Re: The Idiots and their Peers

X-no-archive:

PClar, you are one DENSE DUDE.

The true effect of Raphaelson's story of the "Printer's Son", was
to make me realize that the public's "attitude" towards
prevention was profoundly destructive.

Joy was about 1 year old, and I wondered about her
future.

Would some bone-head like you, trash the second-opinion,
and her vision with and over-prescribed minus lens, or
would she "wake up" to the your "attitude" in time
to use the plus correctly for PREVENTION and
keep her distant vision clear through 12 years in
school. (Even though it does take strong motivation
and insight to do it.)

And indeed Bates was quite correct about your
habit of over-prescribing that wretched minus.

He stated that a person with 20/70 vision, who
gets your over-prescribed minus and is told
to "...wear it 16 hours a day", will rapidly
experience a negative refractive CHANGE leading
to 20/200 vision.

Thus the issue of Bates was to STOP the natural
eyes "adaptation" to that minus lens -- in the
first place.

But, here for your reading enjoyment is Dr.
Raphaelson's excellent commentary on
developing the preventive second-opinion,
as Steve Leung is now doing it.

www.chinamyopia.org

It is my intention to help the parents with this
issue -- to be guided and supported by
second-opinion ODs like Steve.

===========================


THE EFFECT OF A NEGATIVE LENS ON THE
REFRACTIVE STATE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE.

Truth is so obscure in these times,
and falsehood so established,
That unless we love the truth
we cannot know it.

- Blaise Pascal


THE HISTORICAL OPINION OF THE USE OF A NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE LENS FOR
NEARSIGHTEDNESS


Over the past eighty years, eye doctors have become increasingly
suspicious of negative-lens use for nearsightedness. While the
immediate effect is instant clarity of vision, the long-term effect
has been recognized to be bad. For instance Dr. Samuel Drucker said:
(3)

The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of
progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave lenses
themselves. From many articles that have appeared in the past on the
subject of 'Optical Poison', a familiar term a decade (1930) ago, many
other optometrists appear to have the same idea.

An optometrist in Ontario (1938) says that, "...he would like to have
a law established and enforced that would make it a misdemeanor for
any refractionist (optometrist) to prescribe minus glasses for any
child unless under very extenuating circumstances." (3)

These are strong opinions by individuals who have had direct and
prolonged experience with the use of a negative lens and the effect
that this lens has on the normal eye.

Doctors, some time ago, have correctly deduced the nature of the
problem and suggested the correct solution. For example, Chalmers
Prentice, wrote the following in 1895: (3)

In the nomad, who is reared out of doors, and who follows such
pursuits that his vision is mostly used at twenty feet and greater
distances, the nerve-impulses to the ciliary (lens) muscle become
established so that the easiest vision is for the far point, and in
many years of such use, these impulses become more or less fixed;
while the child of a higher civilization spends his life within doors,
amuses himself with toys, picture books, kindergarten amusements and
learning to read.


We will assume that such a child generally holds his book or toy 10
inches (4 diopters) from his eyes, in which case the crystalline lens
requires a much greater convexity, or higher state of refraction to
bring about perfect vision; and this is brought about by an increase
in the ciliary nerve-impulse which changes the shape of the ciliary
lens. Through long continued use, this impulse becomes comparatively
fixed, and in some instances refuses to suspend itself sufficiently to
bring about distant vision again, and so myopia has set in. The
regular work of the student and those other pursuits which require the
use of the eye at the near point, tend to perpetuate this condition
and make it progressive.

....Again, the important question, 'How are the advantages of a high
civilization to be attained without the foregoing disadvantages?' If
the eyes are to be used at a distance of ten inches, aid them
artificially by a ten inch magnifying glass; then the nerve-impulses
to the ciliary muscle will be no more than if the patient were leading
an outdoor life and viewing objects at twenty feet or more.


It is clear that the collective common sense of the profession has
indicated the type of problem they face and the nature of the expected
solution. In the article "Trying to Get Myopia into Focus", (1987)

Dr. Theodore Grosvenor of the Houston College of Optometry, insists
that persistent close work causes myopia. He also states that; "Once
the eye has started to stretch, it may be too late to keep it from
stretching. The ultimate study would be to put reading glasses on
first-graders, before anyone has developed myopia." (4)

WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?


With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you
would think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or
ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and effective method of
solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly that in the following
example -- with the following result:

THE PRINTER'S SON


"It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting.
She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave
her my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit him
with a pair of spectacles.

"She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was a
printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for the
next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she should
bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles. I
told her that she could pay for them when her husband returned home.

"She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his
vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a
pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her
husband came back home.

"In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She
stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the glasses.
He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and near, and
had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes. In fact, she
said, the boy could see even better without the glasses than with
them.

"I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that
quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to
bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well
with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his
vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good
eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

"I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the
mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor
vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that
vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses
for a few weeks?

"My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for
exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on
children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to
investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself
nearsighted.

"On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in
doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly,
did not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses
without the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or
diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be
under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the
medical profession.

"To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the
following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any
form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter
and nothing more. Second, I charged a reasonable price for the
spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I
gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I just did it as a
matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity.

"Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship
of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept
it up, and will continue to do this work as long as I continue to have
the incentive and capability.

"Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair
of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to the
naked eye could be restored to children whose eyes have a negative
focal state? This was true in 1904, and it is also true now, in this
decade of 1950."


SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION


With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a profound
and adverse effect, you would think that it should be possible to
develop scientific verification for this characteristic of the normal
eye. You would be correct. The testing and verification is impeccable
-- if we restrict our attention to the FUNDAMENTAL eye's behavior.

++++++++++

On Jul 1, 7:20 pm, p.clar...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
"Noise is also a frequent cause of defective vision in the normal eye.
All persons see imperfectly when they hear an unexpected loud noise.
Familiar sounds do not lower the vision, but unfamiliar ones always do."

"Women who wear glasses for minor defects of vision often observe that
they are made more or less color-blind by them."

"the lens is not a factor in accommodation"

and in the fundamental primate eye, it naturally follows, without
doubt, that these statements are true if you are just determined
enough.

and now for a rousing repeat of our favorite story, "the printers son"
by Raphaelson......

you laugh! but someday I will be proven to be correct and placed in
the highest esteem alongside my friends Galileo and Stirling Colgate
whom I correspond with frequently.

Just one mans opinion

Best,

Grotis


.