Why incompetent bifocal studies fail.


Subject: Why the bi-focal (plus) studies PRESUMABLY fail.


The bifocal (strong-minus on top -- VERY weak plus on bottom) has been
used for the last 50 years.

When the study is done CORRECTLY (i.e., the Oakley-Young)
study, the minus group goes DOWN at a rate of -1/2 diopter per
year. The plus group does not go down. The data was
collected over four years.

Further over 200 children were used in the study, which
is necessary for statistical accuracy.

When a group of majority-opinion ODs run the study, they
automatically over-prescribe the minus (as described by Judy for
"Best Visual Acuity") by up from -1 to -2 diopters,
and the plus is used WITH NO INSTRUCTIONS ON
HOW TO USE IT!!!

The result of this over-prescribed minus is that the eye goes
down because of that minus. The better idea would be to avoid the
minus an INSTRUCT the person in the correct use of the plus.

Thus the person's insight an motivation would HAVE
TO BE PART OF THE STUDY.

Here is some commentary about this issue for your interest.

==========

Dear Mike,

Here Judy describes how she prescribes, not for 20/40 or
20/20, but for "Best Visual Acuity".

We know the risks of an over-prescribed minus. (Massive body
of scientific facts and data.) Judy turns a deaf ear, and a blind
eye to this data -- claims it "does not exist".

The second-opinion ODs acknowledge it -- and attempt to
"restrict" the use of the minus as much as possible -- and use the
plus where the person will ACTUALLY USE IT SYSTEMATICALLY.

You will find statements by "majority-opinion" ODs that the
"plus" does not "work" for prevention. These are the so-called
bi-focal "studies".

Why do they fail???

Because of this over-prescription policy -- which these
majority opinion ODs will never acknowledge to the person himself.

The over-prescribed minus just defeats the entire
purpose and effect of a proper-strength plus -- when
it is correctly understood AND USED by the
person himself.

Why do they get away with it??? Because they run BLIND
studies, which means the person is NEVER informed about
plus-prevention.

It also suggests that...

1. ...you were wise to quit cold-turkey at -2.75 diopters and
20/200 (yeah, I know it was a struggle), and

2. Why your VA slowly cleared to the present 20/40 (which is
good, considering that you pulled your vision back before
it was too late.

3. Why it is good to put together your own trial-lens kit to get
an ACCURATE refractive STATE by your OWN measurement. This
explains ...

4. Why you measure -1 diopter, when your OD measured -2 diopters.

Keep building your knowledge of these issues -- and protect
your distant vision -- for life.

This discussion is between Judy and Andrew from i-see.

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

Re: Fine tuning your vision exercise routine

drjudywrote:

Judy>>The determination of refractive error is not based on which
lines are read.

Judy> Some of the lights and instruments are used to objectively
measure refraction (objective meaning the patient isn't
actively involved) by watching reflections from the retina.
The "which is better one or two" business is used to refine
the refractive with the subjective opinion of the patient.
Endpoint is when adding more minus does not improve and
adding more plus does blur the chart. The final best
corrected acuity is then measured.

[Thus if the child's retina is capable of 20/10 vision, then,
even if the child read 20/40 with NO LENS, this child will receive
a lens of from -1 to -2 diopters. Judy should always explain this
"policy" of hers -- but she never does. The child and parents are
oblivious to the consequences of this majority-opinion policy.
OSB]

Judy> Doctors do not refract to achieve a particular acuity, the
aim is to provide the clearest vision with the least minus
or most plus.

[A very accurate description of this over-prescription
policy. OSB]

Judy> Otis may suggest using under-powered glasses that make a
particular line "just readable" but that is not a technique
used by eye doctors.

[This is NOT my suggestion. I suggest what Mike did -- check
your visual acuity using your own Snellen. If you are passing the
LEGAL 20/40 line (3/4 inch letters at 20 feet), the you must ask
yourself -- why was I prescribed a -2 diopter lens -- when I do
not need it. This is exactly what I mean. No lens at all, not a
"weaker" lens -- PROVIDED you pass the legal standard. If
you do not, then you must get a minus for driving. OSB]

Just one man's opinion.

Otis

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Watching what you eat at WDW
    ... Judy wrote... ... > And I routinely ask for the "chicken salad, ... > the chicken, minus the cheese, with dressing on the side", and they ... Protein really isn't as big a concern as most people think. ...
    (rec.arts.disney.parks)
  • Re: A Beautiful Story
    ... Subject: Just the scientific facts. ... Bates deplored the over-prescribed minus. ... Science now confirms that the eye will change its ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: reading glasses
    ... Possibly the glasses are not minus or are a progressive or there is ... also significant astigmatism. ... Both you Judy and Mike assume that Philippa is mistaken. ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: Vets and the coward
    ... >>> born in 1948 if that tells ya anything. ... >>When in doubt, Judy, choose the lesser of the three minus 10. ... Prev by Date: ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)