N. River Part 1

Mr. N. River (name changed) claims that the "preventive"
plus will "hurt your eyes". For that reason he
contacted my nephew to inform his that a "plus" hurts
his eyes. In fact my nephew used the plus to
"clear" his distant vision (as required) through
college. For you interest, here is the discussion.

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

Dear Second-opinion friends,

"River" has taken it on himself to contact my nephew, Keith B.,

I will post Keith's response for your interest.

Keith was stated to be "nearsighed" at age 13. I presented
the results of the scientific Oakley-Young study, and suggested
that "prevention" is the second-opinion, but to be effective
the person himself must take control -- and always keep
his distant vision clear. At last check Keith
stated that his vision was better-than 20/20.

Again, is was the scientific proof of the Oakley-Young study
that suggests true-prevention at the threshold, as Keith has done
it. This indeed suggests the "either-or" choice a person must
make about the "preventive" use of the plus. Once you begin
wearing the minus -- the plus can no longer be used for
prevention. I am certain that Keith took this scientific study
very seriously -- as I do.

Otis
_______________________

To: "Keith

From: Otis

Subject: River

Dear Keith,

River Books is strange. In many ways the OD is "stuck" in the
way that Raphaelson was "stuck" with "The Printer's Son".

With our bad habits, "long hours with nose-on-book" we
produce a situation were are refractive state moves from a postive
value, to a negative value -- and then we have "burr at distance".

If we "wake up" and personally decide to do something about
it -- the it is possible to avoid it. But this choice and action
depend COMPLETELY on the person who has the "smarts" to implement
is.

But that is the real issue. How much responsibility and
"control" must be transferred to the person himself to make
true-prevention "work".

It is very clear now, that almost all responsibility must be
transferred. As a minimum, this is the "second opinion" even if
YOU must do all the work, and verify that your distant vision
always passes the DMV required in your state.

The "preventive" future must be a matter of your choice in
the matter.

River seems to want to act as the "defender of the faith" or
something like that. But even this must be a matter of your
judgment.

I remeber doing "dumb things" with my eyes as a young child.
I was told by the "majority opinion" that this has no effect on
the refractive state of the primate eye. From Francis Young's
work, it is very clear that BOTH enviroment (average) AND the
minus lens "affect" the refractive state of the primate eye. If
we value science, then we should pay more attention to the
scientific facts, and less attention to the "majority opinion".

Otis
__________________

----- Original Message -----

From: Keith B.

Subject: River

Uncle Otie,

Here's my reply to a guy who seems curious about something.

Keith

************************

Yes, he's fine.

First, he is VERY passionate about a person's ability to
affect the focal status of his or her eyes.

Second, and what I think tends to come out is that he often
times enjoys annoying people for what he considers the right
reason.

I think also his science-oriented brain has a hard time
dealing with the reality that humans tend not to do what is good
for them with preventive measures, even though he knows people
don't.

I've worked in sports medicine, sports performance, health
and fitness and share his frustrations with average human
tendencies. Look at the statistics of obesity in this country
contrary to all of our knowledge and resources!

Make no mistake, I've wondered at times if it was healthy
just how far he'll go to make his point or agitate a group of
people.

I might even think he was nuts except for the fact that I've
benefited from his "preaching" of prevention and preservation of
my far vision.

I am completely confident, and have proven it to myself over
25 years now, that I can positively (pun or no pun) affect my
vision with the plus lens - or negatively affect it with no plus.

He does send me a fairly balanced view of his and others'
criticisms of him so I know he's basically against the whole
vision industry.

That doesn't make him wrong.

I'm very knowledgeable in most other workings of the human
body and although I could not very well explain his ideas, his
ideas are much more compatible with how all other parts of the
body work than the ideas of those who oppose him.

The human body, including the brain and nervous system, is
very dynamic, going in both a positive or negative direction
depending on the stimulus presented, how far the individual is
from the optimal goal and most critically, how motivated the
person is to reach the goal.

Sincerely,

Keith

____________________________

Email sent by River to my nephew Keith B.


On Wed, 05 Oct 2005 19:50:41 -0500 "River "
writes:


> Is this guy nuts??

> Seriously: is this guy nuts??

> I'm a participant in the newsgroup sci.med.vision where
I've watched your uncle's posts for several years.

> Is he ok?? Check into that newsgroup sometime. People are
vociferously
questioning his grounding in reality.

> Regards,

> River

Reply


2. otisbrown@... Oct 6, 1:21 pm show options

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision

From: "otisbr...@..." <otisbr...@...>

Subject: Re: Keith B.'s response to River

Dear Friend,

Most ODs recognize the need for change -- and respect a person's right
to use a method if it meets their personal needs.

What matters is not me, or for that matter River , but rather what
my nephew learned from evaluating the objective scientific facts as
the
concern the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

The practical implementation was indeed Keith's work, and I believe
that is far more difficult that the analytical work that I provided.

River is slipping into a confused haze of his own making. Here is yet
another email from him.

River is truly a rabid nut.

___________________


Keith is nothing more than another anecdotal example that you cite.

Otis> That is interesting -- before you insisted that he did not
"exist". Why not stick with that?

Nothing more.

I wrote to him because I wanted to know if his uncle was
clinically insane.

No, River, you wrote to him because you are crazy. Very soon they
will
not let you into the "day room".

If you don't want people writing to these anecdotal references
that you consistently make, you should refrain from posting their
e-mail addresses so freely.

Otis> His email was not made available to you, River. But I have an
idea were you got it.

Reply



Newsgroups: sci.med.vision


Date: 6 Oct 2005 10:28:06 -0700
Local: Thurs, Oct 6 2005 1:28 pm

Subject: Re: Keith B.'s response to River ' Note

Dear Friends,

The objective fact I present are clear. You should review them.

There are prevention minded optometrists who will help you
"protect" your child's distant vision -- if you wish and request it.

If you do not want pevention (under OD) control -- that is fine
with me. You have a choice -- and that is what I present. See:

www.chinamyopia.org

I have concluded that River is insane.

Here is another example of that insanity -- for your interest.

I can now understand why NO OPTOMETRIST WILL HELP
YOU WITH PREVENTION -- IF THIS PERSON IS TYPICAL
OF THE INTELECT OF THE PLUBLIC MIND.

I will publish my legal disclaimer just to be clear.

I personally wish I had had the kind of "support" that I gave
to Keith. The lord know he would not have gotten help
from most people.

Otis