Dear Academic honest friends,

Subject: Legal threats against the second-opinon as
expressed by engineers, scientists, and optomtrists.

I will post these ideas expressed by Donald Rehm,
when he expressed the idea that a negative
refractive state of the fundamental eye could
be PREVENTED.

Enjoy,

Otis

_____________________

    THE MYOPIA MYTH:  How To Prevent Nearsightedness

    LEGAL THREATS FROM EYE DOCTORS

    Date:  March 30, 1999

    Topic:  Legal threats from Craig Steinberg Optometrist and
Lawyer for Optometric Advocates Legal Group

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

4454 Van Nuys Blvd.
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403

    Email:  craig@visioncare.com

Craig's email of March 11, 1999:

From:  Craig Steinberg To:  IMPA

    Cc:optcomlist@optcom4.com

    Subject:  Your Myopia Myth website

    Dear Sir:    Please be advised that the information you are
disseminating through this web site, for the purposes of selling a
product and/or service, are in violation of the California
business and professions Code sections 17500 and 17508, and the
provisions of the Federal Trade Commission's section on false and
misleading advertising and, more specifically, their ban on
unsupported representations to the public.  Notwithstanding your
assertion that the Internet provides for the "true freedom of
speech,' such "freedom" is still limited to being truthful,
accurate, and not misleading.  Advertising that is not is NOT
protected by the 1st Amendment.

    Both the State of California and the FTC have made it a
crime, in California punishable by up to 1 year in jail, and a
civil cause of action for promulgating the type of information you
have published.  In particular, but not inclusively, the folowing
statements and/or inferences are not supported by generally
accepted medical principles:  "This child's vision is being
destroyed by her eye doctor." "Constant focusing on close objects
causes a pressure increase in the eye, resulting in an abnormal
elongation of the eye." "Unfortunately, the eye is capable of
continuing this lengthening process until it literally tears
itself apart!" The entire last paragraph on the page myopia2.htm.
"If distance or "minus power" glasses were being invented today,
they would not be permitted on the market except in rare cases
because their safety has never been proven."

    In reference to cataracts, macular degeneration, and
glaucoma, "However, these eye diseases, like most diseases, are
caused by poor health habits such as eating the wrong foods." In
reference to a patient's doctor, "The information you get is more
likely to be erroneous than correct.  Your doctor's main interest
is maximum income, not your health." This message is being sent to
you to give you an opportunity now to either present
substantiation of these claims and all the others you make,
including credible evidence that your "Myopter" is both safe and
effective, or to immediately withdraw the insupportable claims and
accusations and the sale of the Myopter, before suit is filed to
force its removal and recover damages and/or restitution as
permitted by law.

       +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Reply from Donald Rehm:

    It is interesting that optometrists even have a legal group
to defend what they do.  Since you have sent a copy to the Optcom
mailing list, I conclude that you have been asked to send me this
email full of threats and attempted intimidation by one or more
members of the Southern Council of Optometrists which maintains
this private mailing list at www.optcom.com.  I even received a
copy of an email to you from optometrist Cliff Courtenay of
Valdosta, GA with the words, "Thanks Craig, again!" Is he the
instigator of this attack?  Ironically, I tried to join that list
recently to establish a line of communication but when they found
out who I was, their initial welcome was quickly withdrawn.  Why
didn't you just ask me to provide more information about my
claims?  Wouldn't that have been the professional way?

    To tell the truth, I recently decided I could be more
effective by adopting a more professional stance.  Some changes
along that line have already been made to the website and more are
coming.  There are many ways of saying the same thing.    To appease
the skeptics, I have now added so many references that the site is
starting to look like a scientific journal.  This is not the kind
of thing the public likes to wade through but they will just have
to skip over what they don't want to read.  My book, The Myopia
Myth, contains several pages of such references but obviously many
people, apparently like yourself, don't care to read the book.
This is unfortunate because I can't put the entire book, with over
50 diagrams, on the Internet.

    You mention "generally accepted medical principles" as if
this is published in a book somewhere and has been shown to be the
absolute truth.  You know as well as everyone else that many
things that are generally accepted are erroneous, but it's
obviously easier to fall back on that old cliche' rather than
debate the issues.

