Good New, Majority-opinion Leukoma,
Some parents "wake up" to the need to PROTECT
their child's distant vision -- by helping them
clear their Snellen with the plus at near.
The way they avoid entry into myopia in the FIRST PLACE
is to stop it before it begins. And professionals like
Steve Leung will indeed help with that process.
So, I guess if Ron wants to make certain that his
child avoids stair-case myopia from the minus -- he
must avoid you.
Otis
Dear Prevention-minded parents,
I have received this today from a parent.
I have changed the names of the people to
protect them.
Best,
Otis
==================================
From: Ron
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 5:23 AM
Subject: Mike's vision 20/70 to 20/30
Dear Otis,
I am Ron and my son is Mike. Mike is eight years old
now and can read most of the 20/30 line of i-see random Snellen
chart. He has been using plus for three months.
In 2004 when he was 6. My wife and I took him to see the
optometrist in a university. We were told that Mike's vision
was farsighted +0.75D both eyes and the eyes were healthy.
In 2005 he was 7. We went to the same optometrist. We were
told that Mike's farsightedness was gone. We worried he would
be myopic soon. But nothing we could do at the time. The
optometrist said that they suggest some children to use the hard
contact lens to slow down the myopia if myopia grows fast. But he
said Mike was not myopic yet and did not need at the time. My
wife and I also think the hard contact lens is too dangerous for a
young boy like Michael. We do not consider. What we could do was
just keep an eye on his vision.
At his regular body check early August this year. The doctor
told us Mike needed to see an optometrist. My wife and I took
him to see an optometrist on the same day. We were told that
Mike was R-1.25 D and L-1.00 D nearsighted. That guy said
Mike needed a pair of nearsightedness glasses. I told him
Mike's refractive state was 0 diopter last year. That guy said
..you know.. he has grown. he has grown taller. his eyes have
grown longer. and heredity. so myopia. I thought only the
heredity made sense (not any more now).
I think the NBA players are much taller. Are they all
myopic? We rejected to let Michael wear glasses the guy wanted to
sell. We went to two more different optometrists at different
places in the week (because I don't really trust some of them ).
One said Michael was R-1.25 D and L-1.50 D. Another said he was
-1.50 D both eyes. Sure enough he was nearsighted. We did not go
to the university because it takes months for an appointment. We
needed to know earlier.
My wife and I were very sad. We have been doing everything
we can to protect his vision since he was a baby, no close reading
at home (in school we don't know and can not control), 12 feet
away from the TV and only two or three hours a week, no TV game
and no computer etc. Unfortunately, he can not stay away from
myopia.
In that week. My wife and I searched on the net. We wanted
to find some methods to slow down Mike's myopia progress. We
found O.K lens then we found plus method on Steve's site and your
site. We read as much as possible in a week. Though we read a
lot. We could not let Mike try the plus. Because we didn't
know too much about this. We worried. So we decided to try the
plus lenses by myself first. After a few days using plus lenses.
I felt good and my vision improved little. It was no harmful at
all. Then we got a pair of +1.50 D lenses for Michael starting.
Mike started using plus in the end of August 2006.
Mike's vision improved a little bit in a month. I always
check his vision at home with the eye charts on the net. I have
read a lot about plus prevention on the net. Too bad Steve
doesn't update his website any more for some reason. Some people
accused him.
I have read a lot on your site, your forum, the Yabb vision
improvement forum, sci.med.vision and i-see etc. I realize the
+1.50 D lenses are not strong enough for Michael when he reaches
20/50 or better. So I gave him a pair of +2.50D lenses on 26
September 2006. He uses plus at home and his class room. He now
can read most of the 20/30. Sometimes 4 of 6 sometimes 5 of 6.
His vision was about 20/60 - 20/70 three months ago. He has
improved a lot through three months.
Last week Mike had a vision assessment in the department of
health. The optometrist put the -0.50D lenses on Mike's face.
Michael could read the smallest line each eye separately with
those lenses. The optometrist said Mike was -0.50 D nearsighted
both eyes. I asked him if the smallest line was 20/20. He told
me that was 20/15. He said Mike didn't need glasses.
Otis, is that kind of over-prescription you always say?
Anyway, we are so happy about that Michael is just -0.50D
nearsighted (may be) confirmed by a professional optometrist
though I know his vision level on the eye chart at home, though I
don't trust some of them too much.
Mike improves his vision by using plus. So do I. But my
vision is too bad can not be restored. One thing is certain.
Plus prevention works. Mike doesn't do any eye exercise like
zooming, sunning and palming etc. He doesn't even know it. I
have given him some blue berry extract with DHA since October
2006. I don't know if it helps. Who knows?
One more thing is certain. God has been helping us. Thank
God.
