Disagreement with Mike -- by a Professor of Optometry

Dear Friends,

There are two diametrically opposed concepts on the
eye.

One considers the minus lens to be "perfect" and no
one should ask pointed questions about it, and
the proven effect it has on the primate eye.

The other opinion states that the minus lens is
"risky", and great care should be taken in its use.

Almost all serious "thinkers" agree that if
ANYTHING is to be done that is effective -- it
must START before the person begins wearing
the minus lens.

Please remember that 20/40 is the ACCEPTED
standard. A child at this level has NO REQUIREMENT
that he/she wear a minus lens.

Here a professor of opthometry supports the
concep of PREVENTION with the plus.

The majority opinion is to "not bother",
and just wear a full strength minus lens all the time.

Go figure.

Enjoy,

Otis

******


Re: "Any hypothesis for prevention of myopia that is based on the
evidence from animal studies is based on evidence that is
irrelevant to humans." Dr Judy


"Men live by their routines; and when these are called into
question, they lose all power of normal judgment. They will
listen to nothing save the echo of their own voices; all else
becomes dangerous thoughts."

Harold Laski



"Medicine" is a field of very strong opinions, and often
scant facts to backup the opinions.

To balance the over-blown and arrogant opinions of Mike, I
peresent the opinion of a professor of optometry -- that
nearsightedness must be prevented at the threshold BEFORE a minus
lens is used.

Here is some commentary and a short article on
nearsightedness research -- FYI.

All this analysis is based on the assumption that the eye
does not change its focal state as the visual environment is
changed -- an assumption that is demonstrably false, agaiin and
again with animals. It is almost impossible to believe that the
human eye does not behave the same way, i.e., musst adapt its
refractive status to the more-confined environment by changing
from a positive refractive status to a negative status.


Best,

Otis



Commentary by Otis Brown

Dr. Cordova, in and interview with PREVENTION magazine, said
that "the public" would never accept the use of a plus lens for
prevention. He said that the public would go from doctor to
doctor until they found one who would give them a strong minus
lens that sharpened distant vision instantly, and would not
tolerate a discussion of anything else other that that, i.e., use
of the plus for prevention.

Dr. Cordova is right. No optometrist can hope to change
this situation (i.e., institute prevention with a plus lens) until
the public is intellectually prepared to change their mind about
the use of a minus lens in the manner described by Dr. Cordova.
His issue needs to be discussed -- and must be discussed before
any preventive effort initiated. This is a very important issue
for both the optometrist and the public at this point.


............

Grosven2.txt
Feb. 26, 2003


From: "Trying to get myopia into focus"

David Holzman, INSIGHT, Feb 16, 1987

Summary: Numerous researchers are exploring the causes of myopia
in order to find ways to prevent its onset in children. At
the heart of the problem is uncertainty whether genetics or
environmental factors such as close work cause the disorder
or, as some studies have indicated, it is a combination of
both. If one geneticist is right, two-thirds of the myopia
developed by children eventually may be preventable.


****************


Despite the fact that results of studies of children who have
been given bifocals are highly equivocal, Theodore Grosvenor of
the University of Houston College of Optometry -- a proponent of
the role of bifocals in the prevention of myopia -- insists that
persistent close work causes myopia. (In what researchers
generally consider to be the most carefully performed study to
date, the two scientists * disagree on the results.)

Some of the studies have not borne out his hypothesis, he
says, because they were conducted too late. "Once the eye has
started to stretch, it may be too late to keep it from
stretching," he says, explaining that most of the children in the
study had already become myopic. "The ultimate study would be to
put reading glasses on first-graders before anyone has developed
myopia," he says. **


* One of the scientists was Dr. Francis Young -- although
not associated with this study. His bifocal
study showed that a combination of under-correction and a
strong plus stopped the eye's movement into myopia, i.e.,,
would help the natural eye maintain clear distant vision if
used when the eye was at the 20/50 to 20/70 level.

** Theodore's statement is excellent -- and I
completely agree with it.
However, he does not even suggest a method to implementing his
proposed approach. What is not stated is that he obviously
understands that the parents will absolutly reject this
approach with their children. This is tragic -- because that
is about the only approach that COULD work in the long-run.

** Some ODs are finally using the plus -- on their own
chidren -- even as they realize that the
general public will absolutly refuse to use
the plus correctly. The consequences for this
refusal eventually produce the use of the
minus lens (over-prescribed) and then
stair-case myopia -- in my opinion.

Best,

Otis

 

"Otis Brown" <> schreef in bericht

Us your own name Otis, it is not a professor of Optometry who is speaking,
it is just you using text out of context.

The same blabla as usual.

Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
destroyed.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

 

It is indeed laudable that Otis recognizes the published work of some
esteemed optometrists, who believe that close work plays a role in
myopiagenesis. It is also noteworthy that Otis then makes a complete "leap
of logic" in concluding that the use of a minus lens is "risky."

Also, if Otis had really read the work of Francis Young, he would have
known that the myopes in Francis Young's study were all esophoric, meaning
that they were probably pseudomyopes.

DrG


(Otis Brown) wrote in

 

Some of the studies have not borne out his hypothesis, he
says, because they were conducted too late.

Direct quote form Theodore Grosvenor:

"Once the eye has
started to stretch, it may be too late to keep it from
stretching," he says, explaining that most of the children in the
study had already become myopic. "The ultimate study would be to
put reading glasses on first-graders before anyone has developed
myopia," he says.


You do not like what he says -- fine.

But the man is a professor of optometry in Texas.

But as you hate honest "second opinions" about
the potential of PREVENTING the development
of a negative refractive state of the natural
eye by keeping the eye "in the distance" with
a correctly used plus lens.

Fortunately other ODs more logical and
"open" to new ideas and concepts have
figured this out, and discussed
by Steve Leug OD on

www.chinamyopa.org

Enjoy,

Otis


cc: For friends who support the concept of
an honest "second-opinion" and prevention
with a plus lens.


*****