Hello all! I apologize that I’ve been away for a week~ I will be incredibly busy for the next month, so I won’t be able to post as often — maybe not at all, we’ll see. I will make an effort to respond to comments every week, even if I don’t have time to post. Once things slow down in January though I will definitely be back to my regular posting to continue documenting my vision improvement.
Sassisailor’s Weblog
A description of my journey to improve my eyesight naturally
a
Acronyms
Blog Stats
- 27,898 hits
Archives
- April 2009
- February 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
Sassy –
You have demonstrated how strong commitment can accomplish results that most believe are impossible. Otis
Sassy,
I know you are on “hold” — working towards your Ph.D. in EE. That must come first. What I fight for is your right to an informed choice for these preventive methods. I will post some remarks about the N. I. H., and they discard and ignore our requests to be heard — about Bate/Prentice methods. Otis
Sassy,
Most people don’t think there is a “problem” with myopia — and it affects very few people. The person who starts getting into it believes that the OD is expert.
Here is a letter to the public about the problem of myopia.
As we both know, the Bates/Prentice methods are effective, and could be very effective if used before that first wretched minus lens. But no one seems willing to even volunteer this information. Why not?
==============
By Liu Shao-hua
Staff reporter
Taipei Times
Subject: Myopia Increases Among Children
One of every five children in the first grade in Taiwan’s
elementary schools is myopic (nearsighted). The proportion of
myopics in this group has increased from 12.1 percent in 1995 to 20.4 percent this year, according to the results of a survey
released by the Department of Health yesterday.
The results also show that 60.7 percent of sixth graders in
elementary schools, 80.7 percent of third graders in junior high schools, and 84.2 percent of third graders in senior high schools suffer from myopia. In addition, the number of seriously myopic
children is also on the rise. The proportion of seriously myopic
children among sixth graders in elementary schools has increased
from 2 percent five years ago to 2.4 percent this year.
Serious myopia is defined as exceeding 600 degrees (6
diopters). Anything over 25 degrees (0.25 diopters) is myopia.
Normal eyesight is zero degrees.
“We appeal for reductions to children’s work load in schools
and the amelioration of visual environments in daily life,” said
Chen Tzay-jinn, director-general of the health promotion bureau,
under the health department.
The survey was conducted by the department, in cooperation
with National Taiwan University and its hospital, and involved a
sample of 12,000 students from four million students between the
ages of 7 and 18 nationwide. Myopia has been on the increase in
Taiwan ever since the first myopia survey in 1983. The department
manages the survey every four or five years.
The growth of nearsightedness among young children is thought
to result from learning to read very young and using computers
very young, Chen pointed out.
Last year, the department and the Ministry of Education
delivered official documents to kindergartens nationwide demanding
that children not be taught to read or use computers too early.
“But many teachers and parents protested against this appeal,”
said the department officials. “They questioned exactly what they
were permitted to teach if reading was not allowed.”
“We do hope that parents and teachers can heighten their
awareness of myopia and understand that early learning does not
guarantee students’ performance in the future, but it does bear a
strong correlation to defects in vision,” Chen said. The
department also appealed for children under the age of 10 not to
be taught how to use computers.
Senior high school students suffer the highest rates of
nearsightedness, at over 84 percent. “It reached a plateau five
years ago and has not changed this year. But their myopia has
become more serious,” Chen said. According to the survey, 20
percent of third graders in senior high schools are seriously
nearsighted.
Many people thought operations could cure myopia. “But the
superficial improvement of vision does not better the health of
the eye. More importantly, it might reduce people’s awareness of
other problems associated with nearsightedness, apart from visual
ones,” said Lin Lung-kuang, ophthalmology professor at National
Taiwan University. “Myopia cannot be cured. We have to prevent
children from becoming nearsighted. Don’t let them use their
vision too early,” Lin urged.
Because of the public’s lack of awareness of myopia, the
department estimated its prevalence would continue to grow.