    Let's look at the accusations in your letter.  You state that
it is erroneous to say that "constant focusing on close objects
causes a pressure increase in the eye, resulting in an abnormal
elongation of the eye." Are you really unaware of the vitreous
transducer studies that were done by Francis Young, PhD, while
Director of the Primate Research Center at Washington State
University?  You can refer to my revised website where I have
posted a reference to this research.  Briefly, he surgically
inserted a transmitter into the vitreous of monkeys and measured
up to a 50% increase in vitreous pressure during accommodation.
How can you be ignorant of such pioneering and significant
research?  I devote a full page of my book to this one study.

    You attack my claim that "the eye can continue this
lengthening until it literally tears itself apart." Have you never
heard of the retinal detachment that strikes high myopes
frequently?  Have you never heard the term "retinal TEAR"?  I have
added some clarification on my website about this also, but once
again, I am absolutely astonished at your ignorance.

    You also attack my claim that "the safety of minus glasses
has never been proven." I am sure that many people besides myself
would like you to cite the references to the research that proves
that minus lenses do not accelerate the movement into myopia when
used for close work and that they are therefore not harmful.  I
have certainly not heard of such research.

    But here is the statement that nearly knocked me out of my
chair.    You claim I am in error when I say that "eye diseases such
as cataract, glaucoma and macular degeneration are caused by poor
health habits such as eating the wrong foods." Are you really
unaware that millions of Americans are turning away from high-fat,
high-cholesterol foods because these have been shown to cause
atherosclerosis, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer and
many, many other diseases?

    There is no longer any disagreement among the leaders in this
kind of research.  Nathan Pritikin, who was (significantly) not a
doctor and who lived in your own state of California, was the
first to take this information to the public, in spite of strong
opposition from the medical establishment.  But such was his
success in using the media and informing the public that the
doctors were finally forced to acknowledge that he was right.  In
my own library I have books by Pritikin, Dean Ornish, John
McDougall, Julian Whitaker, Raymond Kurzweil, Norman Ford, and
more, all contributing to the now widespread public awareness of
this.

    Have you not even heard of the Framingham heart studies?  The
atherosclerotic clogging of our arteries is nearly universal in
our society and even begins in children a few years old.  The only
people immune to it would seem to be vegetarians or
near-vegetarians.  According to your analysis then, this
atherosclerosis which degrades the functioning of the entire body
somehow leaves the eyes alone.    I suggest you do a little reading
and see how many researchers are pointing their fingers at
diminished circulation to the eye as a major cause of macular
degeneration and other problems.  The term "age-related macular
degeneration" was created by people who either don't know the
facts or want the public to think this affliction is inevitable.
As I say repeatedly, the easy money is in treatment, not
prevention.  A more appropriate term would be "diet-related
macular degeneration."

    I suggest you visit www.eyesite.ca, the website of the
Canadian Ophthalmological Society where you will find the claim
that reading in dim light does not affect the progression of
myopia.  Why don't you fire off a letter threatening them with a
lawsuit if they do not remove this unfounded statement or provide
proof that it is true?    Or does it fall under your heading of
"accepted medical principles"?  Do you see what an obvious attempt
you are making to silence only those things you don't want the
public to hear?

    With regard to the Myopter, this device was put on the market
before the FDA started regulating devices.  It therefore enjoys
the same grandfather status as eyeglasses.  I have corresponded
with the FDA in the past and they have assured me that its
marketing is perfectly legal.  You express concern that the device
may not be "effective." How refreshing it would have been if you
had said, "This device sounds promising.  How can I help arrange
further testing?" But that isn't what this is about, is it?  I
suspect that your real concern (and the concern of those you are
fronting for) is that it IS effective.

    I suspect you see it as a long-term threat to business
profits and want it off the market.  In this regard, you will find
about four pages of case histories in my book which document how
the vision of young myopic children was IMPROVED with the device,
as shown by refractive, not subjective, measurements.  Once again,
if you had taken the time to do your homework, you might be more
credible.

    As a further indication of how the world is changing, the
very same information you find on my website, albeit without the
theatrics, has been published as "The Truth About Nearsightedness"
on pages 112 through 114 of the February/March, 1999 issue of the
Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, a highly respected
publication that is sent all over the world.  I have received many
phone calls thanking me for this article.  Isn't it curious that
Townsend doesn't share your frantic concern over publishing this
kind of document?  My attorneys have assured me that my current
website and all my other activities fully conform to the laws of
the land.

    If you persist in further threats and unfounded accusations
against me, tarnishing my reputation with rhetoric that is the
product of your personal fantasies with no basis in fact, I am
sure you will be hearing from them and get to know them
personally.

