Current status -- Clearing from -1.5 diopters (20/60)

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Mar 25, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention Minded Friends,

    Subject: Professor T. Grosvenor's suggestion that
    true-prevention be started BEFORE
    the minus lens was used.

    Re: Objection to the minus -- by ODs themselves.

    While it is very easy to impress a person with
    a minus lens -- the "second opinion" has been
    to be very careful about using it.

    That "concern" must be understood by a person
    on the threshold of myopia.

    Jon expressed a desire to clear his vision by
    use of the plus. He personally decided to
    avoid the minus -- and will willing to
    make a very strong personal commitment
    to using a plus -- almost all the time -- for

    The result is that he personally verified
    his "vision clearing" -- first to 20/40
    (to pass the DMV requirement) and then
    to 20/20.

    20/20 took longer. In any event here
    is is commentary for your interest.

    In the future, other young men who
    take prevention seriously will be
    able to accomplish the same result -- if
    they have the motivation for it.





    Dear Jon,

    Thanks for the "update".

    I also am very pleased with your obvious success -- given
    the incredible opposition I receive on the subject
    on Some have even suggested that
    your right to a second opinion should be destroyed.

    Because you have "cleared" to 20/20 -- under adverse
    circumstances, you are indeed an "expert" -- far more then most.

    When you "hung" at 20/25 -- I had my doubts. But now you
    have made it.

    More commentary:

    Jon > As of today my vision is better than its been yet, exactly
    four weeks ago i took about 2 steps forward, and for the
    next three weeks i never took that step back, then a week
    ago i took another step forward, and still no steps back.
    My vison is "stable" every day in the way that i dont
    regress. day by day i get a little better.

    Otis> That is a great success as far as I am concerned.

    Jon > Passing the 20/20 line is no problem now, I can see mostly
    everything now without any strain.

    Otis> It is incredible how many people can not seem to "work"
    prevention the way you have done it. That is their loss --
    I guess.

    Jon > I go on to the regional science fair next Tuesday, and i
    can't wait.

    Jon > I have found that there is nothing better for reversing
    nearsightedness than looking in the actual distance. I find
    looking close up for a second and then looking far away
    without the plus lens is good for my eyes, a few times a

    Jon > A few weeks ago I went to visit some of my cousins and
    relatives who live abotu 90 minutes away, and i decided i
    wouldn't wear my plus lenses for the week end just to see
    what happened, and so i did, i actually triped a few times
    because everything was smaller and seemed further away,

    Jon > so when i was looking for ice on the ground when i was
    walking i triped, because i wasnt used to it, it was kind of
    funny. anyway, my vision didnt change at all, i was so
    happy that i never regressed.

    Otis> I learned a lot from YOU -- and your reports.

    Jon > I still have "debates" with people about the plus lens and
    then others will agree with me, it can be really fun, these
    people who think they are so smart, but i know that i am the
    one who is right.

    Otis> You are "right" of course -- but no one is going to
    "believe" you. But you know -- and Stirling Colgate knows
    -- and that is all that matters.

    Jon > So very happy.


    (Name changed to protect him from people who
    insist that his right to clear his vision
    to 20/20 with the plus -- must be destroyted.


    To: "Stirling Colgate"

    Subject: Fw: vision update

    Dear Stirling,

    Otis> It is wonderful to find a young man -- full of hope, and
    developing knowledge.

    Otis> I don't know Jon's future -- but I suspect it will be
    similar to yours.

    Otis> Some people are "smart" in school -- and Jonathan

    Otis> But very few are "smart" for themselves -- and he has that
    kind of wisdom.

    Otis> But how rare for a person to have these qualities at a young
    otisbrown, Mar 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    I was a student of Ted Grosvenor's. You continually misquote him (I'm not

    Dr. Grosvenor was an objective scientist. He evaluated myopia research and
    at one point in time considered plus lens therapy to be promising. However,
    after the data was collected and evaluated, he did what any other
    objective-thinking person would have done-- he backed off of his original
    notions and stated that proof had still not yet been presented.

