Subject: About my (your) scientific curiosity.
I am certain that few people care who I am, or why I am interested in science and the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye. You have every right to ignore what I post here.
My interest was to be presented with an intelligent choice (when I could still read the 20/40 line, and get myself back to 20/20). That is what these scientific reviews and discussions are all about.
My most notable feature is my personal curiosity – about all these issues. It is an effort to seek a better resolution to this difficult problem, by analysis, and kind regard for all optometrists. There are quite a few optometrists who have these opinions, but find the general-public very difficult to help or support if the subject is threshold prevention.
When I was growing-up I had these questions:
1)Did my reading habits create a negative status in my totally normal eyes – in the long run?
2) Did the minus lens (you provided) fail to solve any problem, other than to make my distant vision superficially sharper ?
3) Does the minus lens (however sincere your intention) only make my refractive status much more negative?
4) Does science prove that long-term wearing of a minus lens on the natural (emmetropic) eye, cause entry into myopia?
5) Do wise (second-opinion) doctors, recognizing the truth in the above questions, teach their own children to wear a “preventive plus” lens during the school years to avoid all of the above problems?
I know that each of us are going to ask, and answer these questions – in their own way and by their own scientific analysis.
I ask and plead with you to understand that I want NO FIGHT with any medical person on this site, or this subject. I think the word, “nearsightedness”, is tragic, because people then think, “nearsightedness-CURE”. There is no cure, that can be provided by a medical person.
The word I use to describe the eye, is “negative status”, where the eye is measured with a trial lens set, and a Snellen, with the person himself making these measurements.
This site is about a person who will take total control of this process.
I say, ABOUT ME, simply because you have every right to know my personal motivations to study the natural eye. I seek no personal aggrandizement or reward for any of this work – there would be no point to that type of thing.
My curiosity is about optometrists, kids, and all the difficulties an OD would have if he attempted to conduct a prevention study when the child is on the threshold of nearsightedness, or still able to read the 20/50 line.
This is indeed my personal, and life-time tribute to Dr. Raphaelson. He in fact did what we all do. He “induced” negative status in his natural eyes – as he was growing up. After he became an optometrist, he realized what he had done.
He then sought to teach his own children to wear the plus – through the school years. That works, but it worked because Raphaelson fully understood that true-prevention will require a intelligent parent who will insist that his child begin wearing a plus – before the child’s vision goes below 20/40.
This site develops the science behind Raphaelson’s deeply concerned help – for his own children. I wish there were more optometrist who would seek to respect your intelligence and motivation when you still have 20/40 and could get yourself out of it.
I would have DEEPLY appreciated the assistance of a person like Dr. Raphaelson – even if I had to do all the plus-wearing and Snellen checking myself.
If you have your own ideas concerning prevention (by your own means or method) please add them to this thread.