From: Otis Brown
To:Lawson's_optom.ltd
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:13 AM
Subject: Peter Lee's edited statement.
Dear Steve,
I enjoyed reading and editing Peter's statement. What is tragic is that you could have kept the minus off the 3.5 year old, and given "reading" instructions to the child. (Keep that nose off that book！) At that stage the child had about 20/40 vision. There is no earthy reason why a child at 20/40 vision should be wearing a minus lens at 3.5 years -- and ALL THE TIME. That is why we need "second-opinion" ODs like you!
Now that the "damage" is done, you are stuck with attempting to "slow down" the rate that she is becoming myopic. Had you been the "first" OD to talk to Peter, and he accepted your support I judge that his daughter would still pass the 20/40 line or better.
It is tragic that main-stream ODs are so powerful in "shutting down" anyone who objects to the standard prescription of a minus lens.
If they had just "allowed" you to start the 3.5 year-old child with a plus at the "threshold". I guess that will not be "permitted" for 100 years into the future.
I have done the edits. Where Peter says "him" I said "Steve Leung". I also used the term "second-opinion" which accurately describes the work that you are doing.
Otis
________________
----- Original Message -----
From: PETER LEE
To: Lawson's Optometrists Ltd.
[Edited to "American English" by OSB]
Dear Steve,
Subject: The absurdity of minus glasses for young myope = abuse of antibiotics in common cold
Thanks for your recent e-mail. I have been busy these few weeks. I just managed to send my pervious article to Han. I did not fully adopt your "enhancement" so that they don't look too professional. I understand that some parents have already acted and visited you -- I hope we don't need 100 years to change.
Well, my wife asks me the same question from time to time --that I should spend more time with our own children. Correct, but I also believe that sharing can make this world better and ultimately a better place for our kids and many more generation to enjoy.
Cheers
Peter Lee
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
sender: PETER LEE
Subject: The absurdity of minus glasses for young myope = abuse of antibiotics in common cold
receiver: hanbossino@chinamyopia.org
Dear Mr Han
I enclose an article I have written for my friends and the many parents of my children's classmates. You may wish to post iton your site. Once again, thanks to both Steve Leung and you, who have devoted so much effort in helping the helpless glasses wearers.
Regards
Peter Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Lee
I am a layman, and the following description might not be absolutely correct. I am neither a salesman nor do I have any interest. I am a consumer of minus-lens glasses as well as a victim of them. I share the frustration with every parent who is helpless to protect their kids' distant vision.
If you are interested, please make sure you understand the issues thoroughly before you choose. Any medical problem of eye disease and disorder has to be checked！！
I talked to some friends about this issue and thought that I would write them up a year ago. The response I got was this -- any proven evidence for its validity？If you are not willing to accept new ideas, please don't waste your time reading about these issues.
**********************************************************
The heart of my wife and mine have been hurt twice about my eight years old daughter's vision.
The first "hurt" happened when she was 3.5 years old and was diagnosed with nearsightedness of -0.50D and -1.00D.
The conclusion from this ophthalmologist and optometrist atthat time was to put on full (minus) corrective glasses and require her to wear the lens constantly. (We listened and obeyed because that was their professional opinion and recommendation.)
In ignorance, we took her to the HKP polyclinic every 3 to 4 months for regular check-ups. (No offense is intended, since she received the standard, traditional treatment.)
Her nearsightedness increased continuously at every visit. She experienced different kinds of uncomfortable tests at her young age -- pupil dilation by drops, and eye pressure tests by puffs of air.
I agree that the clinician did a very professional job, with patience and complete review. Certainly, I thank him to certify the fact that my daughter has no serious medical disease -- but only myopia, or the so-called incurable problem.
The same as the great majority of myopes, her vision deteriorated at -1.00D to - 1.25D each year. The "traditional" ophthalmologist and optometrist judged that her "stair-case"myopia was hereditary and perhaps caused by watching TV, or excessive use of the computer.
I was very upset by their judgement because she didn't watch TV excessively and she used computer very seldom. Perhaps the issue was because she loves reading very much, and we neglected her reading distance, posture, and habit.
True-light kindergarten is a school with no pressure to study. Friends who know us understand we pay moderate attention to academic achievement. We only accepted her destiny of wearing minus glasses because of "hereditary" -- very reluctantly.
The second time our heart sunk occurred last year after my daughter had been wearing glasses for four years --and received a further increase to -4.50 and -5.50 diopters.
