Subject: Politically Correct "science".

What will happen if you put "Jan OD" in charge of a true
plus-prevention study?

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

The Human Cost of Politically Correct Science

By Clyde Verner


For a hundred years, it was one of civilization's dirty
little secrets: The most common form of myopia (nearsightedness)
occurs almost exclusively in industrialized societies.

(See Myopia: Room Light In Early Childhood and
Nearsightedness.) Whether or not these researchers have actually
found the most important source of environmentally caused
nearsightedness, at least they've broken the longstanding silence
about it.

How could such a simple discovery possibly have taken so
long? In large part it was because scientists, first assuming the
problem was related to compulsory education, avoided studying the
issue and instead resorted to denial. The problem was purely
genetic, we were told. To say otherwise was to commit the modern
equivalent of heresy.

Heresy, because like all politically correct lying, it was
motivated by good intentions. It was feared that any scientific
study of the problem might confirm the whispered suspicion, voiced
publicly by almost no one, that staying indoors at school all day
and reading books caused the eyes to be unable to focus at a
distance. Any public discussion of the problem might affect
parents' attitudes towards compulsory schooling.

For decades, those few academics who dared to confront the
issue were ostracized by their colleagues. The credibility of
some, such as Donald Rehm, depended less on the veracity of their
techniques than on their courage in standing up to a blatantly
lying scientific establishment.

No doubt some of the very scientists who were aware of the
problem but dared not discuss it were secretly trying Bates Eye
Relaxation methods or buying Rehm's optical devices for use on
their own children.

But the red herring of compulsory education had its basis in
fear, not fact. As is so often the case when an answer eludes,
the right questions were not being asked. For one hundred years
science failed to find an answer to the cause of nearsightedness
because it never asked.

What little study was done confined itself to the effects of
children doing close work, and once it was apparent that this
didn't fully explain nearsightedness, the issue was considered
closed. With compulsory education largely vindicated, there was a
collective sigh of relief.

Science gleefully declared myopia to be a matter of genetics
and confined its work to designing corrective lenses as crutches
for the afflicted.

The question of why pervasive myopia occurred only in
industrial societies had not been answered, but the heretical
question could no longer find a voice. Uncomfortable with the
issue, scientists simply avoided it.

Five generations of children had their eyesight permanently
damaged and were told it was because they were genetically
inferior. We like to think things have changed since the days
when Copernicus and Galileo came under pressure for challenging
the religious establishment's view of astronomy. But things have
not changed much if modern science can make such an expensive and
cowardly error as this.

The case of environmentally caused myopia illustrates that
until a heretical silence is broken, it is difficult to assess its
cost. But human suffering is the most likely result whenever
science cowers under the charge of heresy.

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

It is clear that second-opinion medical people have realized
the problem for the NATURAL eye, when the child places his nose on
the page for long periods of time.

Technically, his eye's don't become "defective", (in the
early stage), the simply do what the natural primate eye does --
the change their refractive STATE in a negative direction, slowly
changing from a postive to negative as a natural process.

But few have the courage to face scientific facts, and state
it that way.


Otis