Mike T. -- you were right about the 99 percent

Dear MikeT,

Subject: 99 percent nearsight go further "down" at West Point.

MikeT> If you believe one percent survives four years without
negative refractive change, then you believe 99% DID
experience negative refractive change.

Otis> Actually, among those wearing a minus lens it was 100%.
Sorry for the error.

MikeT> Is that how you arrived at 99%?

Otis> By reading the scientific report.

Otis> Mike -- Actually 100 percent nearsighed got worse. Thus
your 99 percent was not accurate -- it was 100 percent. No
one "imporoved" to 20/20.

Otis> Here are the figures for those cadets who get worse
at West Point -- who were nearsighed on entry
and wore the minus lens all the time -- as recommended.


__________________________________________________

Gmelin: Myopia at West Point: Past and Present Military
Medicine, 141 (8) 542 - 3 Aug 76

2. The average increase in myopia was -1.37 diopters (the range
being -1.12 diopters through -1.62 diopters (over four
years).

Otis> Always glad to "correct" your 99 percent got worse to 100
percent at West Point.

Best,

Otis

_______________________


Otis> Are you just playing dumb? I stated that the POPULATION
AVERAGE moves "down" at a rate of -1/3 diopter per year.

MikeT> Yes, but you also "stated":

at 20/25) that he will be the one-percent who survives four
years with NO NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE CHANGE.

[I was wrong! No one survives! Sorry! OSB]

MikeT> If you believe one percent survives four years without
negative refractive change, then you believe 99% DID
experience negative refractive change.

MikeT> Since it doesn't happen, we must assume you simply spout
figures without understanding them.

[I don't "spout figures". Here are the publishe values
for those who "cleared" their vison from nearsighedness
at West Point. OSB]

Otis> Hell, even high school students can figure out the
implications of that statement.

MikeT> Is that how you arrived at 99%?

Otis> Actually this Weat Point study is how I arrived at the
percentage of myopis who went "down" at the college.
How did YOU calculuate the percentage?


Best,

Otis Engineer


___________________________________


Gmelin> The subject of progressive myopia among the cadets remaind
dorment at the USMA for ten year. Renewed interest in among
the cadets remained dorment and not further invdstigations
were made the subject of myopia was generated by the study
of MAJ McKinney mC, on the Cadet Class of 1956. In his
unpublished report, "A Study of Refractive Trends at West
Point", MAJ McKinney concluded:

1. Pseudo-myopia during periods of stress associated with
studying may result in blurred vision in cadets with little
"hyperopic reserve".

2. The average increase in myopia was -1.37 diopters (the range
being -1.12 diopters through -1.62 diopters (over four
years).

3. 39 percent of the graduationg caets of the 1956 had less
than 20/20 vision at graduation; and

4. Recommendation that the visoin standards rmain unchanged --
that hyeropia over +2 diopters and that myopia over -1.5
diopters be cause for entrance disqualification.


Best,

Otis

 

Come on, you know that this is not true, and that people who wears
seldom eyeglasses are less tense and more accustomed to theyr
environments.

Come on, don't teel lies so much!

 

These are the accommodative myopes that your plus lens therapy has the
possibility to help. It offers no help for all other myopes.

 

Dar Rishi,

Mike is attempting to avold telling a pilot entering a
four year college -- that his vision will go
DOWN by about -1.3 diopters in for years.

Why? Because telling the truth about this
behavior of the natural eye would transfer
"control" to the pilot -- in a manner that
might enable that person to use the
plus "correctly" and therefore successfully.

I think that Mike OWES a person on the
threshold that kind of DISCUSSION.
He judges that he does not owe
a person that kind of choice.

This is EXACTLY the same kind of
problem Dr. Bates had 80 years ago.

Clearly, a person should be informed
when true-prevention is possible.

Clearly, these ODs insist that the
concept of "prevention" must be
destroyed.

There is a true problem of "trust"
in these discussions.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

Dear Mike,

Please acknowledge that the NATURAL eye is dynamic.

That when you place a minus lens on NATURAL eyes
the refractive status changes in the direction of the
applied minus lens.

State that concepts in "medicine" change, and that
(before you apply that minus lens) they should
review information that suggets that true-prvention
is a reasonable possiblity.

Explain that it is an either-or choice, and they will
have to review the issues -- under their own control
and by their own wisdom.

Send them to sites maintained by Doctors of Optometry
who support prevention, i.e.,

www.chinamyopia.com

Give them time to "think it over". Now one at 20/40 should
be in a "panic" to start wearing a minus lens all the time.

And yes, explain the difficulties -- which we all acknowledge.

Also send them to my site:

www.myopiafree.com

For more FREE information on prevention.

And yes, state that many ODs are profoundly HOSTIL
to this concept of prevention. (i.e., "the concept of
prevention with the plus ... must be destroyed. JAN-OD)

Help us institute (on an engineering-scientific -- not medical)
a preventive effort at a four year aeronautical college where
the pilots will be given full MEASUREMENT control of
their own study.

But I think Jan's statement will "rule" and control
this situation.

Best,

Otis
Engineer