Dear Scientific Friends,

Here is Chapter 11, to show how the concept of the natural eye as a
proven dynamic system -- has been implemented.

Certainly prevention is not easy.  No one has ever said that.

But for the motivated student-of-science, it is indeed possible.

But, in addition, there are highly qualified optometrist who truly
recongize "the problem" and try to do what they can to prevent it.

Again, for FREE, here is the chapter.

Scientific freedom -- can become freedom from ENTERING into a negative
STATE of the fundamental eye.

Otis

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

Chapter 11

BUT DOES IT WORK?

Thinking is easy,
Acting is difficult,
and to put one's thoughts into action
is the most difficult thing in the world.

- Goethe

Men live by their routines;
and when these are called into question,
they lose all power of normal judgment.
They will listen to nothing save the echo of their own voices;
all else becomes dangerous thoughts.

- Harold Laski

EFFECTIVE RECOVERY AND PREVENTION

The previous chapters have demonstrated, by test, that the eye is
dynamic. The eye will change its focal state in a negative direction
if

placed in a confined environment, and will move in a positive
direction (although more slowly) if placed in an open environment. It
would be

difficult to believe in the opposite possibility concerning the eye's
behavior.

Logic, reason and science cannot prevail, until you look at the
situation yourself. You must decide that you are willing to make the

appropriate commitment to restore your vision to normal. You can
achieve what other students, pilots and engineers have accomplished
as

described in the following letters.

A PROFESSIONAL PILOT RETURNS HIS VISION TO 20/20
Brian Severson was in an engineering college when he began to get into
nearsightedness. In previous years Brian observed his brother become

seriously nearsighted when he used a negative lens. He had received no
information on prevention from the eye doctors he consulted. By his

own understanding and perseverance, and some conversations with me, he
returned his vision to normal as he describes in the following two

letters.

LETTER #1 FROM BRIAN SEVERSON

JULY 26,

    Hi!  I went out and bought a pair of +1.75 diopter reading
glasses, and two days later my vision improved from 20/70 - 20/80
to 20/50 at an exam today.  The Doctor wanted to sell me $500.00
worth of (Band-aid) lenses.  What a ripoff!

    Please rush me your book. I enjoyed talking to your wife.  I
will keep you posted on my improvements.  Someday when I get a
real job that pays more than $10,000/year I will call and chat
with you.

        Thanks again,

        Brian Severson

P.S.  I have a 1st class physical soon and need to improve my vision
     before then, or send $156 to my eye doctor for one replacement
     contact!

LETTER #2 FROM BRIAN SEVERSON

APRIL 10

    I'm sorry I have not taken the time to write or call you
until now.  On December 4, 1990, I passed a FAA 1st Class Physical
and, under much less than ideal conditions, read 20/15 on the eye
chart!

    Thank you for all you have done to help me.  I have at least
15 pilots and friends now wearing reading glasses.  I am
one-quarter through the rough draft on my vision book, and I am
slowly making progress.

    Is it still O.K.  for me to plagiarize (with credit, of
course) from your book?  If so, please reply in writing with
permission.

      Thanks & God bless,

      Brian Severson

YOU MUST TAKE CONTROL

From Jacob Raphaelson's experience with, "The Printer's Son", (Chapter
3), it has become clear that you must understand the bad results that

occur when you use the negative lens. More than this, Jacob's analysis
demonstrated that even a completely dedicated eye doctor can not

overcome the popular misconceptions that exists in the public's mind
about eye doctors and the use of the preventive lens.

I made a major effort to help my niece and nephew. They developed a
clear understanding of the problem of nearsightedness and the type or

solution that could be expected. I believe that providing them with a
"fighting chance" to defeat the problem is better than providing no

chance at all. Both used the plus lens and retained clear distant
vision without prescription lenses. They understood that it would
take

long-term commitment to achieve the desired result. I asked my nephew
to write a short note to describe his own effort and outcome as he

worked to maintain clear distant vision through college.

FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WEARING A PLUS LENS

Dear Uncle,          February 19

    Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid
Nearsightedness".  I got it yesterday after I came back from the
weekend.  I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I
have a great deal of school work to read.

