Mr.  N. Brooks claims that the "preventive"
plus will "hurt your eyes".  For that reason he contacted my
nephew to inform his that a "plus" hurts his eyes.  In fact my
nephew used the plus to "clear" his distant vision (as required)
through college.  For you interest, here is the discussion.

    ____________

    Dear Keith,

    Subject:  Thinking for yourself.  Acting for yourself.

    Re:  Fundamental science -- not medicine.

    I think you did an excellent job protecting your distant
vision.

    You must look at the "quality" of the people who have done
this -- and I mean specifically Stirling Colgate who reached the
same conclusion that you did.

    Clearly Stirling did not earn a living "selling" the minus
lens -- and could not care less about it.  He wrote up his "story"
at the request of his wife Rosie to help his own children
understand and avoid this "undesired" situation.

    You are right about "medicine".  It sinks to the lowest
common denominator.  By that I mean that whatever is done -- must
produce and OBVIOUS result that is "seen" by the patient.  Most
people are "superficial", and so this "immediate" result meets all
medical needs.

    Almost NO ONE will listen to any "medical" person who
attempts to go beyond this point.  The remarks of River is
sufficient to shut down ANY MD or OD who attempts to go beyond the
"superficial" demand of the public.  This was the real "message"
of Dr.    Raphaelson -- and I learned it well.

    In the sense of pure science -- most of these issues are
resolved.  In the sence of "medicine", i.e., the superficial
public's demand for the "obvious" solution -- NONE OF THESE ISSUES
WILL EVER BE RESOLVED.

    You did it "right".  You heard this "second opinion",
monitored your distant vision -- saw it as blurry -- and realized
you had to "do it youself".

    I think that ONLY the person who has confidence in himself
can ever implement true-prevention.  And I mean:

1.  You physically saw your distant vision "blurry".

2.  You worked intensively with the plus and saw your vision clear
   to pass the DMV.

3.  You realized that you had to "repeat" this process as long as
   you were in a "reading" environment.

    That seems to be an "impossible" concept for most.  In fact
most people simply will not look at an eye-chart.  They seem to
want EXCLUSIVELY an OD to make all measurements -- like they are
physically incompetent or something.

    Once you have personally cleared your vision, it will be
impossible for an idiot like River to come along and tell you it
is "impossible" or that you are DECEIVING YOUSELF in some way!

    This is why I state that "medicine" can never accomplish this
task.  This should not "insult" medicine -- but tragically they
take it that way.  They simply can never deliever "prevention"
when you must see the results youself.

    You can delete the rest of this -- but I have added some
commentary.  (I also give up on the "sci.med.vision" news group.
They deserve the likes of River -- tragic to say so.

COMMENTARY:

Subject:  Re:  Brooks again

    Dear Keith,

    You are right.  Brooks is a psychopath.  I plan no further
communications with him.

    On the subject of being "forceful" in advocacy for
"prevention" I recognized that Dr.  Raphaelson was right.  You can
NEVER help a person -- until the person chooses to help himself.

    I would have liked to have "forceful" help in avoiding this
situation.  (But I understand "myself" and my own "failings" on
this issue.)

    My purpose was to make this issue clear -- and "empower" you
to think for yourself.

    The future is yours, and that is the most important part of
these discussions.

    Otie

_____________

    Subject:  Brooks again

    Uncle Otie,

    Just FYI and I don't plan to communicate with Brooks again.  A
note for you, I am actually happy to discuss plus lens use with
open minds but not this guy.

    Keith

Otis> I learned a long ago you can not "save" the great mass
     of humanity.  You can only "save" youself

*******************

River> I see it's a familial thing then, Keith.

Keith> Sure, why not.

River> As somebody who works, and is educated, in the field you say
      you are, I'm surprised by how quickly you establish cause
      and effect.

Keith> Quickly?  No.  It took probably two years at least for me
      to turn faith (in this case in my uncle's ideas)
      into a measurable cause and effect.  Over the years, my
      observations of my behavior and vision status, both
      objective and subjective, have served to strengthen my
      belief in his ideas.

