In case you wonder what Babbling Brooks is Blathering
about ... here it tis...

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

Dear Alex, and prevention-minded friends,

Subject: How AVOIDING entry into scurvy -- was achieved!

Re: The elements of the problem are very similar -- to
AVOIDING entry into nearsightedness.

The formulation of a problem is often far more essential
than its solution, which may be a matter of mathematical
or experimental skill. To raise new questions,
new possibilities, to regard old problems from a
new angle, requires creative imagination and marks
real advances in science.

- Albert Einstein

Since I am familiar with this story -- the means and method
are comparable to PREVENTING entry into a negative refractive
STATE for the eye.

When voyages began to extend beyond three months, a small
percentage of sailors got bleeding gums and other "heath"
problems. When the sailors went around the world, with voyages of
2 to 3 years, scurvy would run from 30 percent to 40 percent, with
30 percent dying of scurvy related issues. This was from 1530's

No one knew what to do. The symptoms were treated -- but it
was a big mystery.

I would suggest that this type of problem is not "open" to an
absolute blind study.

In the 1750, a Captain James Cook, became very concerned. He
"read the literature", but could come to no absolute conclusion.
But he formed to very strong judgments:

1. Be clean: He forced the ship to be clean in every respect,
down to the bilge. The sailors hated the idea.

2. He insisted that the OFFICERS eat sauerkraut -- and denied it
to the seaman -- at first.

3. He insisted that the sailors eat fresh food, meats (when
available), and would stop to collect any fresh food that
was available. The sailors HATED the idea.

4. The crew had been fed preserved foods (SALTED pork and the
like). The crew loved there "preserved" food -- and hated
all the fresh food.

5. Eventually when the crew saw their experts (the officers)
eating sauerkraut -- they learned to eat it also.

The result of ALL these efforts by James Cook, was that while
some of the crew died of accidents, no one got scurvy -- on a
three year voyage.

Now, was this "proof"? Not according to the "medical"
definition -- where the entire world must be a "blind study" --
(RCCT) before ANY RESULTS are "accepted".

It is this intellectually BLIND insistence (by medical
people) on ALWAYS a blind study for SCIENCE TRUTH -- that drives
me up the wall. Call it "medical truth" but please NEVER call it
"scientific truth". Science NEVER requires a "blind study".

Even with Cook's "proof", the rest of the British navy would
not take PREVENTION seriously. I think it took another 50 years
before these results were accepted by that Navy.

So, Alex, to further enhance your comments:

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

Alex> Like the sailors who "spontaneously" recovered from scurvy.

Otis> Obviously it was not "spontaneous". It took the wise mind
and judgment (and support) to make scurvy-prevention
effective. And the proof was STATISTICAL, i.e., rate from
30 percent to 1 percent. It STILL took another 50 years
before the rest of the Navy "woke up" to the idea of
scurvy-prevention. I think the same will be true of
PREVENTING a negative refractive STATE of the natural eye.
It is the PUBLIC that needs to be flogged to wear that plus
for reading -- if you get my "drift".

Alex> Oh, by the way it turns out they just happened to be eating
lemons.

Otis> And the people with great force-of-character are looking at
their Snellen -- and clearing them, under THEIR own WISE
control.

Otis> That is wise. Can we "prove" it?? No, because they
personally had to look at the facts themselves, and
understand that they will NEVER get any help with
prevention -- from people like Dr. Judy.

Otis> Some things you can not do "by yourself". But preventing a
negative refractive STATE for your eyes -- is an item where
there is no choice -- if you take your distant vision
seriously.

Alex> Maybe we should look into that?

Otis> That is indeed why your are doing far more than the National
Eye Institute is EVER going to do about it.

Otis> But the REAL ISSUE is the public's rejection of the
preventive method at the threshold. And that is an
INTELLECTUAL issue the person himself must over-come.

Otis> The problem is that we attempt to FORCE the OD to be
responsible for it -- when in fact we are PERSONALLY
responsible for it.

Otis> Now if we could only understand that issue correctly.

Otis> Does 88 percent myopic entering Hong Kong university mean
anything to us? Did 30 percent death rate from scurvy mean
anything to anyone -- for 200 years?

Otis

+++++++++