Otis, you are doing great. You are helping a lot of people.
Some people overcome myopia with your help. I have learnt much
about plus-prevention on your site. Mike can avoid the
stair-case myopia. His vision doesn't need to be sacrificed. I
can't tell you how excited I am that he doesn't need the
nearsightedness glasses in his life even he is just 20/30 now.
You are making things better.
I have seen some people bash you unreasonably. So I just
want to write this letter to say thank you and encourage you. It
is not easy for me to type an English letter like this. But I
have to.
I don't know if Mike will reach 20/20. I believe he
will. I will let you know on the day.
Thank you very much again Otis.
Best regards,
Ron
++++++++
Dear Vision-clearing friends,
Here is a further report on Ron's helping clear his child's
vision from 20/70 to 20/30.
It does take a parent with a logical mind and scientific
common sense to do it.
Otis
==================
Dear Otis,
Thank you for your message. I read those pages of Wildsoet
Lab and Good Vision. I understand the effect of the minus lens.
When I was teen. I needed stronger minus lenses every one or two
years. I don't want my child to do the same thing that I did. I
value his vision.
I test Mike's vision once a week. Yesterday I tested his
vision again. He could read 4 of 5 letters of IVAC 20/25 line.
It amazed me. Last week he could just read 5 of 6 letters of
I-SEE Snellen 20/30 line. He is getting better and better. I
think kid's vision can be restored much easier than adult.
As you know. There are so many people nearsighted in Hong
Kong. I am one of them. Michael is in a grade 3 class with 20
classmates. Unfortunately there are already five students wearing
minus glasses in his class. My wife has talked about plus
prevention to a parent whose child is -1.50 D nearsighted. But
she didn't really believe it. People prefer the minus lens the
optometrists suggest. You are right. The Lord helps the people
who help themselves.
I will get Mike proper medical checks certainly and we will
go to the Polytechnic university to see the optometrist again when
his vision gets better.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Best regards,
Ron
++++++++++++
otisbrown@pa.net wrote:
Dear Bill,
Bill> During my lifetime, I have gotten plenty of poor medical advice
from
professionals in medicine. This does not prove that Otis's advice is
good.
It is not a logical basis for proving that it is not.
Subject: The OPINION about the plus -- according to highly
qualified S.O. optometrists
Regarding: How to JUDGE an OD who advocates PREVENTION
at the threshold.
Or, if you begin wearing that wretched minus, your eye "adapt"
to it, any your distant vision is permanently lost -- like
so much spilt milk, or water over the dam.
Wake up!
Yes, you should get advice from a qualified PROFESSIONAL.
The question is -- WHICH professional.
You will hear the majority-opinion every day, that
nearsightedness CAN NOT BE PREVENTED, and you are wasting your
time if you even attempt to do so.
The majority opinion OD will give you the impression that ALL
ODs believe that myopia CAN NOT BE PREVENTED. This is simply
false.
While difficult (as we all acknowledge) it is indeed possible
to clear your Snellen from 20/70 to pass all DMV VA requirements
and continue and pass the 20/30 and 20/20 line. But it truly
takes personal resolve and persistence to do it. On that we can
all agree.
Here is a statement by an optometrist who "woke up" to the
NECESSITY of plus-prevention for his own children.
That is why most clearly defines the nature of and honest
second-opinion on the subject -- what a man will do for his own
children.
Here is the statement:
==================
From:
Steve I.H. LEUNG Optometrist
Hong Kong, SAR, China
May 2003
steveleung@chinamyopia.org
Subject: An optometrist's personal experience or MY AWAKENING
Dear Myopic Folk,
I am a practicing optometrist working in the field of optics
for more than 16 years. During these years I faced an excessive
high rate of children developing nearsightedness (myopia). It is
very hard to resist the obvious need to use a minus lens (concave
lens) for these children. I deeply appreciate that we all value
clear distant vision for life. Achieving this goal would be of
great value for all of us.
Everyday, a great many people are developing the vision
problems of nearsightedness, farsightedness, aged vision -- as
well as crossed and lazy eyes. These people come to my office and
require immediate vision correction. They all need glasses.
Among the visual problems, the case of myopia correction
bothers me greatly. It is a dilemma and tragedy of using a
"correcting" lenses, which in fact these glasses eventually become
a crutch for life.
In the early years of practice, I was not aware the long-term
bad effect that a minus lens has on the eye. This is because
neither the curriculum textbooks nor the professors pointed out
the ultimate side effect that a minus lens has on the eye --
during my many years of doing course work in optometry.
