SL_Post3 A REVIEW BY A PREVENTION-MINDED OPTOMETRIST "Thinking, thinking and thinking..." Dr. Albert Einstein The use of plus lenses is the only natural way to restore perfect distant vision if you are becoming myopic. Why don't you put them on before the start of any myopia. They are used for reading only! Most people deny the intelligent use of plus lens. They think that the lenses are redundant and not necessary when they still have sharp vision at both near and far. Positive lenses act against myopia with comfortable near vision. Have you ever try before? (Few people done) Negative lenses give clear vision but let you deeper nearsightedness. Are you willing to accept? (Most people did) People who are intelligent and smart understand that myopia can be avoided. People who are logical and determined believe that myopia can be cured. People who are ignorant and unaware fall into the abyss of myopia. People who deny the use of plus lens accept life-long myopia. Those of us who are myopic but educated should learn from Dr. Colgate's successful myopia prevention. Most children get into myopia after entering school then step into the trap by traditional negative lens with hopeless chance of recovery. Please think over the use of negative lens for children's long-term visual welfare. Steve Leung OD Lawson's Optometrists Limited Room 1008, Hollywood Plaza 610 Nathan Road Kowloon, Hong Kong Tel: 852-2385-9676 leungsh227@ctimail3.com **************** Dear Otis, I would like to acknowledge your work to the public that an optometrist standing on your side. I hope some eye-related discipline personnel, pilots and even laymen would like to join your devoted work on myopia prevention. I'm sure some of the people may be rewarded of vision restoration from our efforts. It's matter of time. Steve Leung ____________________ Letter to Mr. Chet Thor (Pilot) Dear Chet, I guess you are almost at the stage of a zero focal state. You could pass the standard eye chart at 20/20. As Otis pointed out, it is wise to develop some hyperopic reserve for your eyes. So please continue the use of strong plus lens for near use. Once you can pass the 20/20 line with the naked eye and can read 20/20 through a +0.50 or +1.00 diopter lens, you will have developed valuable a protective visual buffer. Congratulation! That means you have the hyperopic reserve required for excellent sharp vision -- day and night. It is the fundamental vision for all kids at age 4 to 6. That is why I encourage my child to put on +1.50 for reading and writing to preserve her moderate hyperopia to avoid becoming nearsighted. When you reach a moderate level of hyperopic-reserve, you could quit the strong plus but don't forget to put on a plus lens for prolonged near work. I wish you success in achieving your pilot license and don't forget, if you have a flight to the U.S. or Hong Kong, to visit Otis and me when you become a qualified airline pilot and flight officer. Sincerely, Steve Leung ______________ (Endorse.txt) OUR ENDORSEMENT FOR STEVE LEUNG Dear Friend, I spent many years looking for an optometrist who would tell me the complete story about nearsightedness prevention. That man was Dr. Jacob Raphaelson. I checked every fact, every concept that Jacob published. His intuitive insight has been completely confirmed by direct experimental data in every reasonable detail. Steve Leung has the courage to follow in his footsteps. I could only dream that I would have the good fortune to be supported by an optometrist like Dr. Raphaelson or Steve Leung. If you have a child who is at 20/50 (-3/4 diopters), and you do not want your child to become seriously nearsighted, as he goes through high school, college and graduate school, then please take your child to Steve Leung OD -- and learn from him. I cannot guarantee results, because they depend on your willingness to work with Steve Leung OD, on the long-term prevention of nearsightedness. Steve Leung is in Hong Kong, but he is one of the few optometrists who is willing to go all-out in his efforts to help his own child, and likewise your children -- if you allow him to do so. Please trust his wisdom and advice! I know I do. Sincerely, Otis Brown cc: Steve Leung OD _________________ Here is some additional commentary by Steve Leung to individuals who have cleared their distant vision with the plus. Dear Otis, Chet and Shawn, Subject: Concerning your personal experience of recovery Thank you very much for your updated emails, my friend Otis. I will take this opportunity to spell-out the necessity to use plus for true-prevention -- at different level if possible and applicable; 1. At time focal status is around +0.50 to +1.0D (kids as mine and few specialists' advocacy in my motherland) 2. Before onset of any negative focal status 0.00D (advocacy by Dr. Grosvenor) 3. Before any use of minus at vision 20/50 to 20/70, focal status -0.50 to -1.25D (the cases of Christer and Jonathan) 4. After using first, second or third pair minus glasses but focal status not worse than -3.0D, prevention from further deterioration, damage control (masses of general public) In fact, a number of my patients' parents are willing to attend the meeting to uphold the idea of plus for the good of own young children. They also felt the charges against me concerning prevention with a plus -- their right to a second-opinion -- are unfair. I would like to invite Chet and Shawn to write up something about their own experience about the use of plus concerning its effectiveness in recovery and prevention. They are true and successful stories! Your kind assistance is deeply appreciated. Sincerely, Steve __________________ A TRIBUTE TO THE BRAVE DR. JACOB RAPHAELSON [ A MAN BEFORE HIS TIME ] I get frustrated by the shabby treatment that Dr. Jacob Raphaelson received from MDs, ODs, and the public. If he had been allowed to run a systematic effort on highly motivated pilots, I am almost certain he would have been successful. No one has ever allowed us to conduct that type of study -- since they judge that the public will not accept intelligent use of the plus lens for prevention. (Read the proposed "Naval Study" for details.) When I found out that Jacob had cleared a child's vision from 20/40 (-1/2 D) to 20/20 (+1/2 D estimated), I get upset because there was no follow-up. I searched all over the place for any work of this nature -- but found none. I deeply regretted that I did not have the opportunity to receive the kind of support I needed to use the plus-lens method properly, and therefor successfully. Certainly it would have required a great deal of understanding, commitment and perseverance. But it would have been successful in the long-run. The implication of this successful result (achieved by Dr. Raphaelson) is that we should