NRiver2.txt

Mr. N. River (named 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 Keith,

Subject: Thinking for your self. Acting for yourself.

Re: Fundamental science -- not medicine.

I think you did an excellent job protecting your distant
vision.

You must look at the "quality" of the people who have done
this -- and I mean specifically Stirling Colgate who reached the
same conclusion that you did.

Clearly Stirling did not earn a living "selling" the minus
lens -- and could not care less about it. He wrote up his "story"
at the request of his wife Rosie to help his own children
understand and avoid this "undesired" situation.

You are right about "medicine". It sinks to the lowest
common denominator. By that I mean that whatever is done -- must
produce and OBVIOUS result that is "seen" by the patient. Most
people are "superficial", and so this "immediate" result meets all
medical needs.

Almost NO ONE will listen to any "medical" person who
attempts to go beyond this point. The remarks of River is
sufficient to shut down ANY MD or OD who attempts to go beyond the
"superficial" demand of the public. This was the real "message"
of Dr. Raphaelson -- and I learned it well.

In the sense of pure science -- most of these issues are
resolved. In the sence of "medicine", i.e., the superficial
public's demand for the "obvious" solution -- NONE OF THESE ISSUES
WILL EVER BE RESOLVED.

You did it "right". You heard this "second opinion",
monitored your distant vision -- saw it as blurry -- and realized
you had to "do it youself".

I think that ONLY the person who has confidence in himself
can ever implement true-prevention. And I mean:

1. You physically saw your distant vision "blurry".

2. You worked intensively with the plus and saw your vision clear
to pass the DMV.

3. You realized that you had to "repeat" this process as long as
you were in a "reading" environment.

That seems to be an "impossible" concept for most. In fact
most people simply will not look at an eye-chart. They seem to
want EXCLUSIVELY an OD to make all measurements -- like they are
physically incompetent or something.

Once you have personally cleared your vision, it will be
impossible for an idiot like River to come along and tell you it is
"impossible" or that you are DECEIVING YOUSELF in some way!

This is why I state that "medicine" can never accomplish this
task. This should not "insult" medicine -- but tragically they
take it that way. They simply can never deliever "prevention"
when you must see the results youself.

You can delete the rest of this -- but I have added some
commentary. (I also give up on the "sci.med.vision" news group.
They deserve the likes of River -- tragic to say so.


COMMENTARY:


Subject: Re: River again

Date: Thursday, October 06, 2005 7:45 PM


Dear Keith,

You are right. River is a psychopath. I plan no further
communications with him.

On the subject of being "forceful" in advocacy for
"prevention" I recognized that Dr. Raphaelson was right. You can
NEVER help a person -- until the person chooses to help himself.

I would have liked to have "forceful" help in avoiding this
situation. (But I understand "myself" and my own "failings" on
this issue.)

My purpose was to make this issue clear -- and "empower" you
to think for yourself.

The future is yours, and that is the most important part of
these discussions.

Love,

Otie

_____________

To: otisbrown@...

Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:00 PM

Subject: River again


Uncle Otie,

Just FYI and I don't plan to communicate with River again. A
note for you, I am actually happy to discuss plus lens use with
open minds but not this guy.

Love,

Keith


Otis> I learned a long ago you can not "save" the great mass
of humanity. You can only "save" youself -- no one else
matters.

Or, to make it simple, I say it this way, as far
as "helping" a person with prevention -- who wants
no help at all:

Never attempt to teach a pig to sing. Why?

Because it wastes your time -- and annoys the hell
out of the pig.

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

River> I see it's a familial thing then, Keith.

Keith> Sure, why not.

River> As somebody who works, and is educated, in the field you say
you are, I'm surprised by how quickly you establish cause
and effect.

Keith> Quickly? No. It took probably two years at least for me
to turn faith (in this case in my uncle's ideas)
into a measurable cause and effect. Over the years, my
observations of my behavior and vision status, both
objective and subjective, have served to strengthen my
belief in his ideas.

[Comment: Brilliant. Obviously this "River" will not hear
anything you say. You won -- and that is all that matters.
OSB]

River> I do situps every day. I don't have cancer. Situps, then,
are preventing my cancer.

[Comment: What a bone-head. OSB]

Keith> Quite possibly sit ups do help to prevent cancer because it
is physical activity but no one knows for sure. There are
credible theories that cancer has a greater environmental
effect (carcinogens are just one known cause) than genetic
effect but that's not the way medicine chooses to proceed
with prevention. Many times cause and effect through
longitudinal studies require 20+ years to become valid.
Framingham studies are about the only body studies like
this.

[Comment: I would add that the people working in "high noise"
enviroments used to think that 120 dB noise produced no
problems -- until they went stone-deaf 20 years later. It
take real personal intelligence to understand "delayed
effects" -- and River is as superfical as they come. OSB]

River> The problem is that your example is unscientific. Touting
your uncle's intervention is a logical fallacy (post hoc,
ergo propter hoc). ... As it is, nobody can say with
certainty what would have happened if you'd only worn a
prescribed minus. You may be completely confident, but you
are equally likely to be completely wrong.

