Dear Keith,

Subject: Keeping your vision clear during the college years.

Re: Scientific certification -- and arguments against it.

I am pleased you "did it yourself". You may have wondered
why you had to "stand alone" and make that long-term decision and
choice.

The reason is "legal". John M. (a pilot) had 20/40 to 20/15
vision. He wished to "clear" from that level. I sold him a book,
and explained the results that Colgate and Deakins had achileved.

Since he is in the military he could have gone to the OD and
had a general check. He should have -- but did not.

After a month or so he saw "ghosting". (About 43 percent of
people with very-sharp vision have this "ghosting" but never
notice it. If it were already there, and you cleared by use of
the plus, you would begin to see it at about 20/20 to 20/15.)

I made it clear (from the beginning) that I wished I had been
on the "receiving end" of my advice (when I was at 20/40), and
that I was an engineer -- not a medical person.

There is no doubt that if I had "prescribed" the plus to John
M., and he saw this "ghosting" -- he would have sued me. In fact,
ANY OD who attempts to do this preventive work has the "threat"
implicit in this work. I am certain the other ODs would "jump" on
this case and drive the OD out-of-business. Not a pretty picture.

This is the REAL reason why NO OD will discuss this issue
with you -- and you are stuck with "doing it youself".

Here is some more of that discussion for your enjyoment.

Quite honestly, if I had payed $160,000 for OD college, I
would not put myself "at risk". The general public is ignorant
and has NO MOTIVATION for prevention, and no OD can care about
your distant vision -- the way that you can.

As you understand -- this is a first-rate intellectual
struggle.

Love,

Otie

_______________________________


Dear Prevention minded friends

Subject: Why you must "learn enough" to do it youself.

Re: Pilot-John's reaction to using the plus.

Some pilots (at 20/50) have taken over "control" and really
PUSHED with the plus, and cleared to 20/20, i.e., Fred Deakins and
others.

I sold a book to pilot-John, and said that he did not have to
"buy" the book -- but he did.

He agressively used the plus. But he noticed slight
"ghosting". If a medical person had PRESCRIBED this preventive
plus John could have sued the person who prescribed that lens.
The message? There is no profit or motivation in helping ANYONE learn
the "art" of prevention. You are forced to learn how to do it
youself -- if you have the motivation for it.

Here is a "snippet" of conversation about that issue for your
interest. I "gave up" on these ODs a long time ago.

But equally, I respect how difficult prevntion with the plus
actually is. This is i-see, and we do "work" and understand these
issues.

In fact your children's visual welfare might he "improved" by
understanding this specific problem.

Best,

Otis

+++++++++++++++++

Subject: DrG explains why prevention "won't work". This most
likly applies to BOTH Bates people and "Plus-prevention"
people. Read it -- and wake up!


From Otis:

Otis> Dear DrG,

Otis> Subject: The PUBLIC'S Rejection of the preventive plus.

Otis> Re: John's experience and statement.

Otis> As you recall, I suggest ONLY prevention. By that, I mean
that the person himself reviews the relevalent scientific
facts -- and determins if HE (on HIS judgment) wishes to
"follow" the preventive concept.

DrG > It seems to me that you go beyond discussing the concept of
prevention to suggest exactly how to do it. Who wouldn't
want to prevent themselves from developing myopia?

[Comment: I do suggest a method -- that is a result of careful
review of Dr. Young's work. The method is a result of a
scientific understanding and proof of the primate eye's
natural behavior. This is a scientific, rather that a
"medical" preception. OSB]

Otis> Because of "John's" reaction, it is cear that you can not
"legally" do this. If you did -- and ANYTHING happened --
even if it had NOTHING to do with the plus the person was
using -- YOU WOULD GET SUED.

DrG > That's very incorrect. "Legally," I can employ lenses
and/or therapy to treat vision defects. Were I to make
un-substantiated, exaggerated, or untruthful claims about the
efficacy of such treatments, then that would be another
matter.

[Comment: I make accurate statements about the proven behavior of
the fundamental eye. The person I talk to is ENCOURAGED
to review these "input" versus "output" type of
experiments. If his eye-chart is 20/40, there is time
to THINK, review and analyize. There is no reason to
plunge a child into a -2.0 diopter lens -- when there is
time for this review. The decision and choice will
depend on the child and parent -- and NOT on you. We
disagree on that point. OSB]

Otis> I accept that (legal threat) as YOUR explanation as to why
YOU can not "perescribe prevention".

DrG > Of course I can prescribe "prevention."

[Comment: Of course you can NOT prescribe prevention -- because
it is difficult and takes real personal commitment.
Further -- if you are involved it is going to cost
several thousand dollars. If the person figures out how to
take control, it costs several $8 plus lenses from the
store. The REAL cost is his efforts of control and
judgment. OSB]

DrG > I do so when I recommend nutritional advice regarding
macular degneration. I prescribe glaucoma medication to
"prevent" blindness. Giving people proper advice regarding
the use of contact lenses is done to "prevent" problems
arising from abuse, etc.

[Comment: Preventing the development of a un-desired refractive
state of the natural eye would not be "medicine". But
it takes some time to figure this out. But ultimately
the person must "clear" his vision under his own
control. It only is necessary that he personally pass
the DMV test of 20/40 or better. As long as he checks
this himself (By Bates or Plus method) he never comes
under your control. OSB]

Otis> As long as we are clear in our minds about that issue -- we
have no arguments.

DrG > How does that follow?

Otis> This or course proves nothing about whether a person can
clear his distant vision from say 20/50 to 20/30 (better
than the DMV requirement.)

Otis> Some people have done it successfully -- but this issue
depends on the qualities of judgment and a "technical sense"
that you can not provide.

DrG > I am unaware of any controlled studies showing efficacy of
your method. Are you hiding them from us?

[Comment: About dozen times I certified Francis Young' CONTROLLED
study of the effect of a HIGH PLUS on a child -- where
there was an indication that some of the children
actually looked THROUGH THE PLUS rather than around it.
DrG is totally BLIND to this study -- and BLIND to the
objective facts concerning the nautral eye's behavior.
This is a matter of DrG's total and self-enforced
ignorance on his part. But YOU will pay the price when
he puts a -2 diopter lens on your child -- and he tells
you that he MUST wear that -2 all the time. OSB]

Otis> That is why I use the term "refractive state" to indicate
the proven behavior of the primate eye. I think that anyone
wishing for "prevention" should evaluate that data --
relative to his desire to retain clear vision (DMV or
better) under his OWN control -- because you are not allowed
(legally) to do it for him.

DrG > When discussing humans, the conventional term is "refractive
error." However, I believe that most of us understand what
is meant by refractive state. The public only knows
nearsightedness, farsightedness, and astigmatism.

[Comment: "Refractive error" is an assumption based on a crude
understanding of the eye. I use this neutral term to
end this "language bias". It improves our understanding
of objective scientifc truth greatly. OSB]

DrG > Again, I think you don't understand the distinction between
what is illegal and what is unethical.

Otis> When you over-prescribe a person by -2.0 diopters (and don't
discuss the second-opinion,) then I consider that to be
"unethical", and not professional.

Otis> I posted remarks to "Shawn" about how I would wish to be
treated in the future -- that would respect BOTH my
intelligence and motivation. At the very least you should
honor this "change" by asking the person to review a site
like:

www.chinamyopia.org

Otis> For the full meaing of a "second opinion" when used
correctly. I WOULD GLADLY PAY YOU FOR YOUR PROFESSIONAL
TIME. The WORST that could happen, would be that I would
state that I have no interest in "prevention" or that I
consider it to be "too difficult".

Best,

Otis

DrG