    I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that
one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check
my eyes with the eye chart.  I am able to read the 20/20 line on
the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most
of the time now.  I have always passed the driver's license eye
test.

    I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I
read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total
reading I do.  I started using them as much as possible again
because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I
didn't check them on a chart).  I am lucky to have an uncle who
showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my
nearsightedness.

    One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and
then use or adapt methods to work for me.  In the last few years I
have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the
magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to
deteriorate.  Then I realize it's time to do something to stop
that process.

    At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I
know what it does for my vision.  Thanks for taking the time to
tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for
the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending
me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the
methods I am using.

         Keith B.

AN ENGINEER'S UNEXPECTED SUCCESS

Perhaps the most surprising and encouraging result to be achieved was
accomplished by accident. Because of my long-term experience with the

experimental data, I knew that recovery -- on the average -- would be
slow. Anyone who attempts to use the plus lens wants to succeed. It

makes sense to help people who have gotten into about 20/80. Any
improvement will get you to 20/50, which passes the FAA 3rd class
flying

license. Recovery, if you are worse than 20/100, is difficult but
possible. To present all the facts including surprising results, I
asked

Dennis to write a letter describing his efforts and ultimate result.

VISION RESTORATION: THE EFFECT THAT A POSITIVE LENS HAD ON MY DISTANT
VISION

Dennis Romich, July 21

My distance vision had been poor for many years. I had overheard Otis
Brown discussing nearsightedness, and his suggested technique for

restoring the myopic eye to normal. Without telling Otis, I decided to
attempt to use the plus lens, and see what would happen, since the

approach seemed reasonable and much safer than any other method.

I obtained a plus lens at a local store without a prescription. The
lens was a +1.5 diopter lens and is commonly sold as a reading glass
for

people who have lost their near vision.

I had become nearsighted in grade school and was prescribed minus
lenses which I dutifully wore all day long. As the years went by, my
vision

worsened, and the Doctor would prescribe stronger minus lens. My
distance vision without prescription lenses was very bad through high

school, college, and graduate school. The last professional check
(Ophthalmologist) showed that my prescription was -4.5 diopters (Right
eye)

and -4.25 diopters (Left eye). This is approximately 20/320 vision
using the Snellen eye chart. In some states, I would be classed as
legally

blind without my glasses.

As I wore the plus-lens and did not wear the minus lens, I noticed
that my distance vision began to clear. After several weeks, I
purchased

Otis' book, and checked my eyes against the eye chart. They were
20/30, which means I will pass the standard driver's license criteria
of

20/40 or better without prescription lenses.

Otis was surprised at this effect of the plus lens. He stated that
most individuals could return their vision from 20/70 to 20/20, but
he

felt that returning vision from 20/320 to 20/30 was hard to believe.
Since I have done it successfully, I have no doubt that other

individuals who have a similar problem could obtain similar results
using Otis' recommended method of vision restoration.

I am a registered professional engineer, and have a Master's degree in
both Engineering and Business Administration.

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.

An Excessive -10 D Prescription?

  Prescription by Dr. Bob Smyeth, Optometrist, Dated 8/5/95:

  Patient:  Shanna Brave, Birth Date, 3/2/82:

8/5/85   20/20    -10.0 RE -9.5 LE (Prescription)

In subsequent conversations with Jeanie, she stated that her nine year-
old son was just starting into nearsightedness, and that she would do

everything in her power to help her son with the proper use of the
plus lens -- to avoid the catastrophic situation that had developed
with

her daughter. Jeanie wondered why this knowledge is not made generally
available to the parents of young children.

---------------------------------------------------------------

YOUR MOTIVATION IS CRUCIAL IN ORDER TO DEFEAT MYOPIA

It is clear that an intelligent, motivated pilot or student can use
the plus lens for close work, check his eyes against the eye chart,
and

clear his vision back to normal.

What is the opinion of this situation within the eye profession?
Opinions vary, as shown in the following exchange in the Washington
Post

newspaper.

