" creates our negative status.  (Implies that while the "prescription is honestly well-intended", on a deeper level, and worn all the time, makes our slight minus status, go far worse.)

So at this point, pure-science CONFLICTS with the "official medical theory".  This suggest that, if wise, and the plus was used while you can still function with no minus lens (read the 20/60 line) it would be possible to SLOWLY get back to 20/40 or better. 

I like to have a rational reason for doing something - like plus-prevention.  In very simple terms, this is why I judge that in the last "stage" of improvement, you should consider heavy use of a plus.  There is rational science supporting the concept.

I just don't think a "medical person" can help me with this process - although I wish the would tell me about this issue - before I am put into a -2.0 diopter when I can still read the 20/40 line.

I am curious about your commentary on this issue.

[OtisBrown]

Dear Friends,

Subject: Who is LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for my distant vision. The OD, or *myself*?

We often THINK an OD should be interested, and PRESCRIBE a plus lens to us - so we could get "out of it" as Todd has done.

This has proven to be impossible.  This is why I perform the OBJECTIVE tests on myself - to confirm that my visual acuity always EXCEEDS the 20/40 line (and much better).  As long as I do that successfully, the OD needs NO INVOLVEMENT IN MY VISION PRESERVATION WORK.  In other words, I "draw a line" and by reading my own Snellen, and wearing a plus, to keep my refractive STATE at zero to +1.0 diopters - I keep my 20/20 vision, and always pass the required DMV test.  (I always go to a doctor for honest-to-God, TRUE medical problems, if I have any.  I always recommend that we all do that.  But when it comes to protecting *MY* distant vision, I have no choice but to do it myself.  This does not mean "conflict", it just means "educated responsiblity", and the use of a plus if my Snellen starts to go down towards 20/30. 

Here is the reason, stated a long time ago.  People simply do not "understand" or "like" the intentional wearing of a plus for prevention, as stated here:

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/prent.txt

People will ask, "...I do not see WHY I should be wearing a plus - when they are at 20/40 to 20/60.."  I agree that it MIGHT seem "un-reasonable", until you read Dr. Prentice's statement.  It takes a good mind, and resolve, to keep your vision during the years we spend in school, college and graduate school.  What has become available, through one EXCELLENT plus study, is the information, that the person  himself must "wise up" about this issue.  It is not a "medical issue", it is a matter of self-education, if you profoundly value your distant vision, and have the great resolve to start with the plus, and continue to wear it though the school year. 

I have no "fight" with an OD in an office.  It is just that he can not "legally" help me, so I must do this "optometry" on myself.  I hope you understand.

[johnlink]

In other words, I "draw a line" and by reading my own Snellen, and wearing a plus, to keep my refractive STATE at zero to +1.0 diopters - I keep my 20/20 vision, and always pass the required DMV test.

What is the definition of "refractive state"? Is this the minimal amount of correction needed in order to read the 20/20 line clearly?

John Link

[OtisBrown]

Hi John,

I am pleased you asked this question.  When I say "refractive STATE" I mean you PERSONALLY measured it at home, using this STANDARD well-lit Snellen Chart.  I accept (for myself) that my naked-eye vision must at least pass the 20/40 line.  If I find that I can not read the 20/40 line, then I must get a minus lens strong enough to allow me to exceed the 20/40 line - so as to remain legal to drive.  Since I see so much over-prescription (because ODs prescrbe for 20/10 vision) I truly must check myself.  Thus if I were at 20/60, I would use the "minimum minus" that "just clears" the 20/20 line for me. THAT is the minus I would order from Zennioptical.com

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

This then saves me the problem of an "argument" with an OD about the exact minus lens I need to drive a care.  It also make me responsible to always PASS the required DMV line of 20/40.  The low-cost of the minus allows me to put the $10 minus in a car - and use it THERE, and no where else.  But I always hope that the person "wake up" to the need to do this - before his Snellen goes below 20/40 - when this is not too much trouble.

To be clear:  Refractive STATE - means a PERSONAL OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT.  It means the potential ability to be wise and limit your wearing of a minus lens (but wear it when necessary).

I hope the video helps you understand how *I* do it.

[OtisBrown]

Hi John,

You asked the question, "do people get out of nearsightedness - if they make a commitment to doing so?

Part of the answer is that it would be wise if we all started the preventive work, when we were still at -1.0 diopters.  But what if we are "deeper"?  Has ANYONE been able to get out of it - including optometrists?  Almost all optometrists will tell you that prevention IS IMPOSSIBLE.  Here is an OD who did it for your reference.

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

It becomes a matter of your judgment about whether you have the fortitude to do it.  I would like to see more ODs like this - who would EXPLAIN that if you don't start wearing the "plus", your vision will go down at a steady rate of -1/2 diopter per year - for each year you are in school.  They should explain this problem to you - before you even start wearing that wretched minus lens.  But they will not do it - sad to say.

Otis

In other words, I "draw a line" and by reading my own Snellen, and wearing a plus, to keep my refractive STATE at zero to +1.0 diopters - I keep my 20/20 vision, and always pass the required DMV test.

