Autobi2.txt

Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject: My background and interests.

Re: Personal credibility -- and your judgment.

You have a right to know who I am -- and judge my personal
motivations to work on a scientific understanding of the natural
eye's behavior.

I do not particularly wish to "self-promote" but I would like
to know the motivations of the person who I talk to. Perhaps the
following can help you with that "understanding".

I see the natural eye as a sophisticated, and therefore a
dynamic device. Here are some of the reasons for my perception
and respect for the natural eye.

I do not "deal" with a great population of people waking in
"off the street". That can never be part of my argument. My
argument is more a matter of your own "empowerment" so that you
can take actions that meet your personal requirements.

Best,

Otis

______________

October 10, 2005

Dear Friends,

Subject: My History

PART I - Personal engineering and scientific interest.

PART II - Separating pure scientific facts from "medicine".


PART I

Purpose: To Provide intellectual and scientific support to Steve
Leung in his work to prevent the development of
nearsightedness in children.


When I was young, I was told that I would learn the truth --
only after the truth no longer mattered. But knowing the truth
about the dynamic nature of the eye was, and is, very important to
me.

Since we have been working on "nearsightedness prevention"
for the last 30 years, we might look "inward" in the sense that we
analyze our own motivations. Obviously I realized that we
understand the natural eye "differently". I believe that the
natural eye MUST be dynamic, and that some people have accepted
the "traditional" picture that the eye is a "frozen" box camera,
and does not control its refractive state to its visual
environment.


MY PERSONAL CURIOSITY

When I was 16 years old I went through a personal "crisis"
and felt my life was "over". [Most people would have regarded it
as a normal "bump" on the road of life!] But that personal
disaster spurred my interest in "nearsightedness". The standard
(i.e., box-camera) explanations did not "ring true", and I had to
wonder if the pressure to prescribe an immediate solution was
"driving" this process -- and I sought to determine if that were
the case.


THE OPHTHALMOLOGIST

Since my interest had become clear to my family, my father
asked our ophthalmologist about this issue. The ophthalmologist
said, "Oh, God, don't let Otis get involved with that issue". To
me he said, "Once you become an Ophthalmologist -- then you will
understand". I have not become an Ophthalmologist -- but I
certainly understand why he made the statements he did!

But my curiosity was such that I could not "let it go".
Equally, however, I knew he was a fine man who was doing the best
that he could do -- and I respected him for that reason.

I did understand how my questions might be construed as
insulting, although that is not, and has never been my intention.
The fact that he had to imply that I didn't "understand" worried
me. I resolved to ask a different type of question and use
neutral words to avoid this type of conflict.


WORKING FOR A LIVING

I worked a few years for the telephone company. This was
good "outside work". I had some time to study the design of the
V-2 rocket in a book written by Dr. Walter Dorenberger.

The result of this engineering book caused me respect for the
design of a "control systems". A rocket flies straight up -- with
the flame straight down. To the casual observer it appears that
the rocket-motor is "fixed". To the rocket-engineer it is clear
that this is a false belief -- of the general public. The entire
system is absolutely "unstable". Only continuous strong motions
of the motor, monitoring a gyroscope creates this apparent
"stability". Later this idea of "active" stability became the
core of a technical analysis of the eye's fundamental behavior.


COLLEGE AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS

In college I had the opportunity to study the history of
science. (This was different from most "science" books, since it
defined how ideas in science develop.) The concept was profoundly
"different" than the conventional notion of science that most
people have of the subject. The book was "The Foundations of
Modern Science" by Gerald Holton and Duane Roller.

The specific idea that caught my imagination was the struggle
between the Ptolemaic concept (Earth-centered) universe, versus
the Copernicus (Sun-centered) universe. These were two
"world-view" concepts. A study of these concepts and how
"observed facts" interact with scientific theory were essential
for me.

The "world view" and the "fact" seemed to totally support the
Polemic concept -- and the fact that the concept had been use for
the previous 1200 years apparently made the Ptolemaic concept
"perfect". Further, the concept had been accepted by the Catholic
church. The "objections" by Galileo was then translated as a
DIRECT ATTACK on the entire Catholic church. It was for this
reason that Galileo was forced to "recant" his belief that the
Earth (and planets) moved around the sun as the center - and not
the earth. He was placed under "house arrest" until his death.

