Item #6 For MZ.
- View SourceHi MZ,
Subject: An intellectual solution, versus a PHYSICAL solution.
I don't "kid" people about prevention -- under YOUR control. It is truly and profoundly DIFFICULT.
It may sound easy -- but it is not.
It was only after I published scientific papers with Dr. Francis Young that I had a chance to truly review the facts and science of prevention. That review led me to the conclusion that it is impossible to prescribe it, and that prevention is ONLY POSSIBLE if the person will do it for himself. You will find this in my book, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness".
I don't hold any MD or OD responsible for this tragic situation, so I never use the word, "cure" or "therapy". You must accept this -- to have a rational argument about the behavior of the dynamic eye.
It was Raphaelson who forced me to realize this. No OD or MD, however dedicated, can help with prevention -- in my opinion.
From Raphaeson, I knew that my own "bad habits" had induced that initial negative status of about -3/4 diopter -- or 20/50. The reaction is always a minus lens. There is no attempt to talk to a child and parent about this issue -- so I 'accept that fact'.
Only after my vision was way down did I finally realized (in retrospect) what the truth of the tragic situation was. (Again in MY opinion.)
I had cataract surgery some years ago. That has the effect of changing my refractive power by a drastic amount -- to +3/4 diopters has you see in one of my videos. No, I agree, you can't get "out of it" beyond 20/40 and about -3/4 diopter, and I believe this because of the Bifocal studies of Francis Young.
But for those who wish to become pilots, and are in that range, it would be very wise to make that commitment to long-term wear of the plus -- if you are at 20/30 or so, and MUST pas the Snellen chart with 20/20 in both eyes. THAT is about the only person who would have the motivation to DO IT. Eveyone else will TALK ABOUT IT -- but in the end, WILL DO NOTHING AT ALL.
To futher reply:
Thank you for all the info otis, it seems like when it comes to optometry everyone is saying something different,
Otis> Totally true. They have been taught a mistake, and dealing with people who have NO INTEREST IN PREVENTION -- is hopeless -- because it is so difficult.
even the optometrists have internal doubt, and whilst a vast majority of evidence exists that minus prescriptions causes myopia, there is also evidence to suggest otherwise.
Otis> It is obvious that Raphaelson's deep insights of the natural eye's behavior got to me. It was he who called the minus, "poison glasses for children". That is when I thought, yes there are profound differences in opinion here. Can I find the answer in pure science and fact? But with out insulting anyone?
You stated in response #4 that that you did not have the chance to cure or in a better term "prevent" your myopia,
Otis> That is correct. Children do anything they want to -- and no one can "nag" them to do what is necessary. Eveyone seem to feel that you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT, WITH NO EFFECT ON THE EYE. That is both a public and well as an OD OPINION. In science and in fact, long-term near CREATES A NEGATIVE STATE FOR THE NATURAL EYE. But again, you can say this is MY opinion. How YOU might resolve this is up to you.
but I am confused, you told me in respone #3 that you can at times see 20/20 and even 20/18.
Otis> After cataract surgery -- and have knew enough to do these checks myself. I prepared these videos for my sisters children, to explain how they could check themselves -- if they wished. This saves the "arguement" with an OD, since they have NO INTEREST IN SELF-PROTECTION by teaching yourself basic optometry on yourself.
Now I see that as a success. So to further clarify, I want to know,
Otis> If you read my book, you will find people who got the idea, and wore the plus UNDER THEIR CONTROL. They get to 20/25 or better, and since that passes all reasonable standards -- they don't wear a minus. But they are very smart, and don't bother trying to talk to an OD or MD. Why should they?
when did you begin using plus lense therapy?
Otis> There you go again. Don't call is THERAPY! You are getting the natural eye to change in a positive direction by ENDING the near environment with a plus. As SOON as you think "therapy", you will think that I am "practicing medicine" -- and I categorically never do that. Further, I am an engineer interested in objective science, and any advice I provide relates only to self-prevention and self-protection. That is all.
and also are you currently myopic?
Otis> No, my refractive state is a very valuable +3/4 diopters, measured by the classic method of using a trial lens kit, and a Snellen eye chart. I made that video for a blood relative so that he could check himself, if he had the interest.
Gathering from your information, being able to see 20/20 or even 20/18 is not myopic.
Otis> That is why, when you report 20/25 and 20/20, I would not say you are "myopic". But it depends on WHO IS DOING THE JUDGING.
Otis> I don't know ANYTHING ABOUT YOU -- not that it matters. But for people who don't fly airplanes, you truly don't need 20/20. Further, I doubt that you would have the personal motivation to wear the plus at all. The only way that would be different would be if you were a pilot an HAD TO PASS THE 20/20 LINE. Even there, you would probably be in fear of wearing a plus -- and would not wear it.
I know these questions are personal, so feel free to answer as much as you want, but I am forced to ask you these questions out of necesity.
Otis> Again I was very curious about Raphaelson and his advocay in the use of the plus (at 20/40) and the public's TOTAL HOSTILE REACTION TO HIS ADVOCACY. Read about him in my book. That convince me that no OD could ever be involved with prevention -- EXCEPT FOR HIS OWN CHILDREN.
You are the only person I have found online that advocates plus lense ... more
Otis> With full acknowledgement of how truly difficult it is to do it. But I did this for my sister's children, since I wanted them to have a "fighting chance" to protect their distant vision for life.