    Why can't you do that Otis. "One-track" Otis.
    RM, Mar 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Dear Prevention Minded Friends,

    Otis "Engineer" is a zealot who advocates his "plus lens" prevention theory
    without good reason. There is no scientific data to prove what he proposes.
    He would ask that all myopes (=nearsighted persons) go around wearing plus
    reading glasses in hopes that it will eventually reverse their
    nearsightedness. Nevermind that the blurry distance vision that myopes
    complain about is made worse by plus lenses! Nevermind that there is no
    proof for what he claims.

    If you are interested in Otis' approach, I have some other links that you
    might also be interested in:





    For information on killfilling (filtering out the posts of a troll or
    spammer like Otis) see the following link:
    For additional information on handling "trolls", refer to this link:
    RM, Mar 25, 2005
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear "RM",

    It would be nice if you would actually THINK.

    I do advocate that a person check to make certain
    that he passes the DMV requirement -- that apply
    to him, i.e., the he personally READ 1.8 cm letters
    at 6 meters.

    It is clear that people who PASS this standard will
    in a darkened room will "test" for "night" vision and
    will receive a -2 diopters (standard) or perhaps
    -3 diopters (If the OD "believes" in providing
    20/18, 20/15 and perhaps 20/10.

    Thus true prevention will be under control of the
    person himself (as per the "Jon" case stated above),

    If the individual has the fortitude to do it, then as
    "Jon" did it -- it is possible to clear to 20/20.

    At that point this issue is engineering-sience,
    since there is NO NEED nor requirement for
    an OD to over-prescri;bed the minus lens.

    There is high quality REPEATABLE SCIENCE that
    demonstrates that the NATURAL EYE moves in
    a negative direction when you place a minus lens
    on it.

    This data is so clear, and repeatable -- that
    it would be hard to miss -- except that
    RM has a "professional interest" in
    denying this self-same OBJECTIVE scientific data.

    If RM made the statement that the "public" would not
    "accept" his recommendation to use the plus "properly"
    then I would agree COMPLETELY with him. But not
    for reasons of science -- but rather because most
    of the public has scant motiavtion to do the work
    of vision clearing.

    Furhter, vision clearing is VERY EXPENSIVE in terms
    of personal effort. In terms of "cost" (as Jon has done it)
    the spherical plus lenses are sold for about $10 over-the-counter.

    An lastly, I advocate that the person involved have a
    MEDICAL exam before he starts this preventive process -- to
    ellimate any true medical problems -- and Jon did.

    Only AFTER that, should the person begin work on
    true prevention -- obviously under his own strong personal

    Jon will keep his distant vision through the next seven years
    in college, while his friends will "suffer" under the standard
    "down" rate of -1.1 to -1.6 diopters in four years as
    seen in colleges where complete recorrds are maintained.

    As always, enjoy this pleasant conversation about
    our academic study of the dynamic nature of the


    otisbrown, Mar 25, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    Here are Grosvenor's actual comments, published just after he did plus lens
    research which showed plus to not prevent or reduce myopia. I'll leave it
    to readers to decide if Ted was suggesting that "true-prevention be started
    BEFORE the minus lens was used"

    "Comment in:
    a.. Optom Vis Sci. 1990 Feb;67(2):150-2.

    Myopia: what can we do about it clinically?

    Grosvenor T.

    College of Optometry, University of Houston, Texas.

    Methods that have been used by vision practitioners for the control of
    myopia include visual training, biofeedback training, undercorrection,
    overcorrection, the use of bifocal lenses, the use of contact lenses, the
    instillation of atropine, and refractive surgery. With some exceptions the
    use of these methods has achieved only limited success. The lack of success
    with the less-invasive methods--which are based on the supposition that
    myopia is caused by accommodation--may be due to the fact that they are used
    for eyes that are already myopic and therefore have already undergone axial
    elongation and scleral stretching. If it were possible to predict which
    children were at risk for the development of myopia, vision practitioners
    would be able to institute procedures for the control of myopia when only a
    minimum of scleral stretching has occurred. Risk factors that warrant
    investigation include the axial length/corneal radius ratio and the resting
    state of accommodation."

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Mar 25, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.