GRAPHICS

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

Here are the supporting drawings and analysis.

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

stepupdown

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)

steprespdown

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 )

primwildstudy

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.

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

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)

eskstudhunt

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 )

3lensposit

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 )

3lensneg

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 )

bifig1

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.

5 responses to “GRAPHICS

  1. Peter,

    Otis> Thanks for your kind review. Here are the corrections for you suggested.

    1) Figures now numbered.

    [ 2 ] Fig. 4a Gaussian missing -5 Diopters for Hong Kong Myopes.

    2) This was to make the point that 87 percent of Hong Kong Students are Myopic. I did not have the Standard Deviation (Sigma), to draw the full range. The best comparison is the Eskimo students who were 87 percent myopic, after completing High School. I will look for the Standard Deviation for this data.

    [ 3 ] Fig. 5, 503 children not properly Referenced (we’ve never seen this before).

    3) This data comes from a study conducted by Dr. Raphaelson. The children were reading at 4 inches (-10 diopters
    and -13 diopters). This profound “strain” which the children do for HOURS. Yet the parents never try to
    pry the child’s nose away from the book. Reading at a healthy 13 inches (-3 diopters) would prevent a large
    part of nearsightedness.

    [ 4 ]

    4) I think most high school students will understand the meaning of the word, monkey, in this context. You don’t need the word primate in this explanation.

    [ 5 ] You have 3 or 4 nieces & nephews with (+) Lens “Prevention” data,

    5) We know that is a plus is not intelligently worn, for all close work, the person’s vision goes down at a rate of about -1/2 diopter per year. I made it clear that no OD was interested, or could even help them by “prescribing” the plus. It is in fact out-of-scope for optometry, to carry on with long-term plus wear. I just asked them to make certain that they always objectively pass the 20/25 to 20/20 line, and simply keep up wearing the plus. A person must take -1/2 diopter per year, in college seriously – as the spur to wear it. If he does not – then his distant vision is indeed lost. Three smart kids.

    Peter> (Our Optometrist friend) has 2 sons with (+) Lens Prevention data – that makes 6, which when assembled in a Table, would be perfectly acceptable here.

    Otis> What we know for certain, (thanks to Dr. Young), is that if a young person refuses to wear the plus, in high school, his natural eyes “go down” at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year, for EACH YEAR IN SCHOOL. Our Optometrist friend is using this knowledge to make certain that his children never go “below” 20/30, during the school years. It is a matter of an “educated person’s wisdom” to take preventive measure – before nearsightedness develops in the first place. Don’t you agree? My “blood relatives” understood, and so never “suffered” that -1/2 diopter per year, for each year in college. But of course, this is proof, against that -1/2 diopter per year. That is why it will take a “wise person” to take prevention seriously, while you can still pass the DMV test, and never wear a minus – however impressive it might be.

    Peter> They will complain this is not enough, but it is better than nothing !

    Otis> I must rely on the intelligence of the person himself to make the judgment – about whether he wishes to take prevention (at 20/40) seriously. I just present the scientific facts themselves.

    ** Peter Greene is a long-time friend. We have written a number of papers on the eye’s behavior with Dr. Francis Young. You will find his papers published under Dr Young on this site. Thanks for the complement, but these graphical figures of the refractive states of the natural eye were not intended for “formal publication”. They were intended for students, who had 20/40 vision (self-measured -1 diopter) entering a four year engineering college, and would wish to NOT become more myopic, but rather, get out of it – by wearing a plus lens for all close work.

  2. Corrections requested by Peter Greene.

    Figure 5: The reading habit of 500 school children, to grade 8.

    http://myopiafree.i-see.org/ReadDist.html

    This study was conducted by Dr. Raphaelson.

  3. Figure 1.

    First year college students are 87 percent myopic.

    http://myopiafree.i-see.org/stats2.txt

    This is indeed a massive problem – for anyone who is taking this issue seriously.

    I also included Dr. Young’s data about the Eskimo’s vision, to include the Standard Deviation of these measurement..

  4. Figure 2
    “Spectacle lenses alter eye growth and the refractive status
    of young monkeys” Li-Fang Hung, M.L.J. Crawford & Earl L.
    Smith, Nature Medicine, Volume 1, Number 8, August 1995

    http://myopiafree.i-see.org/FundEye.html

    Refractive STATES of young, normal primate eyes:
    N = 22 Eyes
    Mean = + 4.3 diopters
    Standard Deviation = 1.3 diopters.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s