Later I changed my "interest" to engineering and spent four
years obtaining a BS degree from Capitol College. As part of this
study I learned to design "control systems" -- as well as many
issues regarding engineering and design in science. A deep
appreciation of the truth that the natural eye must be a
sophisticated system (for stability) became part of this
evaluation.


RADIO STATION WORK - FREE TIME TO THINK

During this time (for curiosity) I continued my interest in
nearsightedness. One "popular" publication, about 1965 was by Dr.
William Ludlam. He stated that "Submariners developed
nearsightedness proportional to the time they spent in a
submarine". Since this make a great deal of sense to me, I wrote
up a thirty page paper, describing the concept of the plus to be
used for prevention -- since I had NEVER EVEN HEARD of any
proposed or suggested use of the plus as a preventive for
nearsightedness.

Dr. Ludlam wrote back and said that the concept of "the
plus" was not new, and that Dr. Raphaelson had developed the
concept to a certain extent. I then went to Cincinnati about 1967
to see him. Jacob was 92 years old -- and I felt very lucky that
I could visit and talk with him. He gave me his publications, and
they provided a great insight into the difficulties of introducing
prevention -- from the perspective of an optometrist. These
insights were valuable to me -- and changed by "world view" about
the natural eye's behavior in a fundamental way.


PREVENTION AS SEEN FROM THE OPTOMETRIST'S POINT-OF-VIEW

While Jacob covered many subjects, there were two items that
DEFINED the nature of the "problem" and caused me to forcefully
separate the matter of dealing with people "off the street" as
different from pure-science, or "engineering-science". I will
describe why this is necessary in "Part II" of this evaluation.


FURTHER CLARIFICATION

There is a tendency to state that the minus lens method, put
is place 400 years ago is "based on science", or call such use,
"science". I object in strong terms to that type of thinking. I
could understand the OD who would say, "...but I have no choice"!
To avoid conflict, I would describe this as "medical-science", or
the matter of dealing as best you can with a great mass of people
who expect an "instant solution" from some one who is "medical".

Dr. Raphaelson was successful in, "The Printer's Son", only
to have the parents and child totally REJECT both Raphaelson and
the plus lens. It is now very clear that the child (in this
statement) would simply have gotten back into nearsightedness
because his habits had not changed. I simply can not tolerate
this type of situation. If the person I talk to demands that
"instant solution", then I will not "fight" with him or the OD
about the issue.


CLEARING THE MIND -- AND WORK WITH FRANCIS YOUNG

In fact, I have no "objection" to the use of the minus, and
consider that an OD (like Jacob Raphaelson) has only an obligation
to SUGGEST the possibility of using the plus (providing the
child's vision is "workable", i.e., 20/40 to 20/70). If the
parents can not accept the plus at that point -- then they should
sign a statement that they had been informed of the "preventive"
method, and that they prefer the immediate solution of the minus
lens. For me that would "clear the air", and make the parent and
child responsible for the long-term consequence of that choice.
Given the one-way street nature of myopia development, the parents
must understand that when the minus lens is started -- the plus
can not be used.


FINDING MORE INFORMATION -- BY BEING PROVACATIVE

Many people are "passive" -- meaning that they do not "push"
their knowledge. It has always been my habit to ask questions.
If I receive put-offs and put-downs then I must find out why my
questions are being deflected. Is it because I am "insulting" the
person with my questions. If my questions are honest, then I
expect an honest answer. If my questions are still considered
"insulting" then I must find out why.

Part of this goal is to "stand up" and publish your
assessment -- in a formal scientific review process. I have
published eight papers in the IEEE/EMBS with co-authors who are
leaders in their field. It takes a considerable amount of time to
prepare these papers and get them accepted for publication. This
was a "learning" process for me. But at least I had the "guts" to
stand up and make this type of pitch. Ultimately, I assembled
these papers into my book, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness". I did
this in part to help the "next curious person" to avoid the labor
I when through to reach my conclusion about nearsightedness
prevention.

