About Me

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.

Part 1:

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.

Part 2

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.


5 responses to “About Me

  1. Honest Optometrist Statement:


    I always appreciate honesty.


    An Optometrist’s View

    Hi, my name is Despina. I am 47-year old mother of two and a qualified optometrist. I was born and raised in London, UK, to Greek-Cypriot parents. I studied Optometry at London’s City University and then worked in my family business, a small chain of opticians in London. I moved to Cyprus 13 years ago with my family, and worked part-time as an optometrist here. Three years ago I decided to take a break from the optics world and am working in the antiques business. However, Jake Steiner has managed to get me interested in optics once more, by tackling the problem of myopia from a whole new angle. A break-through in science, tried and tested by thousands. I have decided to try the program out for myself as I am one of world’s many million myopes, and I will share my experiences with you here on the blog.

    I must say it felt a bit wrong, clicking on the ‘anti-optometrist program’. I’m an optometrist, see. A non-practicing one, but still, an optometrist. Dad’s a retired optometrist and Mum’s a retired contact-lens specialist. So you can appreciate my dilemma. I remember the sadness in their eyes as they prescribed me stronger and stronger glasses and contact-lenses, year after year, from age 8. They hated having to do that, just as I have hated prescribing glasses for my own children and everyone else’s. This is why I’m glad Jake has stressed that optometrist’s are not the bad guys. We just do what we were trained to do. We know no better, and, thinking back, neither did our university professors, probably. None of them ran a business , so they had no ulterior motives. They were just teaching a profession. Perhaps they should have concentrated more on research, but that’s a different story.

    Of course at age 8, I was thrilled to be getting glasses. I got to pick any frame I wanted, and got loads of attention at school. And then contact- lenses at 12, again a star for being the first one to wear them in the class, thanks to my mum. But now, a few decades on, I am no longer thrilled. My glaucoma drops ( oh, the joys of being over 40!) cause dryness with contact-lenses, so I can’t bear them for longer than 10 hours. Having any type of corrective laser eye surgery never even crossed my mind, even before my glaucoma, probably due to a brief stint working in a laser clinic early on in my career. Eye-exercises always seemed as ridiculous to me as eating carrots and taking vitamins to improve eye-sight.

    A couple of months ago, though, I came across Jake Steiner and his ‘Back to 20/20’ program. Obviously I was sceptical. But the more I read, that is his website and the articles he based his research on, the more intrigued I became. Everything he says makes perfect sense to me as an optometrist. It just took someone with Jake’s intelligence and determination ( there’s nothing like a thick pair or lenses to get you going) to painstakingly create this program. So I signed up. Let’s face it, with a -5.50 prescription, I really have nothing to lose. I did the first session yesterday, and, although it’s still very early, I am very excited and positive about the whole thing. The program is fabulously organised and easy to follow, and you get to see Jake in the video! He inspires confidence and calmness, which motivates you to continue with the program. The forum is a great way to sort out any queries and hear other people’s experiences, and you can even email Jake if you get stuck.

    Today I dug out my Snellen Chart, and groped around the house without a correction on for 20 minutes, as the first session says. So far so good. I’m not expecting miracles overnight, but I can’t wait for the next session, and I will keep you posted.

    Written and posted by Despina

  2. My question to an optometrist (friend of long standing):

    Dear M. (Optometrist)

    I had concluded, at a young age, (18 years), that my habit as a child had not created a failure, but rather a negative state – for my totally normal eyes.

    I take this a a scientific understanding, and never a medical understanding.

    That is what led me to contact an OD in New York, who recommended I contact Jacob Raphaelson.

    That led to my epiphany with Dr. Raphaelson, when he stated that the “general public” would NEVER STAND FOR WEARING A PLUS AT
    SELF-MEASURED 20/40.

    That is when I agreed with Raphaelson, about the impossiblity of any prevention ever being led by or supported by an optometrist.

    M., both of us are retired. It is no longer a matter of money, or “professional position”. I know that only prevention (at 20/40 ) is even possible.

    Dr. Young’s study showed the plus being effective at 20/40. (When the person could STILL avoid the minus.)

    It would make a great deal of sense – for the person to not wear a bi-focal, and instead, begin long-term wearing of the plus.

    I will always agree that no one can prescribe this.

    But I always wonder – about an educated optometrist.

    He should be the “smart one” with his own children.

    He should be the leader – and insist that his own children being wearing the plus at 20/40 (self measured –1 diopters).

    I am not insulting you. But I truly wonder why an optometrist will not even help his own child in this way.

    Again – you do not have to answer.
    But – what do you think.

    Would you give your own children the advice to begin the wearing of a plus, when they were at 20/40 (at the latest).

    I would be very interested in your commentary in this subject.

  3. Hello, Thank you for all your effort on this site and Youtube. I am following you and Jake on vision improving content,
    All best, Robert Lesar

  4. Pingback: KINDNESS | Myopiafree

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s