Why didn't I meet him {Steve Leung} earlier? (This optometrist maintains the second-opinion belief, that differs from the main-stream opinion.) Although I understood the alternative theory, it was too late for her to recover her naked eye vision. My only wish is to retard the rate of deterioration.
_____________
I don't know how to explain optics in depth, but you can visit the web-sites for more details. The followings is my understanding:
1. The cause of nearsightedness: Too much and too close near-work, such as reading and writing. It is very easy for a young developing eye to adapt such near visual environment, thereby becoming nearsighted. The developing eye is at a stage of "plasticity" and thus it adapts to the near-work faster.
2. The function of minus glasses: The lens brings the focus of distant object to much closer.
3. The harm of minus glasses: With such glasses worn constantly, they bring near-work objects -- even closer. This then accelerates the phenomena of #1, generating a viscous cycle. The eye continues to adapt to the still closer environment.
The second-opinion optometrist I met was trained and qualified by the traditional optometric school. He is a private practitioner with a registered license. He is willing to offer you this second opinion and theory that is different than the main-stream theory.
His second-opinion advice contradicts the traditional method as an "opposite." (Note: He is not the inventor of such theory --there were advocates on mainland China in the last century！)
But he was attacked by the optical personnel and other majority opinion parties. (He had a complaint filed by optical personnel to the HK Optometrists Board. He received a warning letter from the optometry board about discussing and offering the preventive second-opinion to the general public.)
Let's think about these issues in depth. What difficulties and problems will the optical trade or business face if myopia can be "cured" or effectively prevented by second-opinion methods offered and used by him {Steve Leung}?
My daughter is undergoing a treatment called "fogging therapy". It is designed pin point to the cause ofnearsightedness.
1. A regular minus lens with the diopter power reduced by 1.00 to 1.25 D of the full prescription for general usage. (There should be no rushing a child into minus-lens glasses for an early myope.) There should be no problem at class if she is allowed at a reasonable distance from the board i.e., not in the back of the room. She can cope with her everyday vision with slight blur.
2. A special made "magnifying" glasses for near-work such as reading and writing. (The glasses are normally used by elderly / or farsighted. i.e., the convex lens.)
Their common goal is the same -- to release eye strain when doing near work. (For maximum effectiveness of fogging therapy, those near-work objects have to be pushed back.) In fact, her vision has remained stable for the past year. No increase of myopia！！
You still don't believe? Let's think over the issues below.
(a) It is the common experience of every young myope getting her glasses thicker and thicker inevitably during her course of development. Such vision deterioration gradually slows down or stops after maturity by around 18 to 20.
Is there any therapeutic measures for myopia in young developing eyes? The so called "cure" by invasive surgeries such as lasik, orthokeratology [night-wearing contact lens] are not considered. They have traumatic side-effect on cornea and the long-term outcome is questionable.
Why not consider a safe and harmless method to prevent nearsightedness?
(b) You may have heard about "lazy" eye. The traditional treatment is to occlude the better eye -- allowing the weaker eye to improve when there is great difference between the two eyes. If the method works, why not allow two weak eyes to improve together?
Now she is starting a newer method -- the "Anti-myopia glasses" from Xian, China. The slogan is (looking at near equals to viewing at distance, the therapy that is used in studying). I don't know the effectiveness yet. You can visit www.audar.net/ if you are interested.
Recently, I saw kids of my friends and my daughter's classmates starting to wear minus glasses. I really don't want them perpetuate the same situation so we would like to share our experience. The chance to over-turning the situation is high in early, or threshold myopia.
Note: It is very difficult for a young kid to follow instruction and accept discipline in changing glasses！ (As described in #1 and #2 with pushing print.)
And it is quite uncomfortable to use farsighted (plus) glasses for near-work initially. My daughter cannot manage changing glasses at school. All I can do is to force her to use the "magnifying" glasses for school-work when strictly at home.
Please contact me if you really 100 percent believe (at least admit minus lens is useless) and you need the newer service. I would recommend that you see and talk to the second-opinion optometrist.
Attention: Nobody guarantees the method must work, but I promise you that myopia sure is getting worse with the standard and traditional minus lens treatment, especially with young children's eyes. Perhaps one day that million dollar question will be asked on the "millionaire" television show -- What kind of glasses (concave or convex) should an early myope wear? And the answer is .....
www.chinaeye.org/
www.chinajiacheng.com/
www.preventmyopia.org
www.myopia.org
www.myopiafree.com
www.i-see.org
www.eyejoy.bonkids.net
www.myopiamanual.de/
www.geocities.com/soonicansee
www.powervisionsystem.com
www.chinamyopia.org/