[I was very upset that it took me ten years to "find" Jacob
Raphaelson. An engineering text and review would have saved me an
immense amount of labor. And I am always in favor of "labor
saving" publications. Straight answers about the proven behavior
of the natural eye would have saved me an incredible amount of
physical work on this project.]


DAVID GUYTON, KAREL MONTOR, PETER GREENE, AND DONALD REHM

During this time I had the pleasure of meeting the above
people. The goal was to initiate a "preventive" effort at the
Naval Academy -- among pilots -- who MIGHT have the motivation for
the effort. The result was pleasant conversations and discussions
-- but "red tape" prevented ANYTHING from being attempted. I must
also add that the time I spent with these people was wonderful.


PUBLICATION OF MY BOOK, "HOW TO AVOID NEARSIGHTEDNESS"

Up to this point, I only knew that Dr. Colgate had cleared
his vision with the plus. But I never heard of anyone else doing
it under their own control. With the book published, I sold it
through a "Professional Flying" magazine, and attempted to
restrict the sale to ONLY pilots whose vision was 20/40 to 20/70
who (with intense motivation) could clear their vision back to
20/20. I sold the book to a Brian Severson, who "cleared" to
20/20 -- from 20/70. At least I knew that prevention was possible
when done with great intensity.


RETIREMENT FROM GSFC

In 2002 (age 62) I retired from NASA support work at the
Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland -- after 35
years of very interesting and enjoyable work. Since I now have
more time to pursue my "hobby", I developed the Internet page,
www.myopiafree.com, to further develop the concept and help people
like, "The Printer's Son", to "wake up" and understand the
necessity of prevention -- or understand the "direct and certain
consequence" of rejecting the use of the plus at the threshold.
This is far more an educational process for the individual
himself, rather than a "medical" process. I know that most people
simply do not understand this issue. It is very important however
-- since failure to learn to use the plus "correctly" leads to
life-time consequences that (almost) can not be reversed.

[Obviously this now depends on the "qualities" of the person
himself -- to decide this issue. Since no one can "predict" that
a person has a "quality mind" for this work, I make myself
completely dependent on the person himself to have these
qualities.]


THE FUTURE -- SAME AS THE PAST?

The past "predicts" the future. One hundred years ago, no
one could make a statement about the dynamic behavior of the
natural eye -- because no one "thought" to run the correct
experiment. Today, in "engineering science" we can predict --
with good accuracy -- the behavior of the fundamental eye,
providing we test the natural eye under "input" versus "output"
conditions.

We must use absolutely neutral testing (to avoid bias). I
suggest we use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye
can (and does) have positive and negative refractive states --
depending on the "input" average-visual environment. This type of
study proves that the fundamental eye is dynamic.

[Dynamic in the sense of rocket-guidance. There is no doubt
on a pure-scientific level that the natural eye is proven to
behave as a dynamic "camera" system.]

However NONE of this accurate information is ever discussed
with a person on the threshold of nearsightedness. I am very
pleased that a few men have been able to "figure out" how to
intensively use the plus "correctly". It seems to take a person
of considerable intelligence to realize that you must understand
the eye's behavior "correctly" -- and can not, in a knee-jerk
fashion use a quick-fix method. The real answer is to understand
the facts as stated above, and CHANGE the near environment with
the plus.


PART II

SEPARATING PURE SCIENCE FROM MEDICAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS


There are may people who confuse "medical" considerations and
actions From "pure science" issues. To avoid the antagonisms
involved, I suggest using the word engineering-science when
discussing the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye, versus
"medical-science", when discussing MEDICAL issues concerning the
eye. Failure to separate this issue in this manner will ALWAYS
create confusion and anger -- and emotional, self-protective
response from an OD or MD. I have see way too much of the
"self-protective" reaction on the part of may ODs. I regret it --
that issue must be faced as a "fact" of this discussion.


MEDICAL-SCIENCE CONSIDERATIONS

A very dedicated optometrist (Raphaelson) spelled out the
real problem of prevention -- in the "Printer's Son". As long a
parents REJECT the use of the plus when it must be used -- there
is no future for "true-prevention", or the optometrist can not
administrate it effectively. This issue did not reflect on
Raphaelson -- it reflects on the ignorance and lack of MOTIVATION
of the public for prevention. There was NOTHING Raphaelson could
do about this issue -- and NOTHING I can do about it either.
Classify this as a "medical-science" issue.


