I know how reluctant you are to engage in a true dialog, Otis. That's\nwhy you-\-like a little squirrel-\-take these little acorns and run away\nto another site where only you get to decide what's posted and what's\nnot.\n\nAs always, to help balance things out, I'll publish to a public forum\nand let others decide on the merits of your monologue.\n\n==\n\nJudyFact.txt\n\n\nDear Friends,\n\n\nSubject: "Catching" a negative refractive STATE at -1/2 to -1\ndiopters. (20/40 to 20/60)\n\nRegards: After the "fact" type of arguments.\n\nJudy is a majority-opinion OD. Typically, she prescribes\n"Best Visual Acuity -\- correction", i.e., put a minus that will\ncreate 20/20, 20/18 and even 20/15.\n\nThis results in from -3/4 to -1.5 diopter "correction" on an\neye that is good enough for most purposes. (i.e., read the board\nin school, etc.) For a child under 16 years, this is reasonable.\n\n===I'm sorry, Uncle Otie, but ... how did you determine the strength\nof lens that Dr. Judy uses to achieve that Snellen result? Did she\ntell you, or are you just pulling these numbers out -\- er ... excuse\nme -\- making assumptions again?\n\nBut my argument is that the "Parent-child" must "wake up", by\nmonitoring the Snellen, and make a strong effort to clear with\nthis plus -\- AT THAT POINT.\n\n===Do you have any evidence that this would result in outcomes that\ndiffer from untreated groups?? I mean ... your niece, Joy, did this,\nand she's now a myope with a restricted driver's license. Doesn't\nseem very effective. Also, YOU stated that you had helped, perhaps,\nTEN people. Based solely on the numbers that I AM aware have\nendeavored your method, it would seem that the TREATMENT group, with\nthe plus, fares WORSE than the untreated group. Why, I wonder??\n\nIf the parents "manage" their child, and the child clears to\n20/40 or better (as you did), then no minus is ever used, and no\nstair-case myopia ever develops.\n\n===Ah, that brings up an interesting question. See question #4 in\n===[URL]http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt[/URL]\n\nBut Judy does not believe that is even POSSIBLE.\n\n===And you haven't given her any evidence that it is. In fact, Joy's\nmyopia seems to indicate it isn't.\n\nHere are Judy's arguments -\- with Alex as the "presenter".\n\nJudy> I think you are misunderstanding his (Dr. Wallman's - OSB)\ncomments about brain boosting high frequency amplification\nfollowing distance blur. Whether wearing myopic correction,\nno correction or plus lenses at near, accommodation will be\ninaccurate and lag the stimulus so that hyperopic blur will\nbe present in all situations.\n\nAlex> The only justification for full distance correction in the\n"alternative" theory would be to keep myopic children from\ngetting good at seeing through blur\n\nJudy> Actually, I think the best justification is to provide good\ndistance vision so that the children can function, myopia\nprogression or prevention is secondary.\n\n[Comment: Well I guess that is it. Judy does not care what\nhappens to the child's long-term vision.\n\n===But if YOU cared, then why did you turn your niece into a myope?\nWhy do you hate Joy so, Uncle Otie?\n\nThe real issue is\nthis -\-DO YOU CARE? While I agree that plus-prevention is\ndifficult, it is far better to use the plus at the threshold\n-\- keeping your distant vision clear for life\n\n===got any evidence that it works? Your myopic niece seems like\nevidence that it doesn't.\n\n-\- rather than\nbeing RUSHED into a strong minus\n\n===What's a "strong minus," Uncle Otie (other than the ones that YOU\nwear), and what's your evidence that it's being prescribed\ninappropriately?\n\nas Judy deems as essential\n-\- with no choice. I hate being patronized,\n\n===Get used to it. With the idiocy that you exhibit on a constant\nbasis, it's to be expected.\n\nand further\nhate a third party making a choice of this nature for me.\nThe consequences are too serious -\- and can not be reversed,\nexcept for the threshold.\n\n===And even then ... apparently nothing can be done ... or perhaps\nyou'd have provided some evidence that it could be done. Your myopic\nniece, Joy, would seem to be proof that it doesn't work ... or do you\nsimply not CARE about her?\n\n===Why do you hate your niece, Uncle Otie?\n\nMaybe you wish to through your\nchild's visual future on Judy's mercy, but it seems that her\n"convenience" will produce permanent loss of naked-eye\nvision for the child that is started in the minus at an\nearly age.\n\n===I know a lot of people who'd trade all your bloviating and baseless\nscare tactics for even a SHRED of valid evidence ... that you have\nnever come up with.\n\nAs always I take this issue as a second-opinion\nchoice. Take care you fully understand these two "paths".\nOSB]\n\nJudy> When a child can't see the board, can't see the spin of a\nbaseball, can't recognize faces across the room, can't\nfollow the puck in a hockey game, can't see the music when\nplaying in band, can't see the cellular details in the\noverhead slides in biology class, can't see the Mona Lisa\nsmile illusion in art class, can't see the stars at night,\ncan't identify birds on a field trip, what solution can you\noffer?\n\n===This is where you say, "None," Uncle Otie. You haven't offered any\nsolution that's shown to vary the outcomes from those of untreated\nemmetropes or myopes. Nada. Zip. Never.\n\nThe issue is this. We induce a negative refractive STATE in\nour eyes by:\n\n1. Our own "bad habits", and the simple fact of 12 to 16 years in\nschool.\n\n2. Our refractive STATE moves from "plus" to "minus" and we see\nsome blur.\n\n3. Judy "jumps" on this slight blur in a "panic", and\nover-prescribes -\- not understanding the natural eye as the\nsophisticated system -\- that it has always been.\n\n4. The child continues with his bad habits, and further\n"adaptation" develops at -1/2 diopter per year. Worse, the\nchild wears the -1.5 diopter ALL THE TIME -\- because no one\ntold him NOT TO DO SO.\n\n===Let's just get back to basics here: do you have ANY EVIDENCE\nWHATSOEVER that either a minus lens accelerates myopic progression or\nthat a plus lens slows or reverses it? If so, then why do you still\nhave a myopic niece??\n\n===Didn't you care about Joy, Uncle Otie?\n\n5. This preempts ANY POSSIBLE DISCUSSION of plus-prevention. It\nalso kills plus-prevention when it could have been\neffective.\n\n===You, of course, mean ... in your dreams.\n===Evidence, Dear Boy. It's more compelling than threats, scare\ntactics, obfuscation, evasion, and bloviating.\n===Evidence. Look it up. There WILL be a test.