“Singapore resembles Taiwan in many respects and the extent of its
myopia problem might serve as a warning for us,” Chen said.
============
I hope you allow this post. Maybe it will help others (and their children) understand the imperative necessity of organizing a new Bates 1913 study. But no one seems to have the courage to do so.
Otis
-Otis- I am amazed by the responses of the health general and other “authorities” even with empirical, objective proof of the increase of myopia in Taiwan and other places. Instead of pushing for the necessary further research on the causes/prevention/treatment of myopia, these people just suggest that the children read and use computers less. These things obviously aren’t the cause of myopia since there are people with normal, or better than normal, eyesight who use computers and read.
Dear Mark,
What you say is partially true.
If you submit a population of “bugs” to adverse conditions,
the a FEW SURVIVE. It it then possible to point out after 88 percent of the bugs died, the see, those conditions were not that “adverse”.
But you do have a good argument. This has been used by the ODs to insist, that, “…see, there is no problem here”.
In general I don’t enter into these types of arguments — because they lead no where. What I attempt to do is present the objective scientific facts to the person, and rely on him to come to his own (Bates/Prentice) conclusions about implementing prevention at the threshold.
===========
-Otis- I am amazed by the responses of the health general and other “authorities” even with empirical, objective proof of the increase of myopia in Taiwan and other places. Instead of pushing for the necessary further research on the causes/prevention/treatment of myopia, these people just suggest that the children read and use computers less. These things obviously aren’t the cause of myopia since there are people with normal, or better than normal, eyesight who use computers and read.
============
There is an element of “…someone should do SOMETHING..”. And then your realize that no one is doing anything for prevention.
This is a very hard lesson to learn.
This is the lesson that Sassy is teaching us. Only by her own engineering and resolve had she been able to accomplish what is so necessary.
Personal commitment to a specific objective.
I am not arguing with you — just observing some of the nature of the problem of prevention — by any method.
Best,
Otis
Dear Sassy,
It is important to know that medical people support
prevention. When you get back, could you approve
this link?
http://www.kaisuviikari.com/
Thanks,
Otis
Sassy,
Subject: Successful scientific preventive work — will “end” optometry as we know it.
I only wish we all had support for prevention (I would PAY FOR IT) before that first minus lens.
Here is the commentary by Judy on prevention.
===============
Dear Judy,
Thanks for your (presumed) support for
Honest-to-God preventive (and recovery) efforts
(from 20/60, and -1.0 to -1.5 diopters to
normal in about one year).
It is rather obvious, that a SUCCESSFUL effort
would probably spell the end of “conventional
optometry” as we know it.
It would mean that the person had the wisdom
of Stirling Colgate — to learn the science
behind it — to make it effective and successful for
himself and others.
Judy’s commentary on Bates/Prentice successful
methods:
=============
Otis> > Dear Judy,
Otis> That is a big help — to know about the majority-opinion
that totally OBJECTS to honest-to-God efforts
to prevent at the threshold.
Judy> I don’t remember objecting to efforts at prevention. People can do whatever they want, I have no way to stop them, nor would I want to.
Otis> > I have posted a organized scientific proposal
for prevention:
http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/Embry.html
Judy> I look forward to reading the results of your study when you publish them.
Judy
=================
Of course, Judy would do everything in her power to
mis-direct, and otherwise destroy an intelligent
effort at sustained prevenion.
Her entire “professional life” is at stake — you would
be naieve to believe anything else.
Why do you think that there was no effort to repeat
Dr. Bates 1913 successful preventive study?
Science best,
Otis
Sassy,
Just stopped by to see how you are doing.
Otis
Sassy,
Haven’t heard from you since Dec 15.
Everything OK?
Otis
Hi Otis,
I’m finally “back”. I’ve just been terribly busy and I had to let this go for a while in order to gain some time.
Thanks for continuing to post, I’m looking forward to getting back in the loop
Sassy