And there you go, Uncle Otie: a perfect opportunity to have your case
heard by a willing audience of eye care professionals.

Or would you rather just sit back and launch falsehoods, accusations,
lies, myths, accusations, and faulty logic from behind your keyboard??

For your information:

In fact papers have been submitted -- AND REJECTED -- concerning
the second-opinion, that a negative refractive STATE of
the fundamental eye can be prevented.

Dr. Maurice Brumer did exactly that, but since his
concept was HATED, his analysis was rejected.

Here is part of his review.  I doubt that these people
have the GUTS to begin a discussion along these
lines.

Been there -- done that.

+++++++++

A COURAGEOUS EYE DOCTOR DOCUMENTS THE SECONDARY EFFECT OF USING A
NEGATIVE LENS

EYESTRAIN - ITS CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND TREATMENT

By Dr. Maurice Brumer, Frankston, 3199, Australia

. . . A succession of practicing optometrists have followed Fournet [a
pioneer in the use of the plus lens] to this day, all convinced of
this major shortcoming [use of a negative lens] in eye care. They have
all been successfully ignored or treated as cranks and heretics, and
the issue has remained at this level for 90 years. The clarion cry of
the eye care professions has been "show us proof of the relationship
of eyestrain and eye disease". I will now demonstrate that no shortage
of this proof exists.

At the 1973 annual meeting of the American Academy of Optometry, a
paper entitled, "Bifocal Control of Myopia", was presented by Francis
Young, Director of the Primate Research Center at Washington State
University, and Kenneth Oakley, an ophthalmologist from Bend, Oregon.
Their study found that the effects of properly fitted bifocals (eye
strain reducing glasses) on young myopes are to drop the rate of
progression of this condition from an average of about one half a
diopter per year to about on fortieth of a diopter per year. This
study involved control and experimental subjects who were matched for
age, sex, initial refractive error and duration of wearing bifocals so
that most of the possible causes of failure to achieve results with
bifocals were controlled.

THE BIFOCAL (PLUS LENS) STUDY

There was a significant number of subjects, 226 in the bifocal group
and 192 in the control group, to assure that the results were
consistent and effective over time. The effect of the bifocal was
uniformly to reduce the rate of progression even in children who had
already achieved as much as 4 or 5 diopters of myopia before they were
fitted with bifocals. In other words, the control group moved into
myopia at a rate 20 times faster than the bifocal (plus lens) group.
The implications of such results are obvious and sinister when it is
considered that myopia is the third largest cause of blindness in
western society.

SERIOUS COMPLICATIONS DEVELOP FROM USING A MINUS LENS

The visual disability in high myopia is usually considerable. I am
including this description of the condition as felt by its victims so
that you may put yourself in their situation:

Apart from the visual incapacity, the high myope is not usually
comfortable in the use of his eyes. When corrected, the small, sharply
defined and bright images are annoying; much use of the eyes brings
about a feeling of strain and fatigue. The degenerated and liquefied
vitreous gives rise to a multitude of "muscae volitantes" and floating
opacities, and these, throwing abnormally large images upon the retina
owing to its backward displacement, cause a great deal of distress and
anxiety to the patient although their actual significance is small.
Most of these patients are naturally anxious. Their disability is
obvious and may have excited sympathy. The memory of admonitions to
care for the eyes lingers into adult life. Thus matters tend to
progress slowly and relentlessly, the patient all the while never
using his eyes with comfort or without anxiety until finally no useful
vision may remain or until the occurrence of a sudden calamity such as
a gross macular lesion, a hemorrhage of a retinal detachment brings
about a more dramatic crisis. (I thank Sir Stewart Duke-Elder for this
description).

The complications of myopia are numerous and grave, frequently
resulting in blindness. The degenerative changes appear typically in
adult life after the myopia has been fully established for some
years.

The complications are:

Choroidal thrombosis and hemorrhage.

Vitreous opacity, always present in some degree in high myopia, this
condition may suddenly increase to become a serious complication.

Retinal detachment is the most dreaded and one of the most common
complications of myopia, occurring with considerable frequency in  all
degrees of the defect but showing a progressively greater tendency,
the higher the myopia.

Simple glaucoma is a further complication of high myopia, occurring
in the higher degrees after mid-life.