[Comment:  Brilliant.  Obviously this "Brooks" will not hear
      anything you say.  You won -- and that is all that
      matters.  OSB]

River> I do situps every day.  I don't have cancer.  Situps, then,
      are preventing my cancer.

[Comment:  What a bone-head.  OSB]

Keith> Quite possibly sit ups do help to prevent cancer because it
      is physical activity but no one knows for sure.    There are
      credible theories that cancer has a greater environmental
      effect (carcinogens are just one known cause) than genetic
      effect but that's not the way medicine chooses to proceed
      with prevention.  Many times cause and effect through
      longitudinal studies require 20+ years to become valid.
      Framingham studies are about the only body studies like
      this.

[Comment:  I would add that the people working in "high noise"
      enviroments used to think that 120 dB noise produced no
      problems -- until they went stone-deaf 20 years later.
      It take real personal intelligence to understand
      "delayed effects" -- and Brooks is as superfical as they
      come.  OSB]

River> The problem is that your example is unscientific.  Touting
      your uncle's intervention is a logical fallacy (post hoc,
      ergo propter hoc).  ...    As it is, nobody can say with
      certainty what would have happened if you'd only worn a
      prescribed minus.  You may be completely confident, but you
      are equally likely to be completely wrong.

[Comment:  Scientific subject recommended to YOUR intelligence.
      It is clear that if you follow one path
      (over-prescription of a minus lens) you can not follow
      the other (clear distant vision when necessary -- keep
      distant vision clear for life.) The OD can argue that
      they are driven to do only what the "superfical" public
      will allow, and expects.  If they stated that truth --
      I COULD AGREE WITH THEM.  But I hope both of us are
      more intelligent than that.    But River is wrong on two
      points.  The Oakley-Young study which showed that the
      "plus" did not go "down", and the direct-primate
      studies, which leave no doubt about the behavior of the
      eye.  The scientific facts can only point you in the
      right direction.  The actual implementaion MUST BE your
      on interaction ane preception of those same scientific
      facts.  OSB]

Keith> First, I'm not touting his intervention.  You asked and I
      simply stated my belief based on my own experience.  Could
      I be wrong?  Sure, but I do know that wearing the plus will
      make my distance vision clearer and not wearing them shows
      a gradual decrease in distant vision and that "phenomenon"
      happens over weeks or months.  How do I know this?  I
      measure it.

[Comment:  That is the absolute and only way to do scientific (not
      medical work).  Accurate objective measurements are the
      ONLY way to do good science.  OSB]

Keith> How do I know that my measures are accurate?  I simply read
      an eye chart honestly.

[Comment:  Absolutly -- there is no other way.    OSB]

Keith> One aspect of sports medicine relative to this is with ACL
      knee surgeries in the mid 80s.  ACL rehab protocols were
      quite slow and less predictable.  The reason the protocols
      improved is that patients did NOT do what the docs told
      them to, they took off post-op braces quicker and started
      doing more daily activities sooner than they were supposed
      to.  The ones who did things they were NOT supposed to get
      better, and the orthopedic docs and physical therapists
      took note and changed protocols.

[Comment:  They escaped the medical "mind set".  In looking at
     your own eye chart -- and verifing results, you
     accomplished the same result.  In the same breath I will
     say you saved a hell of a lot of money ($300 for glasses
     every two years) and your long-term eye sight.  I know
     you were probably at 20/40 and 20/50 at times.  But by
     working at it you are now at 20/20.  Had you not been
     "empowered" the Oakley-Young study says you would be
     about -3 diopter or deeper, and at that point is would
     be impossible to get out of it.  An ounce of prevention
     -- saves a pound of "cure".  At -3 diopter a "cure" is
     not possible.  The situation is permanent.

River> Citing obesity, and other health-related issues as you have,
      you are relying upon controlled studies, properly
      performed, using the scientific method.