What is the definition of "refractive state"? Is this the minimal amount of correction needed in order to read the 20/20 line clearly?

John Link

[johnlink]

Hi John,

You asked the question, "do people get out of nearsightedness - if they make a commitment to doing so?

I believe that I did NOT ask that question. Please do not put words into my mouth.

HERE is the question (actually two questions) I DID ask, and for which I still await an answer (or answers):

What is the definition of "refractive state"? Is this the minimal amount of correction needed in order to read the 20/20 line clearly?

John Link

[OtisBrown]

JOHN:

What is the definition of "refractive state"? Is this the minimal amount of correction needed in order to read the 20/20 line clearly?

Otis>  Here is *MY* definition of refractive STATE:  You look at your Snellen.  You are reading, say 20/100.  You take your trial lens set (of about 4 lenses), and use a -1/2 diopter lens.  Does that "improve" your Snellen?  Then you keep on doing this with the trial-lens set you obtain from zenni.  In due course you find a minus that "just clears" the 20/20 line.  That is *MY* definition of self-measured refractive state.

Otis> This is NOT how an OD will do it. In the above example, you could find a -1.5 would clear the 20/20 line.  The OD will attempt to clear the 20/10 line.

Otis> This will give you are REFRATION of -3.0 dioipters (in many cases).  This is WHY *I* must use my own trial lenses - and WHY I MUST define refractive STATE correctly.

Hi John,

You asked the question, "do people get out of nearsightedness - if they make a commitment to doing so?

I believe that I did NOT ask that question. Please do not put words into my mouth.

HERE is the question (actually two questions) I DID ask, and for which I still await an answer (or answers):

What is the definition of "refractive state"? Is this the minimal amount of correction needed in order to read the 20/20 line clearly?

John Link

[johnlink]

Here is *MY* definition of refractive STATE:  You look at your Snellen.  You are reading, say 20/100.  You take your trial lens set (of about 4 lenses), and use a -1/2 diopter lens.  Does that "improve" your Snellen?  Then you keep on doing this with the trial-lens set you obtain from zenni.  In due course you find a minus that "just clears" the 20/20 line.

Thank you. I now understand that you define the refractive state as the amount of correction that just clears the 20/20 line.

John Link

[johnlink]

Then you keep on doing this with the trial-lens set you obtain from zenni.

I don't see any trial lens set on the zenni website. Can you provide a link to the page where it appears?

John Link

[OtisBrown]

Hi John,

A formal trial-lens kit will cost about $130.   I only need about four minus lenses to determine my refracitve state.  Here is how I use these lenses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GQ9rPTRtoM

Also - have you checked your own Snellen yet.  If you do not - you are wasting your time - in my opinion.

Also - here is why I wear a plus, verify my refractive STATE, and avoid wearing a minus lens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxLv7BIxnIU

Yes, the minus lens is VERY EASY to use.  But equally, it has a tragic "secondary effect" - if you got it at a young age - and wore it all the time.

Enjoy,

[OtisBrown]

Hi John,

Here is a complete trial-lens kit.  But I find that I actually onlly need from 2 to 6 lenses (spherical) to confirm my refractive state.  Each lens costs about $4 from Zenni.  SInce I don't want to "argue" with an OD, and  I am prepared to take ALL legal responsiblity FOR MY OWN VISION - FOR LIFE, I check myself - as an ENGINEER.

There are perhaps people who do not like my "independence of mind" and determination to succeed - but that is not my problem.  Remember, I always go to an ophthalmologist for MEDICAL PROBLEMS.  But a SLIGHT negative state of my natural eyes - is not a "medical problem" so I feel free to measure my status, and wear my plus - to be a scientific issue, never a "medical problem".  The OD does not care about me or my distant vision - that is why I teach myself how to make these measurements.

[johnlink]

Here is a complete trial-lens kit.  But I find that I actually onlly need from 2 to 6 lenses (spherical) to confirm my refractive state.  Each lens costs about $4 from Zenni.

So WHERE is the kit? Did you intend to post a link to it?

[OtisBrown]

Hi John,

Here is the link.

http://www.optometrial.com/trial-lens-sets/232-lens-sets/trial-lens-set-232pc-lens-shiny-plastic-rim-1

The high cost is due to some un-necessary lenses - that  you would never use. 

Clarification:  In using a minus or plus lens on myself - I do not consider what I am doing is "optometry" or "medicine" in any sense of the word.  I consider it to be pure science and engineering.  I am not an "OD" or "MD", and I do not "practice medicine". That is why  I measure a "refractive STATE" be it postive or negative. 

Here is a complete trial-lens kit.  But I find that I actually onlly need from 2 to 6 lenses (spherical) to confirm my refractive state.  Each lens costs about $4 from Zenni.

So WHERE is the kit? Did you intend to post a link to it?

[johnlink]

Otis, thank you for the link. On that page I found a link to this page, on which a smaller kit of just a few lessons could be made for much less cost: http://www.optometrial.com/trial-lens-sets/trial-lens-replace