ENGINEERING-SCIENCE ISSUES

As long as the "Printer's Son" scenario exists, then
"prevention" will always be impossible. Thus the issue becomes
the "education" of the "Printer's son" about prevention -- on an
"either-or" basis. I quite frankly was shocked about this
question when I discussed the story with Dr. Raphaelson. But it
became clear that nothing could be done. No amount of scientific
research, or technical analysis can change this issue. But in the
last 100 years scientific truth is finally confirming the behavior
of the natural eye.


OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS

In working with Francis Young, I had access to his data.
Thus, the issue of the natural eye could be resolved by DIRECT
testing. In order to do this correctly it is necessary to use
very basic words to describe a measurement. We should not "read"
meaning into a measurement -- because this becomes a biased way of
interpreting the data. Thus, if we wish to determine the dynamic
nature of the fundamental eye, we ask simple and basic questions
about whether a population of nature eyes are dynamic on an input
versus output basis.

Further, we use the neutral term refractive-state. In the
case of Francis Young's study, the measurement was made by induced
paralysis, since you could not get the monkeys to read an eye
chart. Thus the test is simple -- and there can be only two
possible results. Either the natural eye is dynamic -- or it is
not. Further, this type of test is repeatable, if the result is
disputed. This is "pure-science", since it takes the person
himself to "accept" the conclusions you will reach if you take
this type of testing seriously. Francis Young published these
results, and I did further analysis which demonstrated that the
natural eye is in fact controlling its refractive status to its
average value of accommodation.

There is no scientific doubt about this result -- but there
are may who do not like "abstract" analysis and scientific truth
about this result. I have no power to "argue" with a person who
rejects this type of scientific analysis -- but it does lead to
the conclusion that nearsightedness could be prevented -- by the
person himself -- if he had the fortitude to take this type of
pure-scientific research seriously. My book, "How to Avoid
Nearsightedness" is designed to assist a person who has this type
of strong motivation to "protect" his distant vision through the
school years.

But equally I do acknowledge that most people can not "get
motivated" in the correct-use of the plus. The person who
criticizes an optometrist like Jacob Raphaelson or Steve Leung
should write up an "essay" explaining how Steve should overcome
the resistance of "The Printer's Son" for correct-use of the plus.

Since was the parents who rejected the use of the plus --
then they, in their ignorance, accepted full responsibility for
the consequences. We know now that when the plus is rejected in
this manner, the child's vision will start down again, and that
the "down" rate is about -1/2 diopter per year. (The Oakley-Young
study. For some children, it can be 1,0 diopters per year.) Thus
the OD must deal with this type of "ignorance", and this ignorance
will continue to compel this situation. Worse, some ODs insist
that the concept of prevention with the plus "...must be
destroyed". This makes the situation of "The Printer's Son" even
worse -- since any OD attempting to offer the use of the plus on
the threshold will encounter of "buzz saw" of opposition FROM HIS
FELLOW ODs, not to mention ever more fierce objection from the
public due to their ignorance on the objective of true-prevention
with the plus.


THE DIS-INCENTIVE TO SUPPORT PREVENTION FOR AN OD

This is the reason for the tremendous dis-incentive to do
ANYTHING for prevention on the part of an optometrist. These are
very serious issues 0- and must be discussed and understood by the
parents before any minus or plus is used.


AN INFORMED-CONSENT CONTRACT AS THE
FIRST STEP TO PRACTICAL PREVENTION


The issue is serious enough to call for a "technical
agreement" or "contract" with the parents about the use of a
straight-plus for the child. I believe that this will prevent
"abuse" OF THE OD who OFFERS true-prevention with the plus. This
document is prepared to help BOTH the parents and the OD with this
subject. Obviously the parents can not understand all these
issues -- but their intelligence should be respected, and their
child's right to a "second opinion" could be understood and
supported under this "signed contract" method of prevention.


Otis