HOW CAN YOU BE SO IDIOTIC AND FASCIST?

Dear Prevention minded friends,

In an effort to discredit the concept that a populations
of eye's are dynamic, Jan-OD proceeds to MIS-QUOTE ME.

I have NEVER use the words:

"Cure"

"Therapy"

or any medical term.

So Jan's staement should read, "I think that the
concept that the natural eye is dyanamic ... should
be destoryed".

You "destroy" a concept IN SCIENCE by demonstrating
that a population of natural eye IS NOT DYNAMIC.

Jan will never allow this pure experiment to
take place -- because he knows full well the
concept of honest facts as the concern the
eye's proven behavior.

The intensity of Jan's bias, when talking about
the natural eye -- tested on an "input" versus
"output" is obvious.

Prevention is possile -- but not under the
"control" of Jan.

Further, if Jan sat on a OD review board
of ANOTHER OD advocating prevention with
the plus -- you can well imagine the
result.

No justice, and no accurate assessment,
as when as no preception of accruate
scientific facts.

This is indeed a "closed" society.
Don't kid yourself about that fact.

Best,

Otis

______________

Dear Friends,

Subject:  The bias of the traditional
minus-lens theory.

There are medical people who honestly
admit that they can only "react"
to a person AFTER he gets
slightly into nearsighedness -- by
"prescribing" a minus lens.
We all understand that situation.

The problem is Jan's hubris if
failing to recognize that the
approach can be intellectually
blind.

Here is a statement by a medical
doctor about "bad theories"
that eventually are replaced -- after
major damange is done.

Keep an open mind -- about the
biase that now exists about this
matter.

___________________

A REVIEW OF THE PAST APPROACH

We should all thoughtfully evaluate the unfortunate effect of using an
immediate and easy fix for the problem of nearsightedness. This
situation of a self-perpetuating mistake (produced by public need and
attitude) is sometimes recognized by the students of medicine. Dr.
Perri Klass said it this way in VITAL SIGNS:

"... Sometimes the awesome weight of medical knowledge is totally off
the beam. You have to practice medicine with that in mind, with the
knowledge that a hundred years or so along the road, they'll be telling
stories about the medical theories of today to get a laugh of the
medical students of 2085..."

And about medicines' confidence in its routines:

"... Or something so basic, so taken for granted, that no one has
gotten around to questioning it. Whatever it is, probably the medical
profession is collectively doing something really dumb and really
damaging, and doing it with complete good will and typical medical
self-confidence."

This applies to vision. The demand for negative lens use comes partly
from the public's demand for an instant solution, (and corresponding
reluctance to properly use a plus lens) and not from a scientific
assessment of the behavior characteristic of the normal eye.

______________

It is my fondest hope that ONE DAY,
optometrist will put their own
children into a plus (at the threshold)
and offer your children the same
opportunity -- on a "one time"
basis.

You would be given the opportunity
to review all these issues -- and
realize the consequences of jumping
to quickly inot a minus lens.

That would be a reasonable and
logical approach.

In fact, one OD is now offering that
approach -- before a minus lens is used.

www.myopiafree.org

Best,

Otis