On the prevention of myopia

I was astonished to read that still today one can question the development of myopia when working in dim light (1). The extra accomodation strain that it causes on the reading eye is indisputable. Suboptimal lighting, however, is only a minor factor in the development of myopia. The constant haste combined with vast close-work in the modern society maintain accomodation stress that often leads to accomodation spasm. Thus the present prevention of myopia is a global disgrace. It has been allowed to be continued unchanged for the past 100 years!

The old beliefs of myopia being inherited hinder the acceptance of the fact based on practical experience that this is not the case.

The most important way to counteract the development of myopia is if a child as early as possible would use reading glasses (+3.0, possibly as add to the plus-distant correction) in all close work. In the case that myopia already has developed it is of uttermost importance to avoid close work with distant correction. Bifocals with significant plus addition is the method of choice.

In year 1972 I published Tetralogia (2), which arosed severe resistance among my Finnish colleagues. Tetralogia deals with accommodation strain leading to accommodation spasm and pseudomyopia and the prevention of myopia. I have developed polyphasic fogging method for revealing the spasm of accomodation (3). I stressed also the clinical significance, which accommodation strain has to our organism as a whole (2,4).

From the year 1973 Donald S Rehm has handled the same theme. As the President of International Myopia Prevention Association he, in year 2005, wrote a petition to FDA, which became rejected (5). It is sad to see, that all the leading American Institutions have done everything in their power to hide this knowledge from the parents and to retain the business of minusglasses and the billions- bringing operative activity of healthy corneas. Quoting President Rehm if professionals “had any concern for the people of the world they could expose and end this tragedy almost overnight”.

For an ophthalmologist it is impossible to think that a professional on the eyebranch would not understand this much about the physiology of accommodation. Is this unconcernedness thus a question of conscious denying of the truth or is this all about the money?