| Dr. Leukoma 2004-08-29, 7:15 am |
| otisbrown@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in
news:6dbddb9.0408281917.3e4e92b9@posting.google.com:
> Dear Larry,
>
>
> Subject: And I thank you for your post describing the
> behavior of the natural eye as "garbage".
>
> I have posted it to a young man who is working his
> way out of nearsightedness even as we speak.
>
> He received a "prescription" for -1.5 diopters (about 20/120)
> and determined that HE did not want to get into
> the minus-lens stair-case problem.
Therefore he found your website and you suggested that he do what?
>
> I explained that 99 percent of the ODs just don't care,
> and only want to put a minus lens on you face, pat
> you on the head and send you on your way.
You continue to misrepresent. It is not that they don't care, but that
there is not a proven method for myopia prevention/reduction other than
atropine or pirenzepine.
>
> You have explained why you can never introduce
> the concept of prevention, and why, basically,
> the individual must have the "smarts" and
> high-level motivation to "do it himself".
>
> Yes, not all ODs have your "attitude", and
> many do support true-prevention. But
> it is indeed difficult.
>
> If the person is indifferent, and has no
> interest -- then prevention is indeed
> impossible -- but not for the reasons
> you state. It is just a lack
> of motivation and education at
> the critical point.
>
> But I always enjoy an intellectual discussion
> about the behavior of the natural eye
> as a scientific discussion. So let
> us keep it at that high level by
> agreeing that the natural eye
> is "dynamic" and can have positive
> or negative refractive states -- depending
> on its average visual enviroment.
You need to prove your hypothesis first.
DrG
|