> As Judy and Retinula pointed out -- they are legally
> constrained from even discussion true-prevention
> with the plus -- for fear of the OD Boards.

> You specificy the "real world". For
> you that means EXCLUSIVELY only
> your office.

> That is not science. That is your own
> opinion.

> Since you can't legally help
> with prevention -- the person must teach himself
> how to do it under his own control -- as
> Dr. Stirling Colgate did.

> That is the scientific world -- not the medial world.

> That is not science. That is your own
> opinion.

> Dr. Stirling Colgate is an international well-known physicist. Other
> than send him a courtesy reply, nothing was ever done about his
> request by the NIM. Perhaps, it is the responsibility of every parent
> instead of the nation.

> Dear Dicky,
> Subject: Pay attention to the Oakley-Young study and the primate data
> concerning the natural eye's proven behavior.
> Re: Pay attention to the LEGAL reasons why an OD can
> never help anyone with true prevention -- and why
> the person must basically "do it himself" -- on
> a scientific, not medical level.
> Neil Brooks contacted my nephew, and proceeded to
> "bad mouth" me, and Keith's use of the plus
> for true-prevention. (I guess Neil will
> deny this also -- probably a senior moment on
> Neil's part.)
> Keith has great resolve on this issue -- no doub about
> it. He did not as anyone to do this for him. He
> decided his distant vision was "worth it" and
> worked the issue himself -- since
> he knew that the OD could not help him.
> (legal reasons -- again.)
> Here is his discussion -- for your interest.
> This is why plus-prevention is, or will become
> the "second opinion".
> I am certain we will get the usual "nasty" comments from
> the "majority opinion" group.
> Dear second-opinion friends,
> Subject: Keith's vision from a 13 years old to age 40. Now 20/15!
> From detailed discussions with Dr. J. Raphaelson it became
> clear to me that the person himself would have to make AGRESSIVE
> use of the plus BEFORE he began to wear the minus lens -- or
> suffer serious consequences.
> I knew from the bi-focals (plus) studies that when the
> single-minus is placed on the natural eye -- its refractive status
> moves steadily downward at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year --
> average.
> Strong use of the plus STOPPED this movement. For this
> reason I advocated the strong use of the plus by the person who
> wishes to keep his vision at a level that ALWAYS passes all legal
> visual requirements -- by his own checking.
> Keith started this process when he was 13 years old. He
> would periodically notice that his distant vision was getting
> "blurry" in college. Taking responsibility himself, he simply
> "re-started" the intensive use of the plus until he exceeded the
> legal requirement for driving a care, i.e., reading 1.8 cm letters
> at 6 meters.
> Keith understood the "trade-off", involved. Use the plus
> before you fail the DMV, and you will never REQUIRE a minus lens.
> While on vacation with Keith recently, I noticed he still used the
> plus to read the newspaper and other work of this nature. I had
> no idea what his eye-chart was -- and mostly Keith did not check.
> Here is his statement of his current eye-chart check.
> ______________________
> Dear Keith,
> As you know, I take PERSONAL responsibility for the "dumb"
> things I did with my eyes as a young child. Like that "bad
> habit", of leaning forward and reading at 4 inches (-10 diopters)
> for long periods of time. The ODs and MDs love to tell us there
> is no relationship between refractive state -- and environment.
> They are totally, and scientifically wrong on this issue --
> and very biased about it.
> However the general public will NOT ACCEPT advocacy for
> prevention, and so the medical-myth must grind on -- and grind-up
> a massive proportion of young children's eyes. It is tragic that
> these ODs will not VOLUNTEER information about the natural eye's
> behavior as a matter of professional course and responsibility. I
> have long ago given up attempting to deal with that issue.
> It is only important that you have done this work correctly,
> and therefore successfully. Problems like this are "solved" at
> the family level -- not by large institutions.
> I tell you this so you may protect your own children. It is
> difficult for a parent to "enforce" something like this on their
> own children -- but I think they will "get the idea" in time.
> Eventually the child himself must get the idea if he is to
> retain clear distant vision through college.
> .
> Otis
> _____________________________________
> Dear Uncle,
> I've been a bit more diligent in the last couple of months
> using the plus and I've noticed an improvement in my distance
> vision.
> The point of telling you something you already know? Haley
> went for her 4-year-old check up at the MD and they checked her
> hearing and vision so I checked my vision too, on a 10 foot chart.
> Low and behold, my left eye was able to read the 20/15 line and my
> right eye, although not necessarily clear, was able to read the
> 20/20 line!
> Both together made the 20/15 line of course. As you know I
> don't check regularly so it was surprising that I'm back to that
> good.
> A nice surprise.
> Keith

> <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote
> > You are not involved in these
> > discusions.
> Then, like your other diatribes, this one belongs somewhere besides
> sci.med.vision.
Otis' comments are getting ad hominem. The issue concerning to whom Neil

> ... some of the participants cannot or will not get beyond the limitations of
> their own knowledge and understanding. Would this description fit you,
> by any chance?

> I mean no disrespect.

> Keith has great resolve on this issue -- no doub about
> it. He did not as anyone to do this for him. He
> decided his distant vision was "worth it" and
> worked the issue himself -- since
> he knew that the OD could not help him.
> (legal reasons -- again.)

> Otis> The word "credility" has significance. With whom?