THESE PROBLEMS COULD HAVE BEEN PREVENTED

Few of these people faced with the prospect of blindness in old age
realize that their problems actually began in childhood when they were
fitted with their first pair of corrective [negative] lenses by
someone who was probably unconcerned about the tragic, long-term
results of that action. Few of these people realize how their
situation became more precarious each time their glasses were
strengthened and nothing was said about prevention. Now, when it is
too late for prevention, they find themselves in the hands of surgeons
who are making their living from someone else's mistakes by trying to
patch up steadily deteriorating retinas. The patient has become a
lifelong victim of ignorance and exploitation.

THE EYE CHANGES FROM A POSITIVE STATE TO A NEGATIVE STATE AS A RESULT
OF CLOSE WORK

The cause of myopia is further clearly indicated in a study of 1200
Eskimos in Barrow, Alaska, published in the American Journal of
Optometry in September, 1969, which showed that in one generation of
the Eskimo population had moved from no myopia to approximately 65%
myopia among the offspring, and that neither the grandparents nor
parents over 40 had any myopia.

Thus the first generation between grandparents and parents was similar
in that myopia was nonexistent, but in the second generation between
the parents and their children, suddenly myopia occurs in a
surprisingly high number of children. As a matter of fact, of 53
offspring who were in their early 20's, 88% had myopia. Such a sudden
and great degree of change cannot readily be accounted for on the
basis of heredity, especially when there has been no identifiable
force which could have brought about this obviously considerable
mutation in the genetic composition of the offspring.

The obvious difference between the parents and the children is the
amount of near work which is currently being done by the children.
About the time of the second World War, the white man intruded into
their lives, requiring the development of education among a population
which was uneducated and illiterate. The Eskimo has become an avid
reader because of his environment. While he spends a great deal of
time out-of-doors in the warmer, daylight summer months, he spends
relatively little time out- of-doors in the cold, dark winter months.

A MASSIVE BODY OF EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE EYE CHANGES ITS FOCAL STATE
TO MATCH ITS VISUAL ENVIRONMENT

In presenting these studies, I would emphasize that these represent
only a small (even if spectacular) part of the evidence available
today which demonstrates the blindness and suffering caused by present-
day eye care. While continuing to ignore a massive body of evidence,
the eye care professions continue to ask to be shown proof that myopia
results from excessive close work and that the prescription of
corrective lenses causes the myopia to increase more rapidly that it
otherwise should. It is assumed from the start that the burden of
proof is on us and that we are expected to raise money and conduct
endless studies that will somehow convince everyone that we are right.
In many cases, this is like trying to convince a tobacco company
executive that smoking causes lung cancer. No amount of testing will
convince those people who prefer to believe what pleases them most or
what is more lucrative to them. . . .

[Dr. Brumer reviewed an exchange of letters with a Dr. Lender (a
university optometrist) concerning disagreement about the fundamental
behavior characteristic of the eye under experimental test
conditions.]

. . . These letters represent a desperate attempt to cover up a tragic
and horrible situation. They mislead the public and, significantly,
the parliament of my country. They have been unsuccessful in their
purpose, however, and the question now lies on notice in the
parliament in Canberra to the Minister of Health for Dr. Klugman
(opposition spokesman for health) asking him to appoint an inquiry
into the matters I have raised.

THE EYE PROFESSION RESISTS CHANGE -- TO YOUR DETRIMENT

The eye care professions have resisted change irrationally and
fearfully, unwilling to admit that what has gone on before [the use of
a negative lens] has been wrong and harmful, and by doing so they have
unleashed on the public they serve a cataract of horror. This
continued situation is a tragedy for the public and a disgrace for
optometry. While it is understandable that optometrists will not find
it easy to admit that what they have been doing is wrong and harmful,
especially for those academic university optometrists responsible for
the education of our graduates, to preserve the current horrors to
protect our professional prestige and privilege is an abdication of
our responsibilities, ethics and morality. I can make no apology for
causing embarrassment to my professional colleagues. The interests of
the public are paramount and must be served. The purpose of this paper
is to direct the future to end the disgrace of the past.