[Comment: Scientific subject recommended to YOUR intelligence.
It is clear that if you follow one path (over-prescription
of a minus lens) you can not follow the other (clear distant
vision when necessary -- keep distant vision clear for
life.) The OD can argue that they are driven to do only what
the "superfical" public will allow, and expects. If they
stated that truth -- I COULD AGREE WITH THEM. But I hope
both of us are more intelligent than that. But River is
wrong on two points. The Oakley-Young study which showed
that the "plus" did not go "down", and the direct-primate
studies, which leave no doubt about the behavior of the eye.
The scientific facts can only point you in the right
direction. The actual implementaion MUST BE your on
interaction ane preception of those same scientific facts.
OSB]

Keith> First, I'm not touting his intervention. You asked and I
simply stated my belief based on my own experience. Could I
be wrong? Sure, but I do know that wearing the plus will
make my distance vision clearer and not wearing them shows a
gradual decrease in distant vision and that "phenomenon"
happens over weeks or months. How do I know this? I
measure it.

[Comment: That is the absolute and only way to do scientific (not
medical work). Accurate objective measurements are the ONLY
way to do good science. OSB]

Keith> How do I know that my measures are accurate? I simply read
an eye chart honestly.

[Comment: Absolutly -- there is no other way. OSB]

Keith> One aspect of sports medicine relative to this is with ACL
knee surgeries in the mid 80s. ACL rehab protocols were
quite slow and less predictable. The reason the protocols
improved is that patients did NOT do what the docs told them
to, they took off post-op braces quicker and started doing
more daily activities sooner than they were supposed to.
The ones who did things they were NOT supposed to get
better, and the orthopedic docs and physical therapists took
note and changed protocols.

[Comment: They escaped the medical "mind set". In looking at
your own eye chart -- and verifing results, you accomplished
the same result. In the same breath I will say you saved a
hell of a lot of money ($300 for glasses every two years)
and your long-term eye sight. I know you were probably at
20/40 and 20/50 at times. But by working at it you are now
at 20/20. Had you not been "empowered" the Oakley-Young
study says you would be about -3 diopter or deeper, and at
that point is would be impossible to get out of it. An
ounce of prevention -- saves a pound of "cure". At -3
diopter a "cure" is not possible. The situation is
permanent.

River> Citing obesity, and other health-related issues as you have,
you are relying upon controlled studies, properly performed,
using the scientific method.

[Comment: No I am separating "medical" issues from
pure-scientific issues. If a kid is "stuffing" himself with
food then it becomes (Excess calories in = Obese kid out).
The person in "control" is NOT THE MEDICAL PERSON. He has
no control at all. The same is true for the kid with his
nose on the book for long hours -- and develops -1 diopter
myopia. The person "in control" is the kid -- and not the
"medical doctor". You must "change" the person's attitude
who has the potential to "control" this situation himself --
by moving the "near" environment out to "infinity" with the
plus. No one can EVER prescribe this -- only the
intelligent "kid" can control this. The scientist can
figure this out. The "superfical" public will RUN to an OD
for a minus-lens "solution". River can not understand this
rather obvious issue. Tragic indeed. OSB]

Keith> Maybe or not and does the information affect individual
behavior? Caffeine and alcohol were once said to have
negative health effects but now they are thought to be at
least harmless if not have (minimal) positive antioxidant
properties. How many billions of dollars are spent each
year on health and fitness when the vast majority of people
would need none of this information? They simply need to
get out and walk more and eat less.

Otis> While the plus requires considerable "body" intelligence, it
also is on the order of "brushing your teeth", or other
"preventive" measures. How anyone can make this concept
"difficult" is beyond me. I do understand that initially
the concept of "prevention" sounds strange -- until you get
used to it. OSB]

River> What you've succumbed to, and what bothers /true/
scientists, is the continued, vociferous assertion of
logical fallacies as truth.

[Comment: You have to wonder about River's "true" scientist. Is
he the man who can "crank" a strong minus lens and put it on
a kid -- and impress them in 15 minutes. Is that it? In
this sweeping statement you must sweep /true/ scientists off
the table -- like Stirling Colgate and many others. You
must also "pretend" that a proceedure that works instantly,
and impresses the superfical must be the ONLY true science.
This is yet another falicy of this man. A lesson to be
learned indeed. OSB]

Keith> Succumbed to? No, I've made a choice based on my
observations. A case study of one without referees, biases
or not.

[Comment: What you verified was the tip of the iceburg in
science. A great many things in science point to this
result -- but you only believe it when you see it for
yourself. OSB]

Keith> True, you see logical fallacies. There have been many
great scientists who have been run out of town for strong
disagreements with the norm. The world was once flat, time
was absolute, cooperation had nothing to do with
competition, etcetera.

[Comment: River is "floating" in his own logical fallicies -- and
he is totally blind to almost all of them. But you need to
protect your own distant vision -- because no one else has
any interest in it -- but you. OSB]

Keith> Do I know what I know? Yes. Do you know what you know?
Yes. Individual perception is reality. Measurable
perception provides for strong belief.