    For now, I will refrain from emailing this exchange of
letters to all the TV stations, radio stations, and newspapers in
your area of California.  I will also refrain from sending it to
everyone in your community with an email address.  But if you
choose to continue with these threats, my restraint will disappear
quickly.  I don't think you appreciate how the world has changed
with the Internet.  Truth can no longer be suppressed by those
with the most money.  It's a level playing field now and a whole
new world.  The fact that anyone can so easily shoot your entire
letter full of holes is not something you will want to spread
around.  I fail to find one solitary thing in your letter that
makes any sense.

    In recent months, I have been "testing the water," perhaps a
little antagonistically, to determine the best way to proceed in
this new era of information.  I have concluded that talking to eye
doctors who have already established themselves in the business
world is a waste of time.  The make-up of my new mailing list will
give you a clue of where I think important leadership can be
found.    I have gotten some good feedback from both optometric
students and faculty.  Our hope for the future is in teaching
these young people not only about Myopia Prevention but also about
ethics and their duty to aid, not exploit, the people they are
supposed to be serving.

    A separate course subject of Myopia Prevention is essential
to impress upon the students just how important this topic is to
their educations.  In the United States we are fortunate to have a
strong optometric tradition.  There are many dedicated and
concerned individuals on the optometric faculties, some of whom I
have met personally in past years.  Most other countries are not
so fortunate.  The MD's are king of the hill and they will go to
their graves fighting to defend the ridiculous hereditary theory
of acquired myopia.  Sadly, our optometric faculties are under
pressure from several directions not to do anything that will
threaten the status quo.  I wouldn't be surprised if they feel
their jobs depend on not straying too far from the dictated path.
Some of these pressures are:

1)   The optical companies contribute huge sums of money to pay for
    research, full-page ads in optometric journals, booths and
    other amenities at optometric conventions, etc.  They conduct
    a subtle, well-thought-out subversion of academic freedom.
    Just go to the above-mentioned www.optcom.com, click on
    "sponsors" and see the optical companies that give financial
    support to this site.  Click on the SECO link (Southern
    Educational Congress of Optometry) and see the long list of
    companies that are helping to pay for the "education" of
    these optometrists.  Go to www.opted.org, the website of
    ASCO, the Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry.
    Click on "Corporate Members" and look at the list of optical
    companies that are providing financial support.  No one wants
    to antagonize any of these companies.  This is what is called
    a "compromising situation."

2)   Optometric schools must conform to the dictates of the
    universities to which they may belong, universities which are
    themselves ruled to a great extent by big business.  Many
    university presidents spend a considerable amount of their
    time raising money in any way they can think of.  They can't
    afford to alienate any potential donors from the business
    world.  But who should have the responsibility of
    safeguarding the visual health of our children -- dedicated
    professionals who are taught the truth and how to apply it in
    an ethical fashion or those whose only concern is profits?

3)   Peer pressure comes from practicing optometrists who do not
    want anything taught that conflicts with their own view of
    the world and the sale of their products and services.  They
    don't want their customers asking questions.  They won't
    tolerate anyone claiming they are doing anything wrong.  In
    this respect, I note with interest your website at
    www.visioncare.com.  You sell optical products not just at
    your own place of business but to anyone you can attract to
    your website.  Imagine for a moment if MD's opened drug
    stores in their offices and sold to the public at a big
    markup the very drugs they had prescribed a few minutes
    before, increasing their income by so doing.

    I doubt that this would be legal, but even if it is, isn't it
highly unethical and a glaring conflict of interest?  Wouldn't it
promote overprescription and neglect of instruction in disease
prevention?  Aren't you and many others doing exactly the same
thing?    A doctor's office should be a place of learning -- a place
to learn about your problem, what causes it, and how to prevent it
or remove the cause.  It should not be a merchandise mart.

    I sympathize with those on the optometric faculties who are
unhappy with the present state of affairs but have been powerless
to change it.  However, now that the truth is getting out to the
public, I believe the attitude of these faculties should be,
"Change is inevitable.  If we do not change on our own initiative
and educate these students in basic Myopia Prevention and their
duty to the public, changes will be forced on us from outside in
ways we will come to regret.  Therefore, past restrictions on
academic freedom will no longer be tolerated."