REMARKS ON DR. MAURICE BRUMER'S PAPER

Dr. Brumer had previously been denied permission to present his paper
at the August, 1977 Australian and New Zealand Association for the
Advancement of Science (ANZAAS) Congress because it was too critical
of the prevailing method of eye care. The above paper is of interest
because of Dr. Maurice Brumer's scientific and ethical commitment to:

Coming to grips with nearsightedness. (i.e., The fundamental  behavior
characteristic of the eye.)
The reaction of other members of his profession. (Extremely  critical
-- without clear scientific justification.)
The reaction of the public to Dr. Brumer's effort to come to grips
with the situation. (Nonexistent -- because the public was not clearly
informed.)
The fact that this understanding (that the plus lens works) existed
in 1977, and since then, nothing further has been done to provide
pilots with the high quality information they need so that they can
take  the steps that are necessary to preserve their distant vision
for life.

++++++++

On Jul 4, 3:09 pm, Jennifer Staple <Jennifer.Sta...@aya.yale.edu>
wrote:

And of course, a good topic would be the habit
of over-prescribing a child by -4 diopters.

And how to handle the mother who "complains"
after the -4 diopter over-prescription is detected.

Well that is easy, just tell her:

1.  She had a muscle spasm.

2.  She will get "used to it".

3.  Etc.

But you asked for confirmation for this
poor child.  So here it is.

Let this symposium discuss this topic -- by
second-opinion ODs.

++++++++++

COMMENTARY FROM A CONCERNED MOTHER ABOUT THE NEED TO DO YOUR OWN
CHECKING WITH AN EYE CHART
AN EXCESSIVELY STRONG PRESCRIPTION?

HOW OFTEN DOES THIS HAPPEN, AND WHAT IS THE LONG-TERM EFFECT AND
CONSEQUENCE?

I have retyped this letter from the original and changed the names.
Jeanie's daughter started out (at age six) with 20/50. She received a
strong minus lens -- even though 20/50 is acceptable for most
children. After years of receiving minus lenses stronger than
necessary, she received a lens increase from -6.0 to -10.0 diopters.
Jeanie's suspicion and response is described in the following
paragraphs.

JEANIE BRAVE'S LETTER:

Here are copies of my daughter's eye records and
prescriptions. You will never know how grateful I am for you and
Mr.  Severson. When I stop and think of what could have happened
to Shanna had I not found you -- my blood starts to boil.  I have
come to realize that people never question eye doctors as they do
medical doctors.  We are all at their mercy and do not even know
it.  You have my permission to give my telephone number to anyone
who you feel needs it.

A CHECK-UP BEFORE SCHOOL

Shanna received the new contacts on August 5.  She puts in
-10.0 Diopter and is able to see -- she says one mile down the
road.  I immediately told her to take them out.  After begging my
optometrist to please give me information to stabilize her vision,
he becomes EXTREMELY UPSET.

I then went to the libraries and book
stores looking for information but I found only William Bates'
name.  I then ordered his book.  Next I found Mr.  Severson and
finally you in the back of his book.  After reading your books I
immediately knew I had the wrong optometrist -- so I nicely asked
his assistance in obtaining a -6 Diopter lens for studying.

The doctor reluctantly gave them to Shanna, telling us to use them for
STUDYING ONLY. I then confirmed the focal status of Shanna's
eye's, by assisting her in checking her vision against the eye
chart -- both inside and outside.

8/26/95   20/20   -8.0 RE -7.5 LE

8/26/95   20/100  -6.0 RE -6.0 LE (Provided for reading)

8/31/95   20/40   -6.0 RE -6.0 LE

9/26/95   20/20   -6.0 RE -6.0 LE (See the -10.0 D prescription below)

    Since she was seeing so well on 9/26/95, I told her to remove
her contacts and then come back outside.  Without ANYTHING on she
stood 20 feet away and could focus on the 20/70 and 20/50 line for
about 2 or 3 seconds -- then she said it would flash or float
away.

On Jul 4, 3:09 pm, Jennifer Staple <Jennifer.Sta...@aya.yale.edu>
wrote:

Otis>  Here is Neil DBG Brooks original post -- to which
I typed in these responses:

<Jennifer.Sta...@aya.yale.edu> wrote:

And there you go, Uncle Otie: a perfect opportunity to have your case
heard by a willing audience of eye care professionals.

Or would you rather just sit back and launch falsehoods, accusations,
lies, myths, accusations, and faulty logic from behind your
keyboard??

Neil Brooks

=====================

On Jul 4, 3:09 pm, Jennifer Staple <Jennifer.Sta...@aya.yale.edu>
wrote: