GRAPHICS

Subject: Data on the natural dynamic eye, with simplified statistical information. 

Here are the supporting drawings and analysis.

Figure 1)  The natural eye response to “long-term” near by changing its refractive state – as shown above.  (Ref: Young)

Figure 2)  Of critical importance is to  prove that the natural eye is bi-directional, in its response to an applied “input” – that can be a minus lens, or an enforced confined environment. (Ref: E. L. Smith)

Figure 3)  Once  you accept that the natural eye is dynamic, you seek to establish a “time-constant” for this system.  This shows the time-constant to be 120 days. (Ref: E. L. Smith )

Figure 4)  For 20/20 to exist, the natural eye must have a positive refractive state – as shown in this above statistical profile.  When the natural eye is placed in an enforced (confined) environment, the natural eye changes its refractive state to a negative value, and thus  you have 20/40 to 20/70 (initially) for that natural eye.  (Ref: Young)

Graph of Reading Distance.

Figure 5)  We often want to believe that a child does not “read too close”, because we want to believe that the eye  is not dynamic.  In fact, the above statistics show how serious a child’s habits actually are – that slowly create negative status.  (Ref: Raphaelson )

The natural eye “follows” the accommodation signal

Figure 6)  But we are still required to prove that this “child’s habit” creates a change of refractive state – for all natural eyes. The above graph proves this relationship. (Ref: O. Brown)

Figure 7)  As proven, the natural eye is dynamic, having refractive states – not failures.  A positive refractive state, is the character of the normal eye, “in the open”, and will have 20/20 vision.  (See the above graph –  for Eskimos who did no prolonged close-work.)

For the same, natural eye, the eye changes its refractive state, from a positive, to negative value, as shown for Eskimos who went though 12 years of intensive close work. Please note – the natural eye did NOT become defective.  It simply did what you would expect all normal eyes to do – it changed is refractive state from a positive to negative value. (Ref: Young )

Figure 8)  The above, is the completely natural eye, when you apply a +3 diopter lens for full time wear.  Note that a control group was maintained – that did not change.  (Ref: E. L. Smith )

Figure 9)  Here is the same natural eye – testing for its dynamic response.  In this case, a -3 diopter lens was worn full time, and the eye shows a “time-constant” response, with a change of -2.5 diopters from the wearing of a -3 diopter lens.  Note, the this test was not to prove “cause of defect”, but rather, the dynamic behavior of all natural eyes – having measured refractive states, and never, assumed ‘errors”.  (Ref: E. L. Smith )

Figure 10)  While difficult to understand (perhaps) this graph shows the long-term effect a properly worn plus lens has on the refractive state of the natural eye.  (Ref:  Young )

In this case, when the plus is worn correctly, the eye does not take on a serious negative status.  The group wearing a minus lens (full time) experiences a change-of-state of -1/2 diopter per year – for EACH YEAR IN SCHOOL.

This shows, that if a plus is correctly used (with wisdom and motivation in the person himself), negative status for the natural eye – could be completely avoided.