IS IT TRUE THAT THE EYE DOES NOT CHANGE ITS FOCAL STATE WHEN PLACED IN
A CONFINED ENVIRONMENT?

Myths About Problems With Poor Eyesight

[Special to the Washington Post, 9/11/91]

Dr. Jay Siwek

Q.
My family likes to watch TV at night with the rest of the room lights
off. But a friend told me that watching TV in the dark is harmful to

your eyes. Is this true?

A.
You can't harm your eyes by watching television in the dark. Neither
can you damage them by reading, working or studying in dim light.
Those

are some of the many myths about why eyesight deteriorates.

Another folk belief is that "using your eyes too much" will harm
vision. That's nonsense. Your eyes were made to see with and, barring
some

medical problem, they don't wear out from use.

Some people also believe that looking at objects close-up will impair
vision, especially if done for long periods of time.

Not true. Again, vision doesn't deteriorate from fine use. It's easy
to see how some of these myths came about.

In days past, before doctors knew about eye diseases like glaucoma,
cataracts and macular degeneration, people looked for some
explanation

whenever someone lost their vision.

Glaucoma is increased pressure in the eye, and cataracts are a
clouding of the lens of the eye. Macular degeneration is a condition
where the

center of the field of vision deteriorates.

Often, blindness or low vision was blamed on someone's work, such as
writing or reading by candlelight or on simply using one's eyes too

much.

Common eye diseases frequently struck people who did fine work with
their eyes,
leading to the belief that there was some connection between the two.
People tended to ignore the many examples of people who didn't
develop
any problem with their eyesight or of all the people who lost their
vision for no apparent reason.

As people age, they sometimes have trouble focusing on fine print
that's too close to their eyes, a condition called presbyopia.

But scientific studies don't show any link between the way you
ordinarily use your eyes and harming your vision. So, you and your
family

don't  have to worry about watching TV in the dark.

IS IT TRUE THAT THE EYE DOES CHANGE ITS FOCAL STATE WHEN PLACED IN A
CONFINED ENVIRONMENT?

The Health Profession's Response to "Problems With Poor Vision".

Dr. Robert Levy:

I must strongly disagree with at least one "myth" about poor vision
Dr. Jay Siwek mentions [Consultation, 9/11/91]. He says doing close
work

does not harm your eyes and then goes on to talk about three sight-
threatening diseases. While it is true that close work does not cause
the

kinds of blindness that glaucoma, cataracts and macular degeneration
do, such fine focusing for extended periods can cause nearsightedness,
a

far more common occurrence.

Day after day, year after year, I see patients who get more and more
nearsighted from doing close work, particularly if they have been

wearing a distance prescription while doing their close work. The
vicious cycle is that you read and do your homework, become
nearsighted,

get distance [negative lens] glasses and when you go back to read and
do your homework you become more nearsighted.

People who take their glasses off to read (if they can) or who wear
bifocals [plus lenses] to reduce the prescription for near focusing
show

a much slower progression into nearsightedness than those who read
with distance glasses on. One study of an Eskimo village being taught
to

read showed that after two generations of reading, virtually none of
the grandparents' generation needed distance glasses, about half of
the

parents' generation did and virtually all of the children's generation
did. This is the best example of reading and close work causing

nearsightedness.

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.

THE INTERNATIONAL MYOPIA PREVENTION ASSOCIATION

From, "THE MYOPIA MYTH", by Donald Rehm

In 1974 Donald Rehm established an organization to help parents
understand and take steps to help their children avoid myopia. He
prepared a

book that clarifies the various preventive methods available for
myopia -- and the reaction of most of the profession to his efforts.
Donald

describes his effort to persuade the profession to provide you with
exact knowledge of the eye so that you might capably choose between
these

mutually exclusive alternatives.

. . . Since the organizations in the eye care field were telling the
public nothing about the true cause of myopia, the idea of forming an

organization devoted solely to myopia began to seem more and more
necessary. The final decision about forming a myopia prevention

organization was made at the 1974 Annual Congress of the American
Optometric Association in Washington, D. C.

