Dear Mike T.,

Subject:  Resistance of the public to use of the plus
for prevention.

Since Raphaelson identified "the public’s" resistance
to using the plus — as "the problem", the issue
becomes more of personal decison and motivation.

Here is an example of a young man who
was -1.5 diopters OD-confirmed and
20/60.

Following T. Grosvenor’s advice, (and
Stirlirling Colgate, he cleared his vision
to 20/20.  It took him 9 months to do it.

I am CERTAIN that no OD could EVER prescribe
this type of effort, and as you
say the FTC, the NIH, the NEI, your
OD boards and the public would get
"on your case" if you ever attempted
to provide "advice" of this nature.

But as always, please enjoy this
pleasant academic discussion.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

Dear Jon,

Subject:  Success is sweet.

(My hand is better — sorry for the delay.)

You have a rare quality — you think for yourself.

Even more rare — you were willing to work very hard with a
plus and a Snellen, to verify your vision-clearing results.

You represent about one percent of the population.

Early-on I stated that judgment would depend completely on
your "quality mind".  That remains the case.

Most people lack the motivation to do any of this work.  They
are "passive" people.  They want "some one else" to do their
"thinking" for them.

Equally, many just want the results of that that impressive minus
lens.

If fact, optometry works with the "lowest" common
denominator.  (With due respect — but that is the problem.  If fact,
most people will "fight" prevetion advocacy — if made by an
optometrist.  Equally, other optometrists insist that the concept
of prevention with the plus, "…must be destroyed. JAN-OD")  In
practice that means that neither your intelligence nor motivation
is respected.  For true-prevention both qualities are essential.

I think Raphaelson described this sitution accurately in,
"The Printer’s Son".  It  made a major impression ON ME.

I also sent you several (military) versions of the fact that the
natural
eye goes "down" about -1.3 diopters in four years at college.
That should be a "warning" to all pilots who "think" on entering a
four year college.

You already know how to handle this sitution — simply
monitor your distant vison — and use the plus — as needed.  Not
easy, perhaps, but a wise engineer-scientists will take it
seriously — and do it!

More commentary:

From:  Jon

To:  <otisbr…@pa.net>

Subject:  Back on track

Date:  Tuesday, January 11, 2005 4:46 PM

Dear otis

Jon > I have good news, my vision returned to 4/5 charecters on
the 20/20 line this afternoon.  I’m back on track!

Otis> Excellent.  Your have that rare quality of persistance in
the face of adversity.

Jon > I was talking to someone knew that I hadn’t seen in about 8
months from the other school.  And she said that she got
glasses for distance.  I went on and on for about 20 minutes
on the issue and asked her if she wanted to use the plus
lens – she thougth i was crazy, not suprising.

Otis> I get the same reaction to most of the people I talk to.
That is the reason I restrict my "advocacy" to only a pilot
who MIGHT have the motivation to do this work "correctly".

Jon > She told me she didn’t mind wearing glasses – it would have
been just as well to talk to a wall for 20 minutes.

Otis> Once a person makes that decison (after offered the
preventive approach) there would be no reason to make any
further effort with that person.        If she develops "stair
case" myopia — well who is to blame?

Jon > I hate the way that people just assume, and trust their eye
doctors.

Otis> That is a tragic situation.  Steve Leung is making that
first step — with people on the "threshold".  He will get
the same reaction Raphaelson got 100 years ago — in "The
Printer’s Son".

Jon > She told me that her OD told her to wear the glasses ALL THE
TIME,

Otis> Of all the BAD advice — that is the worst!

Jon > ..so i told her only wear them when you need them.  I’m
guessing that went in one ear and out the other.

Otis> I am certain of that truth.

Jon > Why are people are so blind,

Otis> It is a sad truth — but they are.

Jon> …it’s a shame.

Otis> As long as they are offered the "preventive" approach — and
forcefully turn it down — then it is no longer the
responsiblity of the OD — it is THEIR responsibility.

Jon > If anyone argues with me and says that there is no way to
cure nearsightedness, I will know that they are stupid and
blind and I am right.

Otis> Yes you are.  But don’t bother "pushing" it.  Just thank the
quality of your mind that you could do this work
successfully.  99.9 percent of the population are profoundly
hostile to this preventive approach and there is NOTHING you
or I can do about it.

Jon > It feels great to beat the "system"

Otis> You should say it feels great to function on and
intellectual-scientific level.  But yes — you beat this
"sad system".

Best,

Otis

Jon