Dear Don, (The Myopia Myth -- www.myopia.org)

Subject: PERPETUAL RESEARCHERS

You know what "boggles" my mind? It is these researchers that can not
put 1 and 1 together and get "2" consistently! If they claim the
title of "scientist" -- they should be able to do better than that!

Or, more to the point. Yes the "public" is difficult to deal with --
maybe
impossible.

But what about their own children? That is the real question -- and
the first step towards a "better" answer.

That is the real "truth" I got from Jake Raphaleson. He put
his own children where is "mouth" was. And of course
his three daughters never entered into myopia.

But as you say:

=================

Researchers -- who spend their lives applying for research grants and
producing worthless research results in order to further their
careers. They have no interest in solving the myopia tragedy because
then the research money would dry up. Although methods to prevent
myopia are already known, they always claim, "More research is
needed." While they play their games, the vision of the world's
children continues to be destroyed.

Examples of this mindless research mania can be found on sites by
Karla Zadnik at the Ohio State University College of Optometry and
Christine Wildsoet at the University of California at Berkeley School
of Optometry. Somehow it never occurs to these people to merely put a
strong plus lens on children for all close work, to totally eliminate
focusing effort.

==========================

Even I agree that plus-prevention is difficult.

But the real person we MUST PROMOTE is Steve Leung.

My site is there ONLY to help Steve -- to send his "people" to my site
for the best scientific information on plus-prevention.

It must be an "educated-parent" who will ACCEPT Steve's efforts --
that
must change this terrible situation.

I truly wish that the National Eye Institute would ACKNOWLEDGE some
of these facts and science, under the title "second-opinion".

And I truly fault them for NOT making that effort. They have nothing
to lose, and simply need to cite the primate data, the Oakley-Young
study, and the success of Stirling Colgate.

But instead they mount this "we are always right" -- and therefore
the scientific-based second-opinions must be wrong -- by the NEI's
definition of "wrong".

Best,

Otis