**PILOT STUDY – A PROPOSAL FOR TRUE PREVENTION.**

**Subject: A Study Proposal for Pilots – who have the desire and need to clear their Snellen from 20/50 to 20/20. There would be a refractive change of one diopter, relative to the control group.**

Updated calculations and study results show:

PDF File:

vis_6_17_P_PDF

The file in Excel format:

vision change, age 6 to 17 years

This is a highly significant study. Effectively the children wearing a plus – did not become more nearsighted. This study suggests that more systematic plus-wearing, will result in complete and effective prevention.

You can down-load this proposal, and review the parameters of this study for further analysis and discussion. It is based on the a successful prevention study conducted by Dr. Francis Young. The result of his tests were highly-significant over the five years of their study.

The value of Standard Deviation (Sigma) is taken for this population of eyes. A formal study of threshold-myopia prevention, would have a value of 0.4 diopters as the calculated Sigma.

What is remarkable is that the “plus group” does not go down, while the group with no “preventive plus” goes down at a rate of -0.66 to -0.50 diopters per each year in school. This is consistent for ALL age groups and the probability is calculated as less-than 1,000,000 to 1. This science suggests that if a wise person began the wearing of the plus, when at 20/50 (about -1.0 diopters), and is consistent, could get back to 20/20, and a positive refractive state.

Here is the original data from the Oakley-Young study.

http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm

This statistical data shows the profound effect that a lens has on the refractive status of all eyes.

### Like this:

Like Loading...

By Francis Young

Summary:

The rates of progression of about -0.50 diopters per year among the control subjects at the younger age levels are commonly found among myopes at these age levels and suggest that the control subjects in this study do not differ from myopic children who are fitted with a virtually full correction which is worn constantly.

The annual rate of progression of -0.04 diopters per year found among the bifocal subjects is uncommonly found among myopes of these age levels and suggests that the bifocals are having a controlling and reducing effect upon the rate of progression.

The effectiveness of the bifocal in this study may well depend upon the very high position of the add fitted to the child. The bifocal can only have an effect, if it has an effect at all, if it is used. The bifocal fitted too low or too small a bifocal or a bifocal which is not used does not provide a proper test of the effectiveness of the bifocal. Under reasonably well controlled conditions the bifocal appears to be effective in controlling the progression of myopia.

Outline of a proposed study – at an aeronautical college.

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

From Dr. Young’s study – it is clear that, to be effective, the person must understand the goal of his study, and must always exceed the 20/40 line by self-measurement.

Dr. Young’s study of the natural eye, shows that, “just prevention” is indeed possible.

Here is an analysis of, “Small Sample” testing done in Excel:

I would expect any mature student to understand these statistics, and how to apply them to a study, aimed at a refractive change of +3/4 Diopters in one year, from a stating value of 20/40. This could never be a “blind study”, for obvious reasons. The person must understand the science supporting his own preventive work. Persons to be involved in a competent study – must understand these statistics.

I know of few ODs or MDs who actually look at the results of studies. While some people don’t understand statistics, it truly is necessary to understand them.

This review is of “small sample” statistics, developed by “Student”.

A correction about the words, “Plus-Therapy”. That is the wrong idea.

It is not “Plus lens therapy”. In fact, you stated that you also wear the plus for close work – as I do. It is a matter of educated choice – and you do not have to use it – if you do not wish to do so. The mistake – is that the plus can only be used, for people who can still read the 20/40 line. This is in fact what Nate’s child did – and continues to do. Better choice of words words to avoid conflict — “Plus-Avoidance”, or “Plus-Prevention”. The plus must never be considered as “Therapy”, Jake, I an deeply impressed and always support your sincere efforts – so I am never a critic of you and your advocacy. I wish that more people in medicine would take your efforts very seriously. The concept just a nuance, and a clarification for how the plus could be used.

SEM: Standard Deviation / SQRT ( Sample Size )