Dear Jon,

Subject: Myopic ODs who "beat up" on me.

Re: The professionalism of Steve Leung and Jacob Raphaelson.

Re: Learning to think for yourself -- and develop your own
solution -- to the best of your ability.

This is my "philosophy" on science -- and the separation of
"optometry" from pure science.

You have show remarkable maturity in working on prevention.

I simply wish that I had had your ability -- but I was too young
for it. You have learned from the mistakes of the ODs -- that
they continue to make -- the mistakes of the general public,
and honestly my mistakes as a 6 year-old child.

You paid the price in terms of your own effort -- and
have achieved a success.

Best,

Otis
_______________

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Some conversations on sci.med.vision on the science of
the natural eye's proven behavior.

I have friends in optometry and ophthalmology.

I set "professional limitations". I define this as follows.

I DO NOT deal with the great mass of humanity walking in off
the street.

The public wants that "instantly sharp" vision, and so it is
provided. That is "optometry" and that is how it has been for at
least the last 150 years. I do not propose to "change" it.

In fact Dr. Raphaelson spelled this out with stark clarity
in "The Printer's Son", there the plus was indeed successful, and
the parents -- not understanding the necessity of it -- totally
rejected this intelligent use of the plus -- for prevention. That
DEFINES but the problem -- and the fact that these ODs can never
achieve a "solution".

But I simply report the fact that the natural eye is a
dynamic device, and is a "control system". When you respect the
natural eye is this manner, then you get accurate scientific
results. But that becomes a matter of judgment of the scientists
who are conducting this type of review.

This respect for scientific facts, however can never be
"reduced" to a matter of dealing with the general public -- and I
don't propose to do it.

My proposal was for my immediate relatives who had the
insight to "work" the preventive measure -- and personally verify
their vision as passing all legal VA requirements. This they did.
It certainly was not easy, and reflected on their motivation in
this issue. The REAL SKILL and ability was in them.

To further respond:

Dick> My guess has been that myopia is due in part (probably
mostly) to stretching of anatomical elements which succeed
in the well-functioning eye to keep its relaxed focus at
infinity.

Otis> It is just easier to say that when you take a population of
primate eyes -- and place them in a more-confined
environment, the refraction of the "confined" primates moves
in the direction and approximate magnitude of the "confined"
environment -- in diopters. This is a NATURAL process --
and can be verified by any scientists who wishes to make
this measurement effort of the NATURAL eye's behavior. That
is just the way it is. This is an expected result -- there
is no surprise to is. It would be very surprising if this
result DID NOT OCCUR.

Dick> That stretching, once beyond the elastic limit of said
elements, would not likely be reversible.

Otis> That is true. The only possibility is prevention -- as
suggested by the scientific work of the Oakley-Young study.

Dick> Thus, my proposal for positive lenses would be preventative,
not therapeutic.

Otis> That is my position also. It puts "responsibility" on the
person himself to make THAT kind of choice. Not easy at
all. But the consequences of NOT doing it are as you state.

Dick> It is for reading glasses, positive with respect to the
distance correction, based on a competent prescription to
correct refractive errors, and prisms to point the eyes
straight ahead when focused on the work (converge at
infinity).

Otis> It is my belief that a person educated as to the true-facts
concerning the natural eye's behavior -- can teach himself
how to use the plus. I believe that the "prisms" are not
necessary -- and very cumbersome. It is hard enough to help
the person understand this type of choice -- indeed. Most
people will not respond to this -- at all. So the ODs have
NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.

Dick> I do not imagine I am the first to propose that.

Otis> It is not difficult to propose a preventive solution --
under the person's control. The "reality" is that most
people have NO INTEREST in "protecting" their distant
vision, and so eventually, there is no choice but to wear a
minus lens -- when the eye-chart goes below 20/50 or so.

Otis> As always, the issue is more a perception that the natural
eye is a "dynamic" system, rather than a "medical"
perception. Please enjoy our pleasant analytic reviews of
the natural eye's proven behavior. (In terms of measured
refractive-state -- not in terms of "error".)

Best,

Otis

Dick