Otis> The word, "iatrogenic" means "doctor caused". But I think that
is more that necessary. I would suggest as Dr. Orfield implies (and
the dynamic natural eye shows) that the minus is "doctor
exacerbated". But even Dr. Orfield (in her success) recognized that
PREVENTION would be difficult.
Enjoy Dr. Orfield's second-opinion, that on the threshold PREVENTION
(not cure) could be achieved.
+++++++
Dr. Orfield’s Success
Subject: Even ODs are successful with systematic prevention.
There is a tendency to insist that even prevention is impossible. It
is necessary to listen to ODs who, with dedication and effort, have
managed to get their refractive STATE to change from a negative value
of -3 diotpers (about 20/200) to normal under THEIR dedicated
control. A refractive STATE of zero is essentially 20/20.
Here are some comments by Dr. Orfield on the subject:
=============
By Dr. Orfield
Note: The author underwent myopia reduction from a spectacle
prescription of -3.87 DS and -3.37 DS to -.50 DS and -.25 DS
over a period of seven years.
Whenever I am considering a minus lens increase for a progressing
myope I
think of Ray Bradbury’s story, “The Man in the Rorschach Shirt,” about
the
psychologist who got new glasses and suddenly saw only “pores.” Losing
his more
holistic insights, he said: “Have you ever thought, did you know, that
people
are for the most part pores..Pores. A million, ten billion .. pores.
Everywhere
and everyone. People crowding buses, theaters, telephone booths, all
pore and
little substance. Small pores on tiny women. Big pores on monster
men ..”31
The experience of giving up myopia has made me very conservative
in lens
prescribing, especially in new myopes. I see that our instruments and
darkened
rooms and the myope’s tendency to accommodative spasm lead us to
frequent
over-dosing with minus. This then unfortunately determines forever
after that
person’s brain program for seeing space.
Arnold Sherman describes myopic progression as the process of the
patient’s
visual system transforming itself so that it is suited fornear, if
flexibility
is not possible. Then:
When an adaptation is decompensated (by stronger minus lenses), a
readaptation will occur in order to achieve steady state performance
at near
tasks, resulting in a further increase of myopia.32
He calls the continual prescribing of more minus without any
intervention
the “iatrogenic” cause of myopia.
I would add
On Sep 18, 8:40*pm, Dr Judy <mpac...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On Sep 10, 11:46*pm, Otis <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why doctor Bates sought to AVOID the use of a minus lens.
>
> > He judged correctly, that a strong minus, would have a SECONDARY
> > EFFECT, and he was correct as demonstrated by science. *(i.e.,
> > objective testing of the NATURA EYE for its dynamic response
> > characterictic.
>
> >http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoe...uce_myopia.swf
>
> The Wildsoet link you reference does not support the contention that
> using a minus lens to correct existing myopia would create more
> myopia. *If you accept Wildsoet's diagram of emmetropization then you
> must also accept that using a minus lens to correct existing myopia
> will have no effect on the eye.
>
> Judy
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