[Comment:  No I am separating "medical" issues from
     pure-scientific issues.  If a kid is "stuffing" himself
     with food then it becomes (Excess calories in = Obese
     kid out).  The person in "control" is NOT THE MEDICAL
     PERSON.  He has no control at all.  The same is true for
     the kid with his nose on the book for long hours -- and
     develops -1 diopter myopia.  The person "in control" is
     the kid -- and not the "medical doctor".  You must
     "change" the person's attitude who has the potential to
     "control" this situation himself -- by moving the "near"
     environment out to "infinity" with the plus.  No one can
     EVER prescribe this -- only the intelligent "kid" can
     control this.  The scientist can figure this out.  The
     "superfical" public will RUN to an OD for a minus-lens
     "solution".  River can not understand this rather
     obvious issue.  Tragic indeed.  OSB]

Keith> Maybe or not and does the information affect individual
      behavior?  Caffeine and alcohol were once said to have
      negative health effects but now they are thought to be at
      least harmless if not have (minimal) positive antioxidant
      properties.  How many billions of dollars are spent each
      year on health and fitness when the vast majority of people
      would need none of this information?  They simply need to
      get out and walk more and eat less.

Otis> While the plus requires considerable "body" intelligence, it
     also is on the order of "brushing your teeth", or other
     "preventive" measures.  How anyone can make this concept
     "difficult" is beyond me.  I do understand that initially
     the concept of "prevention" sounds strange -- until you get
     used to it.  OSB]

River> What you've succumbed to, and what bothers /true/
      scientists, is the continued, vociferous assertion of
      logical fallacies as truth.

[Comment:  You have to wonder about Brooks "true" scientist.  Is
     he the man who can "crank" a strong minus lens and put
     it on a kid -- and impress them in 15 minutes.  Is that
     it?  In this sweeping statement you must sweep /true/
     scientists off the table -- like Stirling Colgate and
     many others.    You must also "pretend" that a proceedure
     that works instantly, and impresses the superfical must
     be the ONLY true science.  This is yet another falicy of
     this man.  A lesson to be learned indeed.  OSB]

Keith> Succumbed to?  No, I've made a choice based on my
      observations.  A case study of one without referees, biases
      or not.

[Comment:  What you verified was the tip of the iceburg in
     science.  A great many things in science point to this
     result -- but you only believe it when you see it for
     yourself.  OSB]

Keith> True, you see logical fallacies.  There have been many
     great scientists who have been run out of town for strong
     disagreements with the norm.  The world was once flat, time
     was absolute, cooperation had nothing to do with
     competition, etcetera.

[Comment:  Brooks is "floating" in his own sea of logical fallicies --
and
     he is totally blind to almost all of them.  But you need
     to protect your own distant vision -- because no one
     else has any interest in it -- but you.  OSB]

Keith> Do I know what I know?  Yes.  Do you know what you know?
      Yes.  Individual perception is reality.    Measurable
      perception provides for strong belief.

[Comment:  When you verify your vision "clearing" on your eye
     chart -- that is indeed and OBJECTIVE measurement.  You
     are not going to "cheat" yourself.  When you tell others
     -- then your objective measurement always becomes a
     "subjective" measurement.  In engineering and science,
     we simply do not use the word "subjective".  OSB]

Brook> The doctors (and I) are trying diligently to get him to stop
      practicing bad medicine with neither credentials nor
      expertise.  He /is/ hurting people.

[Comment:  Here again Brooks jumps to a conclusion.  He should say
     "majority opinion doctors".  The "majority opinion"
     doctors do in fact support the concept of prevention at
     the threshold -- when it must be used to be effective.
     There is no resolution to this issue.  OSB]

[Comment:  I have been VERY SPECIFIC about this.  I do not
     "practice" medicine.  Indeed, the "medical" person has
     exactly the problem I stated.  The person himself must
     be "empowered" to take control -- or nothing effective
     can happen.  Given the Oakley-Young study, the results
     of NOT PREVENTING IT, is that your vision goes down by
     an AVERAGE of -1/2 diopter per year.    And Brooks is
     suggesting that weaing a minus lens IS NOT HURTING
     PEOPLE.  Brooks  has a strange "word" for the presumed
     "safety" of that minus lens.  If you had not used the
     plus as you did I have no doubt what would have happened
     to your distant vision -- permanently.  OSB]

Keith> Medicine has to do with relying on others to describe
      health status.  Scientific methodology has to do with
      finding out for oneself.  My uncle draws a distinct line to
      not practicing medicine.  I don't personally claim strict
      scientific study but rather measurable cause and effect.

