Here is a discussion of this issue.
Some ODs are highly supportive. Others are grotesquely hostile.
Finally, I just gave up on ODs - and told my nephew how to conduct his own plus-prevention prevention - personally.
I also found out that even ODs and MDs help their own children in this manner. Of course the real issue is that successful people NEVER BECOME MYOPIC.
These remarks reflect Todd's attitude towards physical health - like keeping your "weight" under control. This is the type of intellectual self-discipline that is required for prevention. If you let your "weight go", you get keep on getting fatter and fatter.
If you can not inspire yourself to wearing the plus at the critical 20/40 level - your distant vision just keeps on going down, and down and down.
+++++
From my nephew Keith – who wore the plus when necessary - from age 14 through college.
Can't remember if I told you about the show "The Weight of the Nation" an HBO online documentary style presentation about how lack of discipline will kill this country's quality of life health care funding. It's four parts each over an hour.
I've watched the first two and, unlike eyes where there is almost no second opinions of plus lens use offered, being out of shape an overweight is well known but people totally ignore what is most cost effective, eat less and exercise more, and what is very well understood.
It just reminds me of the Romans and other societies who in times of plenty wrecked themselves.
++++++
Dear Keith,
When you were going though school – I simply could not provide all the details about WHY you had to do it yourself, and WHY these ODs are so arrogant and destructive.
The "test" of putting a minus lens on the natural eye (fundamental science) and PROVING that minus causes nearsightedness – is FINAL AS SCIENCE.
By science, I mean your personal education and resolve. It that sense it is like "weight control" – in that you can't "prescribe" weight control – you must do it yourself.
The problem is that most people DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE THEY ARE BEING CHEATED – with that first minus lens.
This situation is so bad, that I think the person must have a personal minus lenses (to help with "blurry out there") just to verify that a weak minus "clears" the 20/20 line.
Thus, if you do this yourself, (say at 20/30) and in fact see 20/20 through a –1, you have the wisdom to never wear it.
But you also have the wisdom to wear the plus 2 – until you begin reading the 20/25 and 20/20 line.
If you walk into an ODs office with 20/40 – you will get an extremely strong minus – and be told to "wear it all the time". That is why that "dynamic image" of the eye "responding" to that –3 diopter lens is so important in science.
Both of us know that most people will "let things go" – not "liking" the steady self-discipline that is REQUIRED for successful prevention – under YOUR control.
This is why I suggest the DMV line (20/40) be checked. If you see your Snellen at 20/40, going to 20/50 –in a college – you must understand that you have no choice.
THEN it is "either/or" – and no OD will help you with this problem.
This is indeed scientific discipline that we must learn to apply to ourselves.
This is, to me, the "lesson" that Raphaelson taught, when he described "fixing" a child with 20/40 – as "poison glasses for children".
What he needed to do, was to describe our "reading habits", as "poison near" for our natural eyes.
That is indeed what true-science will teach us – if we can learn and be responsible for ourselves.
Medical people are NOT RESPONSIBLE for gross obesity in a person. In comparative sense, (provided you are very wise about it), they are not responsible for protecting your distant vision (for life).
By their default, you are responsible.
I only "teach" the science of the natural eye – and help people who are prepared to conduct prevention for their own personal benefit.
