Author Topic: Questions you never asked.  (Read 2144 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Questions you never asked.
« on: April 24, 2013, 11:43:20 AM »
Subject: Asking intelligent questions - of Todd and myself - can be a "first step".

I know if I came upon Todd's statement of "nearsightedness recovery" (and never heard of it before) I would have an entire series of "tighter" questions to ask.

1) How much "recovery is possible"?
2) Has anyone done this successfully (from 20/60 and -1.0 diopters).
3) Who actually verifies a claim of success?
4) Will plus-prevention take a long time
5) What is the "standard rate" at which the normal eye goes-down - if a plus is rejected at 20/40?

I personally take prevention (at 20/40 to 20/60) to be similar to "weight control".  You can not "let yourself go".  In the case of "weight", you can get out of a degree of "fat".  In my judgment, you can only get "out of it" from about 20/60 -and that does take a great deal of long-term dedication.

I will pose my own questions (assuming I was lucky enough to be at 20/60) in due course.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Questions you never asked.
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2013, 07:50:30 PM »
Subject:  About me and my scientific curiosity.

When I was growing-up I had these questions for my optical doctor.

1) Did my reading habits create a negative status in my totally normal eyes.

2)  Does the minus lens (you provided) fail to solve any problem, other than to make my distant vision superficially “sharper”?

3)  Does the minus lens (however sincere your intention) only make my refractive status much more negative?

4) Does science prove that long-term wearing of a minus lens on the natural (emmetropic) eye, cause entry into myopia?

5) Do wise (second-opinion) doctors, recognizing the truth in the above questions, teach their own children to wear a “preventive plus” lens during the school years to avoid all of the above problems?

I know that each of us are going to ask, and answer these questions – in their own way and by their own scientific analysis.

Almost needless to say - I received NO reasonable answers to these questions.  But that is the nature of "medical practice".  I seek facts and honest answers.  Here are some quotes about why science and facts - almost never work with most of us:

++++

“People believe and do whatever they want to do, regardless
 of the facts presented to them.” -- Thomas Quackenbush

“When adults first become conscious of something new, they
 usually either attack it or try to escape from it…  Attack
 includes such mild forms as ridicule, and escape includes merely
 putting it out of mind.” -- W.  I.  Beveridge

“You cannot by reasoning correct a man of an ill opinion
 which by reasoning he never acquired.  We can also say that
 neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts,
 can you convince some people that an opinion which they have
 accepted on authority is wrong.” -- William Bates

+++++

If I were encouraged to join a study aimed at "pure prevention", and still had 20/40 to 20/60 vision - I would indeed ask the question, "... what's in it for *me*".

Assuming you are entering a four year college, with -1.0 diopters and 20/40 vision - I think you could figure out WHY plus-prevention would be both wise and NECESSARY.  But I appreciate that few people will take the time to figure that out - even though it is perfectly understood that in that specific situation, your vision will go down by an additional -1.5 diopters -  for a grand total of -2.5 diopters.

It truly amazes me - that no one asks the question, "...why is that so"?  I know, with excellent education and understanding, *I* would ask that question.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Questions you never asked.
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2013, 09:09:00 AM »

Subject:  Doctors who support prevention.

I am often asked if ANYONE every got out of "nearsightedness" by ANY method.  Obviously Todd did it. 

Equally clear, I am asked does ANY OD or MD support prevention.  Here is one of them.

http://frauenfeldclinic.com/what-you-missed-the-peak-prescription/

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Questions you never asked.
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2013, 04:43:48 AM »
Subject: Asking EDUCATED questions.
For me, I would ask about the presumed SAFETY of a minus lens.  Has the minus ever been tested on the normal eye - to determine if it is not "helping", but, objectively, if it is making matters far WORSE.  That was  my question to Dr. Raphaelson.  At that time, science did not exist to answer that question.  But, in "pure science" - here is the objective answer - that NO OPTOMETRIST CAN DENY (bless their hearts).

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

A minus (at 20/40) WORKS.  The OD in his office will say that, "yes...but", you need to SEE.  He also knows that you probably lack an "analytic mind" to figure out (given science) that, even though a strong minus IMPRESSES both you and your child, its use should be restricted.  Even *I* will not "argue" about that issue.  But I do argue that pure-science shows, that 1) Long-term near CREATES "negative status" for the totally natural eye, and that 2) However honest and sincere, 3) The minus should be avoided.

I regret that most children don't have either the interest of fortitude to wear a preventive plus (at 20/40), but I am not going to "argue" with a parent about it.  I sympathize with all OD's and the general-public - but I simply do not see true-prevention as being a "medical problem".

I can only hope I have the wisdom to realize I  must "avoid the OD" who will always over-prescribe, and 1) Check my Snellen, and 2) always pass the 20/40 line 3) Continue to wear the plus (like weight control) and 4) Do this during the school years.

But the scientific reasons exist.  The art, and the skill, is to understand them...

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Questions you never asked.
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2013, 04:56:59 AM »
Subject:  An included statement by Dr. Chalmer Prentice. Indeed, it takes a great deal of personal commitment to be effective a plus-prevention.

Regarding:  Why true-prevention is so difficult - and WHY the issue is personal (science) and never about medicine.  The picture of the natural eye 1) responding in an adverse way to a minus lens and 2) The "public" being un-able to convince itself to wear the plus at 20/40 to 20/50.

The "pure science" of a minus lens - answers that question.  The issue of successful plus-prevention is answered in this statement.  The plus must be used for the "long-term" or when you go below 20/40.  But like Dr. Prentice states, "... the process is very tedious".  This is WHY I don't consider plus-prevention to be "medical".  You MUST understand this issue, and "do it yourself."  But here is the reason-why.

EXAMPLE CASES

Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
 -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of
 two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
 recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
 and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
 was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
 was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
 the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
 writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
 D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
 examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
 while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
 just perceptibly less.

Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;

…but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
 unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
 impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.

Otis> Indeed, the person MUST understand the value of his own study, and the
 need for true presistence in his own work, and by his own judgment.

Otis> What follows is a plan to ORGANIZE the motivation necessary to use the
 plus successfully – by the people who have the greates need for that success.

I have EVERY REASON to TRUST Todd's results - because he did it himself.

Enjoy,