Author Topic: Opinion against the plus lens - for threshold prevention.  (Read 2811 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Opinion against the plus lens - for threshold prevention.
« on: June 02, 2014, 01:08:28 PM »

Subject: Why a totally honest optometrist - could never help the public with prevention.

Item:  Raphaelson's statements, profoundly affected my judgment about the need for prevention - and the only choice of doing it myself. Other people are bored to tears by the type of intellectual analysis required to understand this issue.

Is the concept of prevention boring to you?

Do you consider preventive work to be - a waste of your time?

Do you think anyone has been successful with it. 

Do you think that Todd Becker was successful with it?

What is your opinion of the concept of YOU protecting your distant vision (through the college years), by wearing a plus for all close work.

What is the opinion of an optometrist about helping the general public wear the plus (and avoid the minus) through the college years.

« Last Edit: June 08, 2014, 05:57:10 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline CapitalPrince

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
Re: Opinion against the plus lens - for threshold prevention.
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2014, 05:34:21 PM »
why do you post the same thing over and over. its getting ridiculous.
this is why i don't go on this forum anymore.

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: Opinion against the plus lens - for threshold prevention.
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2014, 02:07:11 AM »
Quote from the link:

Quote
That’s my philosophy of unnecessary intervention into systems that are made to run themselves and adjust as needed.

I didn't wear plus or minus at my first high school years but my eyes got myopic and couldn't adjust or run themselves at far!

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: Opinion against the plus lens - for threshold prevention.
« Reply #3 on: June 06, 2014, 01:20:03 PM »
If she puts her children a plus 1D and tell them to look far she could teach them how much blurier their vision can become even with -1D deterioration in myopia.

Even if their children don't like in the beginning to read at the blur zone, with just +1D glasses with their degree of myopia, I believe they can benefit (for prevention) even if they will see almost no blur at all when reading.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Opinion against the plus lens - for threshold prevention.
« Reply #4 on: June 07, 2014, 06:26:59 AM »
Dear Alex,

Subject: Having a child wear a +1, for everything, when the child has 20/30 vision.

Item: If the child will do this, and the parents understand the wisdom of their child wearing the plus - then prevention is possible.  Here is the example.

THE PRINTER'S SON, By Dr. Jacob Raphaelson

To answer your question.  A child with 20/40, and wearing a +1, will see some more "blur" in the distance.  But for close work - NO BLUR AT ALL.  In fact this "wear a +1 all the time" was done to a child, who did not understand the purpose of wearing the plus.  Here is the result.

++++++

Raphaelson> It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting. She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave her my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles.

She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was a printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for the next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she should bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them when her husband returned home.

She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her husband came back home.

In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the glasses. He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes. In fact, she said, the boy could see even better without the glasses than with them.

I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks?

My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself nearsighted.

On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly, did not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the medical profession.

To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter and nothing more.

Second, I charged a reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I just did it as a matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity.

+++++++

Obviously the "sticking point", of wearing  plus in this way - is the fact that a child wearing +1 all the time, is rejected by the parents.  Raphaelson had his children both wear a plus for near, and wear the plus - as he did for this child.  But the result is that the child keeps his distant vision clear through the school years.  The child who rejects this idea - will lose his vision at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.  That is why prevention is rejected - because there is a refusal to understand this issue - with clarity.

But you can not do this as "medicine" - because the patient will not understand it.  It takes a truly wise person to actually do it.

When I argue for the use of a plus (for prevention) I am told that I am, "practicing medicine".  Further, a person will reject this, thinking that the plus lens is, "a prescription".

The medical people will tell you that "prevention is impossible" with a plus.  Then they proceed to de-rail the entire subject, and give you a very strong minus for full time wearing. 

You, in a trusting mode, wear the strong minus all the time and your vision goes down by another -1 diopter or so.  After several years of this "treatment", you ask is there any way to PREVENT this problem.  You are told, "...nah, all prevention is impossible".  "... What son, don't you trust science",  "... what you do  not trust me"?

Then they say, we (as doctors) can not prescribe a plus, because it is, "not medicine".

Then I say, plus prevention, understood correctly, is, "not medicine".

A perfect, "logical trap".

Go figure.

As always, I appreciate doctors who ARE attempting to "change this tragic system".  Read Dr. Alex' remarks about "poor prescriptions".

https://frauenfeldclinic.com/

He is correct.



If she puts her children a plus 1D and tell them to look far she could teach them how much blurier their vision can become even with -1D deterioration in myopia.

Even if their children don't like in the beginning to read at the blur zone, with just +1D glasses with their degree of myopia, I believe they can benefit (for prevention) even if they will see almost no blur at all when reading.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2014, 11:29:07 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline ZC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Opinion against the plus lens - for threshold prevention.
« Reply #5 on: June 09, 2014, 11:03:00 AM »
Otis Brown,

The Frauenfeld link you gave:

https://frauenfeldclinic.com/the-myopia-lie/

says the following:

Quote
[E]ye exercises just give you temporary improvements.

They sound interesting, they sell lots of books and online programs, but I rarely hear of anyone who improved their vision using some exercise regimen.  I am certainly not opposed to anything that works – but doing a set of odd (and most not exactly a natural use of your eyes) exercises every day hardly has anything to do with addressing the cause of myopia (remember, NITM and lens-induced). [sic]

Since you wrote the afterword to David De Angelis's The Secret of Perfect Vision, the key to which is an exercise regimen, I am curious to know your opinion. There are no studies on this matter, that I am aware of. So, it really does come down to opinion. I have been following De Angelis's exercise regimen but I have made other changes in addition to the exercises so I cannot tease out specific causal relations.

Offline ZC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Opinion against the plus lens - for threshold prevention.
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2014, 11:48:14 AM »
I have been testing weekly with a Snellen. I started at -5.0, -6.5, so I have been using undercorrection.

I tried the UltimEyes application, which actually has some research behind it. I didn't notice any real improvement.

Offline Alex_Myopic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
Re: Opinion against the plus lens - for threshold prevention.
« Reply #7 on: July 03, 2014, 09:30:43 AM »
I have read that plus lenses can mess up focusing at near without glasses. After years of using plus (the last year extensively) my near point (of reading fine print) is 11cm and at the age of 30 the mean is 14cm!!!

Age, Years     Near Point, cm
10                          7
20                        10
30                        14
40                        22
50                        40
60                       200





source: Sears, Zemansky, and Young, University Physics

Offline ZC

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 27
Re: Opinion against the plus lens - for threshold prevention.
« Reply #8 on: July 04, 2014, 02:19:03 AM »
Hi Otis,

I now believe that that I was premature in declaring Ultimeyes a failure on June 9. At that time I had completed the requisite 8 weeks with at least four days of exercise per week. The problem was that I was changing multiple variables simultaneously because I was using multiple rehabilitative modalities. I started up Ultimeyes again a few days after I made that post. I have been using it daily without glasses at a distance of 2 feet.

We can, perhaps, discuss later its benefits and flaws.

The Ultimeyes site is here:
https://ultimeyesvision.com/

The article in Popular Mechanics that first gained Ultimeyes widespread public attention is here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/med-tech/this-app-trains-you-to-see-farther-16506910

The reddit page where both the creator of Ultimeyes and the author of the Popular Mechanics article respond to questions is here:
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/1y9m6w/a_neuroscientist_has_just_developed_an_app_that/

The abstract of the journal article with the experimental results from using Ultimeyes on college baseball players is here:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2814%2900005-0

I hope that helps.