Dear Prevention minded professionals,


(And Chill-out friends. This is philosophy -- enjoy!)

Subject: Scurvy and induced nearsighedness

Re: The ignorance of the "common herd".

Re: The practice of medicine "controlled" by this ignorance.

Re: Quick-fixing with the minus ALWAYS WORKS. The plus produces
no "immediate" result -- but is the "right" answer.

Re: Attempting to "work" on prevention will require a person of
considerable intelligence, and wisdom. You had it -- but
how very rare that is.

Re: The science behind prevention (the primate studies) is very
accurate and correct. That is the ONLY basis for my
"recommending" that you do this preventive work, and now to
support your children -- if they value their distant vision.

I personally view "nearsightedness" (a negative refractive
state of the natural eye) as a function of the body that we refuse
to understand.

When long voyages were made about 1530s (Magellan) about 30
percent of the crew would die from scurvy. NO ONE could figure it
out. The crew were "serviced" in a medical manner, but nothing
could stop the loss of teeth, and bleeding.

Finally, James Cook, (1760 -- not a medical person) who had
CONTROL of the diet of the sailor, FORCED THEM TO EAT FRESH FOODS.
He made efforts to get to islands for that purpose. In some cases
the crew wanted their salt-pork, and refused to eat these fresh
foods. As a last resort, Cook was forced to have one person
flogged!

After a voyage of 2 years, no one got scurvy. Even after
this demonstration of success -- the problem continued -- because
the crews did not like the "interference" of being forced to eat
fresh foods!

I think the "preventing" the development of a negative
refractive state is in that category. No one "likes" the
"interference" of the plus lens. They prefer "neglect" believing
that "God" gave them good vision -- and if they "lose" it, well is
has nothing to do with those YEARS they spend in a "near"
environment.

And so the situation must continue. Here my "suggestion" is
turned into "medical advice" which it manifestly is not.

Truly the common-heard are a bunch of idiots -- beyond any
reasonable assistance. But if you doubt this, just read the
remarks by Brooks.

(Neil Brooks -- go to Google, Groups, sci.med.vision, and
read what he has to say about prevention.)

Best,

Otis

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


From Dr "G" -- a majority opinion OD,

Subject: Why Raphaelson was "wrong" -- says DrG.


Well, come on now, Otis. I don't know why you say the
Raphaelson got "kicked in the teeth,"

[Comment -- the mother was close to suing Raphaelson -- that is
"kicked in the teeth" as far as I am concerned. OSB]

...but the reason that you keep getting kicked in the
unmentionables is bacause this is 2006, and there is still scant
-- if any support -- for your treatment.

[Comment -- this issue is for Catman. You have already cleared
your vision to pass the DMV. I know you are 13 years-old,
but you have showen more ability and judgment than I had at
your age. And you can personally "win" this battle -- if
you wish to do so. OSB]

You are the one who keeps arguing, and if you don't like to
argue then just please quit insulting serious minded people and go
elsewhere.

[Comment: The arrogance that over-prescribes a minus and claims
it is "perfectly safe", when the primate studies on a
scientific level prove otherwise. I don't think so. OSB]

DrG

(Continued from DrGs insistance that the plus-preventive method
does not "work".)

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

Dear DrG,


No, DrG, the issue is whether the person himself is willing
to study the scientific facts and truth concerning the proven
behavior as a dynamic system.

Further, since we have proven the "Neil Brooks" effect, that
basiclly, says that you must deal with psycho-idiots like him,
your "practice" can not be based on scientific facts. Now, given
his attitude, would I ever expect you to do so.

If you read between the lines, in "The Printer's Son", the
issue becomes whether an educated student-of-science, with proper
motivation can AVOID getting into a negative refractive state.
And that is simply far beyond anything you are doing -- or because
of Neil Brooks -- will EVER be permitted to do. And I truly
understand THAT situation PERFECTLY.

I also understand my own "bad visual habits", and the
consequences for myself. This is not to "blame" either you or me,
but to explain this issue to my nephew so that he can montor his
own children, and get them to avoid my (understood) bad habits and
their consequences.

So Raphaelson was indeed correct. The iissue can NEVER be
addressed or resolved by you -- or delt with under your "control".

Maybe "Cat" understands that issue far better than you do.

Best,

Otis


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


Subject: Scurvy and induced nearsighedness

Hey Otis. I still see 20/50 on my chart, but I am constantly
reminded of how bad the lighting is. I think I'll take it outside
on a sunny day. Anyway, my real test is just "reading things" in
a real enviroment. The one things I used to need my contacts for,
is no longer an issue (it was a drlil where our teacher held up
flash cards and we had to answer questions about them). Letters
on STOP stop signs pop out at me. I can finally read the names of
companies and stores with ease when I am in a car. I see
exceptionally well with black on white projector slides, and I
think I could easily pass the 20/40 line at a doctor's test. I'll
let you know how it goes.

thanks,

Cat

-------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Cat,

Subject: The type of person it takes -- to take control.

I am glad that your read, "The Printer's Son" -- and Dr.G's
remarks about it.

It is very clear to me that "prevention" is difficult,
becuase:

1. It is not "easy".

2. I takes time, to gradually get used to the idea.

3. It is so easy to "over-prescribe" the minus lens, and
"impress" the person, and

4. The Neil-Brooks effect.

It was Raphaelson's statement that made me realize that the
person himself would simply have to "take control", and always
PERSONALLY read and pass the 20/40 line. That becomes your
defining responsibility.

Sure, you could get 20/10 vision from a -2 diopter lens
(so-called Best Visual Acuity, BVA) but you would get stair-case
myopia as part of the "bargin".

From the "Chalmer" statement, it is clear that it just takes
time to do this "clearing" work. And obviously a matter of your
own judgment.

I am pleased you can now see "outdoors" with 20/40 vision.
Which ends your dependance on that minus lens. No you only need
to "juggle" the plus for most close work.

Always keep me posted on your thinking about these issues.

Best,

Otis