Author Topic: History  (Read 887 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
« on: May 19, 2014, 06:21:17 AM »
Subject: In doing my own research, I found it difficult to get a consistent “history” of preventive efforts.

“When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong–these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.”

“Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it” –   George Santayana

Item: Development of Alex’s site

First, I will thank Alex for his extensive library, and insights.

One issue that I think that needs to be improved, is the history of various research efforts, and their consequences.  That includes their failures and successes.

This history can not be exclusively “medical”, but must included “objectors”, to the traditional minus lens.  I have found that those ODs, applying the default minus lens - do not want to review this history - which makes it even more important to understand it.

I would start this process by a review of Johannes Kepler, who in about 16 years, un-intentionally induced negative status in his natural eyes, by intensive close work. This was his great challenge, and he did very well with his research.

He also knew the character of a lens, (minus and plus), and when he noticed his refractive state was mildly negative, he used a minus lens to ‘clear’ the stars he viewed.

That basic practice, and the effectiveness of the minus, has not changed at all in the last 400 years. In the pressure of the “moment”, the default minus will always be used in that manner.

In 1865, two mean, Helmholtz and Donders, simply “formalized” what Kepler had discovered. This became the Helmholtz “theory” of the eye. He just took the eye to be a “box camera”, and all refractive states (plus or minus) were all called errors.

In 1900, Dr. Bates took this absolute theory to task, as being an “error” itself. He judged that the minus was a “poor idea” at best, and was probably making the eye even more “negative” than is would be – if the person did not wear a strong minus all the time.

His published efforts, in 1912, achieved a degree of success. But there was no “follow up” on his concept, or the need for the person to be intellectually involved in the preventive process.

I would be willing to further enhance this history, and maybe Alex and many others can help – because I judge that those who fail to learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

While I argue for "plus use" while you still can read the 20/40 line, I often wondered if a plus-preventive study could be conducted.

Because of the "bifocal" studies, it is possible to see this possibility - provided the person is not "passive", or has no interest in actively wearing a plus to keep his vision clear during for years in college.  Here is the "plus" data, when the plus was not properly used (because of the bifocal.)

Just click on "Vis 6 - 17", to review the results of the effect of a poorly used plus.  (Note that the 16 year-old "plus" group was getting out of it.)

I believe that if a person has "active intelligence", and can understand to NOT wear a bifocal, an instead just wear a plus 3, for all close work, he could get a change of +3/4 diopter in about six months.

It makes a big difference if you understand the consequence to you - from wearing the plus correctly.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2014, 06:51:41 AM by OtisBrown »