The minus works because it neutralizes the ametropia and restores
normal visual acuity.  Plus lenses have not been shown to work as
promoted by the leader of the Fringe Group, Otis-engineer.  He knows he
cannot provide any statistically-validated proof, and when prodded,
lashes out with strawman arguments and quickly changes the subject.  He
will never confront the issues straight-on.  He is as evasive and
slippery as an eel, having carefully crafted his arguments over
DECADES.  This also means that the kernel of his ideas are DECADES OLD.
He refuses to join the 21st century.  He is a 19th century man.

He also wastes an inordinate amount of band-width with his ridiculously
long-winded diatribes and allergories.  On second thought, maybe it's
his therapy.

DrG

Dear second-opinion (preventive) friends,

Subject:  How and Why the PUBLIC rejects plus-prevention

    The minus is quick-and-obvious.  The plus is not.

    Therefore the "minus" always "sells" and the plus does not.

    This explains why it must be the PARENTS who "wake up" to
plus-prevention.  If not, we only create stair-case myopia for
ourselves -- buy rejecting the plus a the threshold -- when it
MUST BE USED to be truly effective in keeping your distant vision
clear for life.

    It is necessary to understand this issue clearly.    You must
figure out how to do this "preventive" work youself -- or become
victim of that over-prescribed minus.

    No M.O.  OD can help you with plus-prevention.  And it is a
waste of time to even argue about it.

    Never forget this story -- it is the truth of this tragic
situation.  You can not transfer "responsibility" to anyone other
than youself -- if you desire effective prevention
with the plus.

    Best,

    Otis

    ++++++++

    WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?

    With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's
behavior, you would think that the insightful and motivated
optometrist or ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and
effective method of solution.  Dr.  Jacob Raphaelson did exactly
that in the following example -- with the following result:

    THE PRINTER'S SON

    "It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge
meeting.  She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in
school.  I gave her my card and told her to bring him to my office
and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles.

    "She said that she had no money at the time and that her
husband was a printer working in another city.    She did not expect
him home for the next six weeks.  I told her all this would not
matter, that she should bring the boy over and I would fit him
with a pair of spectacles.  I told her that she could pay for them
when her husband returned home.

    "She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes.  I found
that his vision for distance was poor.    It was less than 20/40.  I
made him a pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles.  She was to pay
me when her husband came back home.

    "In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to
me.  She stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting
the glasses.  He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints,
far and near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his
naked eyes.  In fact, she said, the boy could see even better
without the glasses than with them.

    "I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery
that quickly.  I could hardly believe this story.  I persuaded the
mother to bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could
really see well with his naked eyes.  She again brought the boy in
and I checked his vision.  I found that the father was indeed
right.    The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

    "I was in a dilemma.  I did not have the nerve to say
anything to the mother.  I just let her go.  How was I to prove
that the boy had poor vision before he received his glasses?  And
who would believe that vision could be restored by just wearing a
pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks?

    "My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn
tendency for exploration.  It gave me an incentive to try to do
special work on children's eyes and on vision restoration.  It
also enticed me to investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I
was myself nearsighted.

    "On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be
cautious in doing such work.  For selling spectacles to persons
who, supposedly, did not need them was almost a crime.    And the
fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a medical
doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy
person who might need or be under medical attention, was, and is
now, and encroachment on the medical profession.

    "To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I
took the following precautions:  First, I quit using the title
'doctor' in any form, in print or verbally.  I was to be known as
a spectacle fitter and nothing more.  Second, I charged a
reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for
any special work or relief I gave.  I did not advertise about this
special work.  I just did it as a matter of routine whenever or
wherever I was given the opportunity.

    "Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the
relationship of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and
health.  I have kept it up, and will continue to do this work as
long as I continue to have the incentive and capability.

    "Who would believe it?  Who would believe that by just
wearing a pair of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that
normal vision to the naked eye could be restored to children whose
eyes have a negative focal state?  This was true in 1904, and it
is also true now, in this decade of 1950." (It continues to be
true in this decade of 1990 -- Otis Brown)

    SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION

    With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a
profound and adverse effect, you would think that it should be
possible to develop scientific verification for this
characteristic of the normal eye.  You would be correct.  The
testing and verification is impeccable -- if we restrict our
attention to the normal eye's behavior.

    ++++++++++++++

    Remember this:

    If the PARENTS had put their son in a "plus" and verified his
vision-clearing from 20/50 to 20/20 -- they MIGHT have been
convinced.  But since the PARENTS did not make the measurements --
they were CONVINCED that Jake was "cheating" them -- by clearing
their kid's vision back to 20/20.

    This why no OD can help with true-prevention.  DO NOT EXPECT
ANYTHING OF THEM.

    The effect of Raphaelson's staement -- was the recognition
that if any "preventing" was to be done, then:

1.  I must recognize that if I "want" true-prevention -- I
   MUST DO IT MYSELF -- UNDER MY OWN CONTROL.

2.  The M.O.  Optometrist satisfies MOST PEOPLE becase MOST
   PEOPLE have no interest in their distant vision AT ALL!  If you
   EVER attempt to help them UNDERSTAND plus-prevention -- they get
   VERY ANGRY at you -- for attempting to help them with PREVENTION.

3.  Some issues like this MUST BE DECIDED BY THE PERSON
   HIMSELF.

    +++++++++++++++

    If the above is UNDERSTOOD, and the person is not "too deep",
(i.e., not yet BELOW 20/70 on the Snellen, and not DEPENDENT on
that minus) then a certain degree of vision-clearing is possible.

    But he must understand the issue of self-motiviation, and
have a rather intense desire to clear his vision under HIS
CONTROL.

    There is no "easy" way about this.  Just knowledge and common
sense -- and a realization of the fact that these M.O.    OD are
destructive of you long-term vision.  No intentionally, as the
above will SUGGEST, but destructive none the less.

    The real question is what you PERSONALLY are going to do
about it.

    AceMan -- this issues will be for your own children.  As you know,
some engineer-parents WISELY put their own children into a
preventive plus (with refractive state close to zero).  But it was
the PARENT and NOT THE OD who had the wisdom and
good sense to help his own children with true-prevention.
It the long run, the discussions on sci.med.vision will not matter
excessively.  What WILL MATTER, is the type of preventive
support you choose to use for your own children.

Success favors the PREPARED MIND.

    Best,

    Otis