Dear Larry,

Thanks for your commentary.  I forwarded your
remarks to people who have a strong interest in
prevention with the plus.

Re:  My statement to Steve Leung is that an OD can
only help his own child.  Further, Steve has incredible
personal fortitude to face this type of "abuse" that is
aimed at me.  I am willing to act as a "lightning rod"
for this abuse -- to protect Steve Leung -- iF
that were possible.

Those of you who have worked your way out of nearsighedness
-- know the truth of this difficult situation.

I have acted as a "stalking horse" for the ODs on
sci.med.vision.  If I receive this much abuse from "the system" --
imagine the effect on any OD who would work for the "cause" of
effective prevention with the plus.

Not a pretty picture.  If I were an optometrist I do not
think I could take this kind of abuse.  But I am an engineer.

But add in Raphaelson's statement about "The Printer's
Son", and you have to wonder if their can ever be
ANY progress.

At this time about 93 percent of the medical
students on Taiwan are myopic.  Does this
sound like "progress" or a grinding tradition
of the last 400 years?

But let me state the simple objective facts concerning
the natural eye's behavior.

1.  You place a minus lens on a populations of
eyes -- and the eyes wearing the minus lens
go down relative to the control group.

2.  You place that population of eyes in
a more-confined environment -- and the same
thing will occur.

These are simple scientific fact -- from
repeatable, objective experiments.  I do not
see how much simpler this truth could be.

But if you have an "independent mind" perhaps
you can develop a better understanding
of the issues involved in "preventive" work
with the plus.

You could gain a great deal from more
"advanced" thinking about the preventive
methods of the plus.


Best,


Otis