PosChang.txt Subject: Proving that a "protective" positive state can be developed in the fundamental eye. From the study of the primate eye (in an open environment), it is established that the range of NORMAL refractive states is from zero to +2 diopters. This is consistent with C. Wildsoet's dynamic eye concept (blue-tinted eye). See: http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html Dr. Prentice established that when a plus lens is properly used, distant vision will be cleared provided the person's refractive state is less than -1.5 diopters, or a Snellen reading of 20/70. See below. ================================= By Chalmer Prentice, M.D. Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004 ----------+ | Chapter IX | +-------- The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more. In most cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and patience; but a few experiments after the following example will suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by repression at the near point. This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes an open question. EXAMPLE CASES Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye -1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no cchange for the space of two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work. After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4 D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision, while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was just perceptibly less. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases; ...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost impossible to induce them to undergo the trial. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ [Comment: Anyone considering "prevention" must understand this issue. There is no "easy way" of prevention. As Chalmers said -- the person must fully understand this issue. It is for this reason that I suggest full transfer of "control" to the person himself. If he lacks the motivation to look at the chart, and "clear" himself, then no "third party" (i.e., OD) can do it for the person. This is why I separate a true-medical problem from preventing a negative refractive status in the natural eye. I believe that the above statement simply clarifies that point. OSB] [Comment: We also have the "Neil Brooks" effect which must be understood. (Read sci.med.vision to understand this effect on ANY OD.) A few people will SUE ANY OD WHO EVEN MENTIONS PREVENTION-WITH-PLUS. For that reason, no majority-opinion OD will EVER help you with true-prevention -- and I don't blame them. I would not put myself at risk either -- nor do I expect any majority-opinion to put himself at professional risk either. But that is why you NEVER hear about the preventive effect of a plus -- if used correctly. Think about it. OSB]