Subject: I consider "negative status" for my natural eyes to be totally self-induced.
Regarding: Now I need to be told the truth - that if I do "nose on book" then the resultant "negative status" - is my own fault. But please tell me the truth on a scientific level.
Here are two videos that discuss these issues for your interest. Thus, if I have a medical issues or problem, I indeed go to a medical doctor, and insist that all interested in prevention (at 20/40) do so. But when a minus lens is presented, I know that I have to do recovery myself — because no medical person is in a position to help me.
First video — What is a negative refractive state of the natural eye — in objective science?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDTbtpfpac&feature=related
Second — “Does wearing a minus lens (intended to “fix” your distant vision) only accelerate the natural eye’s response to both long-term near, compounded by a strong minus lens?”http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7Ve28jfO7Y&feature=related
In an office, it is very easy to demonstrate the effect of minus lens on the natural eye.
There are a number of reasons to believe that while necessary for the “short term”, the minus should not be worn if the person still can read the 20/40 line or better.
This becomes a matter of, “informed choice”, to personally choose to wear the plus (by your wisdom and long-term control), or not.
I can not say that a lot of "recovery" is possible. But I do say we should be able to "change our mind", when our refractive STATE is still -1 to -1.5 diopters (about 20/40 to 20/60) and intense dedication could get us out of it.