SL:  I have read through the issue NEARSIGHTED CHILDREN CAN BE CURED

       (from PREVENTION  MAGAZINE, The December 1973) you made 20 years ago.
       Such issue has come into my mind several months ago about myopia prevention.

　

SL:  However, I figure out that the kind of issue could be sent to
     medical profession for evaluation eventually.

　

OB:  We did everything in our power to gently talk about helping
     pilots (who would have the most motivation) in this effort.
     We were turned down cold, first by the medical department,
     and secondly, we were turned down by the leadership of the
     U.S.  Naval Academy.  (They did not want a "medical experiment"

     conducted).  Under those circumstances, a solution
     is not possible.  (But the reasons were all political, and not
     because of a careful review of the explicit experimental
     data).

　

SL:  I realize they will not all be interested at prevention. 

　

OB:  Partially true.  They realize that the public will
     not listen to ANY approach that does not create instantly
     sharp vision.  It is a pity that the public does this.  The
     only issue is that they should understand the consequences of
     doing it -- rejecting a discussion of the "preventive"
     alternative.

SL:  What about the optical and lasik industries?  They are waiting for high myopia.
    

OB:  And I agree with you.  There is nothing you can do -- except
     for your daughter when she gets older.

　

SL:  Besides, there is no strict restriction in ordinary
     occupation for myopes. Some might feel glasess are symbol of intellectual. 

　

OB:  Absolutely correct.  Until you know the quality of a person's
     mind and his motivation, there is nothing you can do.  This
     is not your fault, and not my fault -- it is just the
     grinding tradition of the last 400 years.

　

SL:  I rather prefer change the public to the professional in the
     long-run. Perhaps, it could be wise to educate and to change
     the public as Mr. James Arthur did.

　

OB:  Again yes, but the lack of motivation remains.  Until the
     person is highly (internally) motivated, a true solution
     (life-time) will be almost impossible.

　

SL:  My daughter is at the age 3 and prepares to enter kindergarten
     in coming summer. As Joy mentioned, it is wise to have
     several pairs of reading glasses for different range of
     vision.

　

OB:  Your daughter is wise to have a father who is going to devote
     his life to helping her.

SL:  Progressive (lens) is totally unsuitable for kid below the
     age of 12.  I have prepared 3 pairs of glasses for her range
     at + 1.50 , + 3.00 and even +4.00 with prism based in.  You
     should notice kids read and write at 6 to 8 inches.

　

OB:  Yes, I have read at 6 inches (-6 diopters) as a kid.  When I
     asked my ophthalmologist if this was having an effect on my
     focal state he informed me that it did not -- so I continued
     to read at 6 inches.  Long afterward I found out that he had NO
     justification in the direct experimental data to support his
     statement.  I am a victim of this casual disrespect for the
     experimental data. I am now -7 diopters nearsighted and he
     long-since passed away.  It would be better if I had made the
     choice at the -1/2 diopter level -- that way I could hold
     myself directly responsible for making the "wrong" decision.

　

SL:  My objective is to prevent my child from falling into myopia.

　

OB:  Your should inform the parents of children at the -1/2
     diopter level of nearsightedness  as to how fundamental the choice is that they
     will be making, and the long-term consequences of that
     choice.  Once they chose the minus-lens approach, then there
     would be no further need to make any further overtures to
     them about the use of a plus lens for prevention.

　

SL:  In HK, the heavy burden of homework and confined living
     environment are the major causes of myopia.  I have seen a
     boy age 8 who spent more than 3 hours in nearwork daily developed
     myopia -3.00D at his first eye examination.

　

OB:  Steve, this statement describes both of us when we were
     young.

　

SL:  Most of the parents don't see the desperate need of vision
     preservation even at the threshold of -0.50 because there is
     no complaint from their child at class.

　

OB:  Yes, but when the child is older, he should complain bitterly
     about not being offered the proper use of a plus lens.  If he
     and his parents turn the method down, then they accept full
     responsibility for the consequences.

　

SL:  I hope someday in the future, my daughter's classmate and
     their parents will realize and admire on her perfect
     eyesight.

　

OB:  Perhaps.  Joy's roommate in college asked her what she was
     doing with the plus lens. (Her roommate was seriously
     nearsighted.) When Joy explained, the roommate said, "Gee, I
     wish I could have had the opportunity that you had."

　

SL:  Thanks to your magazine 30 years ago, I have forward it to
     those educated and motivated parents for the own good of
     their children.  I will forward some more of our emails to
     initiate their motivation.

　

OB:  I hope that it has some effect.  But as long as it is clear
     to them at the -1/2 diopter level, and they are willing to
     accept the consequences of using the minus lens, then the
     issues will work themselves out.  It is always hard to accept
     a new ideal, and supportive concept.

　

                 GENERAL STATEMENT

　

OB:  As you know, I have great respect for Dr. Jacob Raphaelson.

After talking with him, and reading his books, I realized that the

he had an "impossible" problem, caused by us (the public).

　

OB:  It is clear that my respect for Jacob is transferred to you -- and the

real problem is "us".  Until we are willing to use the plus lens properly

at the -1/2 diopter level, the problem (myopia explosion) will continue and can only get

worse.

　

Sincerely,

　

Otis