An important part of such meetings takes place on a large floor where
booths can be rented to exhibit optical goods, hand out literature,

etc. I rented a booth to give out literature on the latest research on
myopia and ways of preventing it. I found that the booth was for the

most part ignored by most of the optometrists, although an adjoining
booth, where the tinting of eyeglasses was being demonstrated, was

usually crowded.

It was obvious that the people to whom we must go with our vision
problems were more interested in tinting lenses than in saving sight.
They

were ignoring everything that had to do with myopia prevention. It was
quite clear that pleading with the members of the eye care
professions

to change their ways was not going to succeed. They would have to be
forced to change, and this would occur only after the public was well

informed about the real causes and solutions to the problem of
myopia.

In 1974, I therefore formed a nonprofit, tax-exempt Pennsylvania
corporation, the International Myopia Prevention Association. One of
the

first tasks I undertook was the publication of a twelve page booklet,
The Prevention of Acquired Myopia. This booklet, which was meant for

distribution to the public, contained information on the real cause of
myopia and what methods were available to prevent it. No booklet of

this type had ever been published previously. In the booklet, I also
stated the aims of the new organization:

To work for the widespread acceptance of the concept, now supported by
numerous studies and research, that acquired myopia is caused by

excessive close work and is not an inherited condition.

To inform the public, in an impartial manner, about the various
methods available for preventing and controlling myopia.

To promote periodic testing of the vision of children so that the
potential and beginning myopes can be found early when treatment is
most

effective.

To promote the use of proper reading habits and adequate lighting in
schools, homes and offices.

To maintain a register of eye care practitioners who are interested in
myopia prevention and skilled in its techniques. *

To assist the public in coming into contact with these practitioners.
*

To issue a periodic publication to provide a summary of activities and
new knowledge in this field.

To maintain an advisory board of scientists, researchers, educators,
optometrists and ophthalmologists who are involved with the myopia

problem and can advise on the activities of the association.

To solicit contributions to carry on educational and scientific
activities related to myopia prevention." *

As the formation of IMPA was announced in various optometric journals
(it was ignored by the medical journals), I began to receive letters

from doctors around the country expressing their interest in the new
organization. The response was greater than I had anticipated and

indicated clearly that there did exist an unfilled need for leadership
in the area. . .

* In a later publication Donald Rehm sadly concluded, "We no longer
try to maintain a list of prevention minded eye doctors since there
are

so few of them."

WHERE CAN I OBTAIN DONALD REHM'S BOOK?

[ N.B.  Donald's Books is on the net FOR FREE. OSB ]

The International Myopia Prevention Association
1054 Gravel Hill Road
Ligonier, PA 15658
http://www.myopia.org

Donald's book may be obtained by ordering it through the above
address. Please check his web site. Eyeglass wearers take note: The
book, "The

Myopia Myth -- The Truth About Nearsightedness and How To Prevent It",
will undermine all that you have been led to believe about

nearsightedness. Writing in matter-of- fact language and using some
fifty simple, clearly marked diagrams, Donald Rehm presents a

comprehensive over-view of just about everything you might want to
know about myopia: prevailing myths about the subject (propagated, in

large part, by your own eye doctor), real and fictitious causes of the
problem, proper and improper methods of treatment, and how to know if

your eye doctor is really helping you.

OTHER PUBLICATIONS

THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS by Thomas S. Kuhn Provides a
fundamental discussion of scientific principles, and the development
of

paradigms as they support the basis for accurate scientific research.

NEUROLOGICAL CONTROL SYSTEMS by Howard T. Milhorn Explains the
application of control theory to physiological systems.

INTRODUCTION TO PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS by J. P. C. Southhall Provides =
a purely optical theory concerning the eye. This is the standard text

book with a major part of the optics derived from a treatise by Herman
Helmholtz.

Beyond this point, your own ability to make a good judgment of the
situation must be your guiding light. No one should dictate what you

should or should not do. We can only assist you in understanding the
facts -- so that you may make a reasonable decision about what course
of
action best suits your own personal needs.