[Comment:  Self-preservation is a strong motivation.  Science can
     only guide you.  Untimately the person who sees the
     results under HIS control it the person who BELIEVES in
     the results.    OSB]

River> The evidence is against your uncle (let me know if you have
      interest in reviewing it or, again, participate on the
      newsgroup).

[Comment:  I would suggest -- don't bother.  You have alread
     verified the behavior of the natural eye -- by clearing
     your distant vision in the manner that Stirling Colgate
     did it.  Why bother with anyone else -- particularly
     psycho-idiots like Brooks ?  OSB

River> I've challenged him on countless occasions to prove his
     hypothesis using more than chicken studies and anecdotes.
     He can't.

[Comment:  The Francis Young study is very clear as to the effect
     that the minus lens has on the fundamental eye.  The ODs
     come up ENDLESS excuses to IGNORE this result.  That is
     why the DIRECT primate studies are so important.  River
     says you must IGNORE this scientific research.  I
     suggest that you ignore Brooks .  OSB]

Keith> True - chickens and primates with some individual case
      studies.  I have no interest.

River> These are not the hallmarks of a scientific mind.  These are
      the delusions of a frustrated would-be pilot.

[Comment:  It depends on who is calling who "delusional".  The
     science is excellent -- and you have see the results
     yourself.  Who "needs" Brooks?  OSB]

Keith> That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  If you are
     concerned for my uncle's health then I thank you for your
     concern.    If you are looking for someone to provide any
     further information or discussion then I am not the person
     you are looking for and NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION IS
     NECESSARY.

[Comment:  Well said.  You can only be concerned with yourself and
     the people you love.    OSB]

Keith> I don't participate in idea exchange regarding the plus
     lens and don't plan to.  My interests lie elsewhere.  If you
     can find a "sure thing" with no side effects to get people
     to be more active and eat less then please let me know.
     Statistically people in the U.S.    are 60% overweight and
     about 30% clinically obese.  I hope for your sake you
     maintain good health practices because from my point of
     view, diabetes in the next 10-20 years will make discussion
     on eye refractive status seem novel.

[Comment:  A person in "medicine" must protect himself.  I
     understand THAT issue completely.  In fact, given this
     bizzare River , it is clear that ANY OD OR MD who would
     even ATTEMPT a conversation with you concerning
     prevention-with-plus would come under severe threat by
     River.  Further, given the superfical "mind" of the
     public, I a certain that ANY OD who attempted
     "prevention" would be driven out of the profession --
     pronto.  I suggest the following:

1.  The public is profoundly ignorant and none-motivated.

2.  Very few people put ANY VALUE on their distant vision.

3.  The minus is instantly effective.  On the threshold everyone
   "loves" the minus -- until they get stair-case myopia.  Only
   THEN do they "question", and by THEN it is to late.

4.  Prevention requires an "appreciation" of these political
   problems -- and explains why no OD can help you with
   prevention and why you have no choice but to take control
   and "do it youself under a scientific understanding of the
   eye's behavior.

    Because the OD wishes to DENY objective facts (primate
studies) he must necessarily insist that "environment has no
effect on the eye's refractive state.  Thus he can not even
DISCUSS forcing the child to keep his nose off the book.  The
result is that the parents have NO KNOWLEDGE of tht long-term
effect that action of the child will have on his distant vision.
Thus the parents (in ignorance) let the child do this in total
ignorance.

    Thus you have the "ignorant" public (the child) being
permitted to do this to his eyes, and the ODs quick-fixing the
child after the child's refractive state moves from plus to minus.

    This suggests that the ignorance of the public "drives" this
situation, and the OD is only SLIGHTLY less ignorant than the
public.

    I am certain you made an intelligent choice in the matter of
keeping your distant vision clear for life.

Otie