Hi Tom,
Otis> This is indeed the "show stopper", in any MEDICAL "human experiment" - on ignorant people, i.e., "patient".
Tom> Oh there are many of them. But not really useful to us anyway. In case you are wondering why it's so short, it's because of the ethical guideline on human research. Note that even though the change are small. They are consistent across the subjects too. It's hard to even get a study like this.
Otis> The other issue is the FEAR a person might have about wearing the plus (when at 20/40 to 20/50, and -1.0 diopters). We have seen many people, recoil in fear, if it is suggested that they take plus-prevention seriously. I don't blame them - as there are many reasons a person will "think up" his own reasons to "fear the plus". Further, most people simply do not value their distant vision ENOUGH to truly make the commitment.
Otis> But equally, we know that some people "figure out", that it would be wise to make the commitment to wearing the plus (at 20/40, and -1 diopter), and managed to slowly change their refractive STATE, in a positive direction. But no one in medicine and ever do this - for as you say - the "ethical considerations".
Otis> But I always maintain that a person, like Todd, and pilots, who MUST go from -1 diopter to +1/2 diopters (because their desired professional career is worth $100,000 per year), manage to do it by their own wisdom. But this is not a medical solution at all.
Otis> But for fear of law suits, no OD or MD will be willing to even suggest this possibility. Further, to make it work - means technical knowledge and persistence. If successful - the OD will not care about it - but you will.