consider wearing a plus lens when we have 20/20, but a focal state of zero diopters. (I can hear many people shouting "wrong" and "fraud", or worse if an optometrist attempted to do this.) Dr. Raphaelson did this because he realized the effect the minus lens had on the focal status of all eyes. Obviously, he grasped the possibility that the eye would likewise change in a positive direction -- thus clearing distant vision. If we were wiser, perhaps we (the public) would understand the role that successful prevention that can play in our lives. I would be proud to accept the wearing of a plus one ALL THE TIME for six weeks if this is what it would take to clear my distant vision from 20/40 to 20/20. Further, if due to a great deal of close-work, my eyes again developed a slight negative focal state I would have no problem restarting the preventive work again. Certain instructions should be given to a child who is willing to use a lens in this manner. Initially, the approach may not seem logical. The plus lens will blur distant objects initially, but as the eye begins to adjust to the plus lens, the child's distant vision (through the plus lens) will gradually clear. When the child removes the plus one lens, his distant vision will be very sharp indeed. The eyes of children are adaptable and this fact was demonstrated by Dr. Raphaelson in his story about "The Printer's Son". In other words the plus lens would have given me 20/50 distant vision for a short period of time. If this fact were explained to me, and the goal of building up "hyperopic reserve" was understood, then I would judge that the method was worth the effort. It is nice when a person trusts your intelligence to do something of this nature. Provided I used good reading habits (read at 20 inches or greater), I believe that this would have given me a positive focal state of 1.0 diopters -- in due course. It is clear that if you went back to a reading environment, you eyes would "track" the environment again, by changing in a negative direction (normal behavior) but it would take a year or so to get back down to zero. If you stopped reading, and lived outdoors, you would retain clear distant vision without the use of the plus lens. Your vision would be COMPLETELY NORMAL by all normal measurements. Now you understand why I value Jacob Raphaelson's insights, and the availability of high-quality experimental data that directly shows that prevention (restoration of one diopter hyperopic reserve) is possible. The real problem is us (the parent) and our failure to understand the goals of the preventive method. Unless the parents are wise about this approach, the issue and use of the plus lens in this manner will be difficult. The necessary "public understanding" that is necessary to do this work properly will probably take another 50 years to develop, since so many people oppose this type of approach. This approach beats the alternative where 95 percent of the medical students on Taiwan are now nearsighted. Prevention is difficult, but it beats the alternative. Dear Christer, Since you have reached 20/20, you know that the plus lens approach can "work" for pilots. It is indeed a matter of hard, consistent work. If you have a personal goal, then it is possible to clear you distant vision as you have done. What I suggest is that you continue using the plus lens. The following is my impressions of the discussions we have been conducting on I-SEE. Best, Otis ******************* In discussion with friends about nearsightedness prevention I often hear the expression, "they (the optometrist) should be doing something to help us". At some point "they" becomes "we". Dear Steve, Subject: Reactions on 2see and I-see The parent's reaction to Jacob Raphaelson's use of a plus lens on a child was absolutely clear. They would not tolerate ANY use of a plus lens on a child -- if the child could read 20/20 on the chart. It takes considerable acceptance of the concept to continue the use of a plus lens AFTER 20/20 is achieved. When I recognized this essential truth of the matter, I realized that what should have been done with me was to put on a plus-one diopter lens when my focal status was between 0 to +1/2 diopters. My parents were told when I was 6 years old that I was going to be nearsighted. It took me some time to find this out. My focal state was zero at that exam, and the doctor knew that the focal state always goes negative in school children. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. If Jacob Raphaelson been able to explain the choice better (and parents accepted the method) then I would have been wearing a plus one lens. Obviously it is beyond the ability of the public to understand the necessity of wearing a plus lens when your focal state is zero, (but you still have 20/20). I have spent about 50 weeks discussing variations of that specific issue on both I-SEE and 2SEE. The results of these discussions is almost no comprehension of the basic issue of using a plus lens for prevention. Obviously if I could not "explain" any of this is 50 weeks, how could any optometrist explain any of these issues to a "concerned" parent in 50 minutes. I think this basic issue has not changed since the time of Jacob Raphaelson. Best, Otis __________________ From: Steve Leung OD Dear Myopic Folk, Subject: An optometrist's personal experience or MY AWAKENING 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 (compensating 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, when 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 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 (preventive) 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 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. Steve Leung Optometrist Hong Kong,SAR May 2003 ******** COMMENTARY BY OTIS BROWN Many of us have an "attitude" against supporting our children in the use of a plus lens for reading. It is time we learn to change our attitude. Here is my perception of Steve Leung and his courageous "first step" to help children prevent, or avoid nearsightedness. Let us learn together. PRIORITIES A hundred years from now it will not matter what my bank account was, the sort of house I lived in, or the kind of car I drove ... but the world may be different because I was important in the life of a child. LEADERSHIP FOR CHANGE A true leader has the confidence to stand alone, the courage to make tough decisions, and the compassion to listen to the needs of others. He does not set out to be a leader, but becomes one by the quality of his actions and the integrity of his intent. In the end leaders are much like eagles...they don't flock, you find them one at a time. ATTITUDE The greatest discovery of any generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitude.