Dear Friends,
Subject: Legal disclaimer -- posted my site.
Similar statement in my book, "How
to Avoid Nearsightedness"
Re: For your information.
Legal Notes on, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness" and
your choice about using the preventive method.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER 1
Let me recite my personal disclaimer. Because I am not
medically trained and because I am averse to the prospect of being
sued for giving advice (medical or otherwise), I am stating
emphatically that everything written here ("How to Avoid
Nearsightedness", including all related pages on this site) is
nothing more than my personal opinion and experience. If you are
interested in reading about that experience, I invite you to
continue reading. If you want a medical opinion or advice, you
should contact a medical professional.
If something I write seems to be advice, you should re-read
this paragraph and understand that I am only using literary
license to convey my experiences and opinions. I offer you NO
ADVICE and I do not recommend to anyone that they should subscribe
to any treatment for any condition without proper medical advice,
EVEN IF I TELL YOU THAT I AVOID SOME MEDICAL ADVICE OR TREATMENT
FOR MYSELF.
I take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for my health. You should
take personal responsibility for your health (not my advice - just
my opinion). It is up to you to decide if medical professionals
and the medical industry, the food industry and others act in your
best interest or not. It is up to you to decide, if after reading
my experiences, how and whether to address any health issues
including those related to your vision.
otisbrown@pa.net - 23 Aug 2005 15:38 GMT
Legal disclaimer from:
www.myopiafree.com
LEGAL DISCLAIMER 2
"How to Avoid Nearsightedness", is an educational tool that
can assist you in accurately understanding the eye's proven
dynamic behavior.
Our book is not intended to be a medical text, nor does it
substitute for medical diagnosis or treatment of eye disease by an
ophthalmologist. The techniques developed for prevention are
derived from the concept presented in the book and is considered
to be the second opinion. This second opinion is based on proven
scientific facts as they concern the dynamic behavior of the
natural and fundamental eye.
It is the reader's sole responsibility to determine the
suitability of this book's advocacy for his use. Once you make up
your own mind to use the preventive method, you should then find
an OD who will support you in your major effort -- based on your
own best judgment. There are ODs who are now helping their own
children in the use of the plus lens for prevention. That is the
type of "open minded" OD you need.
This site is dedicated to your own personal interest and your
own goal in life -- where you assume complete technical and legal
control over your own eyes.
You must understand the intended purpose of this site and
assume all risks and liabilities resulting from your actions.
I can tell you personally that I wish I had been offered the
preventive method advocated here. I acknowledged that the method
is difficult and requires your own understanding. I wish I had
been offered this alternative -- when I was at the threshold. I
believe that the method would have been effective at that point.
Because of the advocacy of Dr. Jacob Raphaelson, I realized
that the person (you) must play a very strong role in prevention.
If the effort is neglected or ignored at that point (by you) then
nearsightedness can not be prevented. In the future you will find
some ODs who will help you -- once you personally make the
decision to use the plus for prevention. The very nature of these
scientific arguments assumes that you have both the knowledge and
motivation to take a large if not total responsibility to carry
out the preventive work successfully.
Mike Tyner - 23 Aug 2005 15:57 GMT
> If the effort is neglected or ignored at that point (by you) then
> nearsightedness can not be prevented. In the future you will find
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> motivation to take a large if not total responsibility to carry
> out the preventive work successfully.
In other words, if kids get nearsighted, it isn't your fault, but theirs,
and their parents'.
Don't you wonder how many of those parents bought the "See Clearly" kit?
-MT
Neil Brooks - 23 Aug 2005 16:00 GMT
>Dear Friends,
>
>Subject: Legal disclaimer -- posted my site.
> Similar statement in my book, "How
> to Avoid Nearsightedness"
Are you willing to add something to the effect of
"All properly conducted clinical trials testing my plus lens
hypothesis show that it is either ineffective or actually increases
myopia?"
otisbrown@pa.net - 23 Aug 2005 17:28 GMT
Dear Neil,
What I suggest is that the perons read Dr. Francis Young's study
that showed that a properly-fitted plus (group) showed a "down"
rate of approx zero diopters per year, and the single
minus group showed a "down" rate of -1/2 diopter per years -- for
the several years of the study.
I would then say that this is the "second-opinion" and that
other studies perhaps do not show this.
But the individual must understand that the issues is no
no sense settled, but virtually all agree that this sends
a strong message about this issue of true-prevention.
It either must be used on the threshold -- or not at
all.
In effect, once you "start" with the minus, you can
expect to see your child go "down" by -1/2 diopter per
year (average) with some going down at -1 diopter per year.
It is something to consider before you start wearing a
minus lens prescribed to achieve 20/10 vision for
a young child.
But I do agree that this is a difficult choice for a parent
to make.
Best,
Otis
Neil Brooks - 23 Aug 2005 18:06 GMT
>Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>But I do agree that this is a difficult choice for a parent
>to make.
I'm sorry, but I don't see where you answered my question. Please let
me repeat:
Are you willing to add something to the effect of
"All properly conducted clinical trials testing my plus lens
hypothesis show that it is either ineffective or actually increases
myopia?"