After graduation, I practiced the full scope of optometry,
from refraction to fundus eye examination, and vision correction
by optical means. But once these means are removed, the vision is
neither improved nor restored.
The minus lens is merely an aid to vision, i.e., compensation
by external means.
In the majority of cases, naked-eye vision gets worse with
the traditional minus lens correction.
The children will need stronger power glasses in the
following years. It is a matter of treating the symptom -- but
does not achieve an effective cure.
I have been mulling over in my mind -- to think about
alternative and better methods to manage myopic eyes, because I
also am nearsighted.
With my accumulating experience, I am well aware that
constant wearing of minus lens glasses are harmful especially the
full power ones. However, there is no choice but to use a minus
lens if the child cannot see well in his class.
At times, the best that I can do is to emphasize that the use
of (minus lens) glasses be restricted to chalk board, and always
must be removed after class. This is the first step in goal of
avoiding the glasses' side effect.
But being myopic is unfortunate and inconvenient. At times
it seems that none of us can escape the use of a minus lenses to
restore clear vision.
I have been driven into deep thinking about a way of, "how to
restore clear vision from myopic and how to maintain distant
vision for life."
As a father and an optometrist, I felt a strong commitment to
protect my own child's vision. It was because my child (age 4) in
her curiosity asked me, "Dad, why do you always wear glasses? Why
are the kids I play with in school wearing glasses?"
Her statement had a serious impact on me, and I woke up to
the fact that a child should not be fitted with minus lens glasses
-- if there are means to doing so.
Why? The earlier age you begin wearing the minus lens, the
faster vision deteriorates. The minus lens can make vision worse
all by itself! Many scientists, engineers and health workers have
formed this opinion -- that the minus lens is definitely harmful
to young kid's long-term vision.
Because I was sensitive to both the requirement to use the
minus lens, but also understood the secondary effect (vision
deteriorates )I began much broader research into the subject
matter. This included the judgment of engineers and scientists
(and some ophthalmologists )who "object" to the use of the minus
lens.
Fortunately, I met several enthusiastic engineers, physicists
and scientists via internet in 2001 by chance. They provided
excellent postings in their web sites where I got a deep insight
about the development and management of child's acquired myopia --
to include the potential of preventing it in the first place by
wise use of a (reading) plus lens. They are Donald Rehm, Otis
Brown, James Arthur, Dr. Stirling Colgate and Alex Eulenberg.
In fact, researchers such as Dr. Jacob Raphaelson and Dr.
Francis Young had conducted pioneering work to determine the
cause, effect, and remedy for myopia acquired in school. As early
as 1904, Dr. Jacob Raphaelson had used the plus (convex) lens to
effectively cure a child's myopia. Further, Dr. Francis Young
has revealed the true cause of acquired myopia with his large
number of insightful experiments and scientific publications in
the 1960s. All the above mentioned scientists advocate that
preventative measures be instituted to help children avoid getting
into myopia in the first place.
In view of their spirit and fortitude, I felt that I bore a
responsibility as an optometrist if I did nothing to assist in the
prevention of myopia.
I regret that I became part of the system (use minus lens)
that was put in place long time ago -- and that this system has
not changed in any significant detail since its inception.
My goal is to look to the future and begin preventive methods
which can be effective for the child who is on the threshold of
myopia. Today, I make it clear that my mission and task is to try
my best to discuss the alternate opinion on the therapeutic use of
the plus lens -- instead of the compensatory use of minus lens. I
do everything in my power to explain the long-term effect that the
minus lens has on the eye's refractive status, and I encourage
parents to review this issue for themselves.
I have supported several hundred children with the plus lens
since 2001. The long term effect of the lens is developing, and
results will become better as the use becomes more complete. Most
of the children retain their current refractive (focal) status and
few of them achieved significant vision improvement. Although it
is unusual, there have been several cases of complete vision
recovery! I also felt that making this commitment is a matter of
my personal integrity, and is necessarily part of my work and
career.
====================
An optometrist to will do this with his own children will
also help you -- if you will let him and accept his guidance and
support.
In other words, what man among us, would, if his
child asked for bread -- would give him a stone?
In the final analysis, an OD who has figured out plus-prevention
will have his own child wearing the plus to avoid entry
into it.
Otis
Salmon Egg wrote:
On 12/28/06 8:41 PM, in article
Xns98A7E6E7963F2liebermamyselfcom@216.77.188.18, "A Lieberma"
lieberma@myself.com> wrote:
Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and
not in any position to give medical advice.
During my lifetime, I have gotten plenty of poor medical advice from
professionals in medicine. This does not prove that Otis's advice is good.
It is not a logical basis for proving that it is not.
Bill
-- Fermez le Bush