[Comment: When you verify your vision "clearing" on your eye
chart -- that is indeed and OBJECTIVE measurement. You are
not going to "cheat" yourself. When you tell others -- then
your objective measurement always becomes a "subjective"
measurement. In engineering and science, we simply do not
use the word "subjective". OSB]

River> The doctors (and I) are trying diligently to get him to stop
practicing bad medicine with neither credentials nor
expertise. He /is/ hurting people.

[Comment: Here again River jumps to a conclusion. He should
say "majority opinion doctors". The "majority opinion"
doctors do in fact support the concept of prevention at the
threshold -- when it must be used to be effective. There is
no resolution to this issue. OSB]

[Comment: I have been VERY SPECIFIC about this. I do not
"practice" medicine. Indeed, the "medical" person has
exactly the problem I stated. The person himself must be
"empowered" to take control -- or nothing effective can
happen. Given the Oakley-Young study, the results of NOT
PREVENTING IT, is that your vision goes down by an AVERAGE
of -1/2 diopter per year. And River is suggesting that
weaing a minus lens IS NOT HURTING PEOPLE. River has a
strange "word" for the presumed "safety" of that minus lens.
If you had not used the plus as you did I have no doubt what
would have happened to your distant vision -- permanently. OSB]

Keith> Medicine has to do with relying on others to describe
health status. Scientific methodology has to do with
finding out for oneself. My uncle draws a distinct line to
not practicing medicine. I don't personally claim strict
scientific study but rather measurable cause and effect.

[Comment: Self-preservation is a strong motivation. Science can
only guide you. Untimately the person who sees the results
under HIS control it the person who BELIEVES in the results.
OSB]

River> The evidence is against your uncle (let me know if you have
interest in reviewing it or, again, participate on the
newsgroup).

[Comment: I would suggest -- don't bother. You have alread
verified the behavior of the natural eye -- by clearing your
distant vision in the manner that Stirling Colgate did it.
Why bother with anyone else -- particularly psycho-idiots
like River? OSB

River> I've challenged him on countless occasions to prove his
hypothesis using more than chicken studies and anecdotes.
He can't.

[Comment: The Francis Young study is very clear as to the
effect that the minus lens has on the fundamental eye. The
ODs come up ENDLESS excuses to IGNORE this result. That is
why the DIRECT primate studies are so important. River says
you must IGNORE this scientific research. I suggest that you
ignore River. OSB]

Keith> True - chickens and primates with some individual case
studies. I have no interest.

River> These are not the hallmarks of a scientific mind. These are
the delusions of a frustrated would-be pilot.

[Comment: It depends on who is calling who "delusional". The
science is excellent -- and you have see the results
yourself. Who "needs" River? OSB]

Keith> That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. If you are
concerned for my uncle's health then I thank you for your
concern. If you are looking for someone to provide any
further information or discussion then I am not the person
you are looking for and NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION IS
NECESSARY.

[Comment: Well said. You can only be concerned with yourself and
the people you love. OSB]

Keith> I don't participate in idea exchange regarding the plus
lens and don't plan to. My interests lie elsewhere. If you
can find a "sure thing" with no side effects to get people
to be more active and eat less then please let me know.
Statistically people in the U.S. are 60% overweight and
about 30% clinically obese. I hope for your sake you
maintain good health practices because from my point of
view, diabetes in the next 10-20 years will make discussion
on eye refractive status seem novel.

[Comment: A person in "medicine" must protect himself. I
understand THAT issue completely. In fact, given this
bizzare River , it is clear that ANY OD OR MD who would even
ATTEMPT a conversation with you concerning
prevention-with-plus would come under severe threat by River.
Further, given the superfical "mind" of the public, I a
certain that ANY OD who attempted "prevention" would be
driven out of the profession -- pronto. I suggest the
following:

1. The public is profoundly ignorant and not-motivated.

2. Very few people put ANY VALUE on their distant vision.

3. The minus is instantly effective. On the threshold everyone
"loves" the minus -- until they get stair-case myopia. Only
THEN do they "question", and by THEN it is to late.

4. Prevention requires an "appreciation" of these political
problems -- and explains why no OD can help you with
prevention and why you have no choice but to take control
and "do it youself under a scientific understanding of the
eye's behavior.

Because the OD wishes to DENY objective facts (primate
studies) he must necessarily insist that "environment has no
effect on the eye's refractive state. Thus he can not even
DISCUSS forcing the child to keep his nose off the book. The
result is that the parents have NO KNOWLEDGE of tht long-term
effect that action of the child will have on his distant vision.
Thus the parents (in ignorance) let the child do this in total
ignorance.

Thus you have the "ignorant" public (the child) being
permitted to do this to his eyes, and the ODs quick-fixing the
child after the child's refractive state moves from plus to minus.

This suggests that the ignorance of the public "drives" this
situation, and the OD is only SLIGHTLY less ignorant than the
public.

I am certain you made an intelligent choice in the matter of
keeping your distant vision clear for life.


Otie