    I have occasionally used the term "evil people" in some of my
writings.  I do not mean this in the religious sense.  I use it to
describe the people who don't care how much they hurt others as
long as they benefit personally.  Recently, the nation's tobacco
company presidents were testifying before Congress, stating that
tobacco was not addictive and that more research would be needed
before we could state that tobacco caused any health problems.    I
remember thinking that these guys were neat and clean-shaven and
dressed in gray business suits, but I was looking into the faces
of evil.  These people are no better than the lowest drug pusher
hanging around a schoolyard.  I see this kind of evil in nearly
every field of human endeavor, including the eye care business.
You are supporting this kind of behavior, whether you realize it
or not.  Most people are more concerned about a pimple on their
nose than about a famine in Africa that kills a million people.
Such is human nature.

    Your letter makes clear for the optometric students, in a
manner I couldn't do with my words alone, what a crude, vicious,
corrupt, money-hungry, cutthroat and incompetent business they
have chosen as their life's work, to be carried out under the
guise of professionalism.  The optometric students will learn more
about what they face in the real world by reading this exchange of
messages than from a year of classes.  To prevent themselves from
becoming a part of this disaster, they will have to examine their
consciences and rededicate themselves daily to the often-ignored
admonition, "First, do no harm." The optometrists out in the
business world have joined with the optical companies to
symbiotically feed at the trough of public ignorance and misery,
just like the MD's and the drug companies do.

    The optometric students of today should be working now on the
image they will present to the public and the website they will
use to help do this when they graduate.  A rare example of a
website created by a prevention-minded MD can be found at
www.drmcdougall.com.  I look forward eagerly to the day when I can
provide a link on my website to such a prevention-oriented website
created by a practicing optometrist.  That will be an event to
celebrate.  Who will be the person who will claim that place in
the history books?  I will personally award this plaque in honor
of the event:  "The International Myopia Prevention Assn.
Humanitarian Award, presented to xxxx, the first eye care
professional in the world to fully integrate the concept of Myopia
Prevention into his/her practice." Plaques with somewhat different
wording will also be awarded to those who follow this pioneer.

    If my optimism is misplaced, and I get no further positive
feedback from students and faculty that changes are being made, I
will have no choice but to give up on optometry, as I have given
up on ophthalmology.  I will then direct my full attention to
further educating the public and assisting in the malpractice
suits that will be unavoidable.  These suits will not be brought
by me; they will be brought by the victims.  Let's imagine for a
moment, Craig, using you as a convenient example, just how this
would be done.

    The attorneys would place full page ads in your local
newspapers, stating that a class action malpractice suit is being
prepared against optometrist Craig Steinberg for willfully
destroying the vision of children for the sake of profits.  Anyone
with a child who has obtained an eyeglass prescription from you is
invited to come forward to determine if they qualify to
participate.  Of course, the more plaintiffs, the more money for
the lawyers if they win.  Imagine how this will look to your
customers, family and friends.    Even if you win, you lose your
reputation.  Even if the plaintiffs lose, I win, because I have
that much more ammunition to use in my public education efforts.
This is not a pretty thought.  It is distasteful to me also, but
it may be inevitable.  And if the doctor's defense is going to be,
"I never learned these things in school," then the schools can be
made co-defendants.

    I suggest that you tell the reactionary individuals who have
gotten you to do their dirty work to speak for themselves in the
future so we know where to direct our fire and whose names to post
on the Internet.  I have a suggestion:    All of us who have
websites on vision care will link to each other.  I will say,
"Follow these links to see what the eye care establishment has to
say about myopia." You will say, "Here is another viewpoint you
should know about." That way the public will have access to the
full range of ideas.  Aren't they entitled to this before they
decide on the treatment they prefer?  I am quite willing to do
this.  How about you?  Craig, let me end this by saying I am
trying very hard not to say anything libelous here.  In fact, I
have cleared this whole thing with several attorneys.

    On their suggestion I hereby advise you that your email is
reproduced here under the fair use doctrine and everything in my
reply is my own opinion.  But you have made some serious
accusations against me.  You have accused me of both state and
federal criminal behavior.  You have threatened me with prison.
You have made these accusations in an email which is hardly a
private means of communication.  I have every right to defend
myself, and I can only do so by pointing out where you are wrong.
My response has been quite moderate compared to what it might have
been.  My reason for making this dispute public is to deter others
who may be thinking of attacking me also.  At least, they need to
get their facts straight.

    If they don't, they will be giving me reasons to initiate
legal action against them.  You can't go around making wild
accusations and threats like this just because you have a law
degree.  It wouldn't surprise me if you get a few emails from
people who read this and want you to know what they think about
your attempt to control what they read.  It may well be that you
are a decent person who has been mislead by others.  I will give
you the benefit of the doubt and assume so until you prove
otherwise.