Author Topic: An Ophthalmologist who attempted to speak the truth.  (Read 752 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
An Ophthalmologist who attempted to speak the truth.
« on: January 04, 2015, 05:10:22 PM »
Subject: Why do other ophthalmologists refuse to listen to scientific truth - as presented by a second-opinion medical expert?

I do not know if Dr. Viikari was correct (about plus-prevention) but I do know that the other MDs, denied her the right to speak properly - and review the concept in a sincere, thoughtful manner. 

I am here for scientific freedom of speech - not to "attack" doctors.  It is this mindless attitude that I find difficult to deal with.

That is NOT how you solve problems in science.  This is the true, 'arrogant' attitude towards a new idea.  You don't believe me, then read the response by the, "Harrump" medical doctors - yourself.

It is impossible to "reason" with such doctors.  They are protecting a crude quick-fix method (the minus lens) because it is so easy to use in an office.

But the same attitude prevents, rational mathematical analysis, and a proper review of existing facts that contradict existing practice.

This is a review of Dr. Kaisu's presentation -- by a medical group:


The first questioner to rise had no questions at all, but simply denounced her lecture.

Dr. Kaisu>  [page 11] The date of my lecture was 10 March 1973. . . . after I had finished, the first one to ask for the floor was Arvo Oksala, a Professor from Turku. From his seat in the middle of same minded group, he stood up with a heavy heart to say how he saw the issue of pseudo-myopia as a "matter of belief" and did not consider the lecture worthy of discussion. He found it regrettable that a book like this had ever been written.


This is the tragic story of medical arrogance, and resulting ignorance. It is a tragic mix of authority and protecting the status-quo. I protest about this mindless denial of the "right to speak", and the right to be offered a preventive, either/or choice when I can still read the 20/40 line.

Her concept needs more scientific exposure.  But to insist that all who "write books" on prevention, should not be published, and he "regrets it" -- is the real problem for scientific research. 

This is why Todd Becker had to do "pure prevention" completely on his own.  Prevention (of a slight negative state) is proven in science and mathematics, not by a group of antique MDs, attempting to "Harrumpt",  and "Poppycock", potential prevention out of existence.

Please enjoy the article.

« Last Edit: January 04, 2015, 05:21:46 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: An Ophthalmologist who attempted to speak the truth.
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2015, 07:25:00 AM »
Issue:  Too many people want to, "jump into a solution", with out understanding the problem.

What do we think of "internal" medical arguments?

We think that these issues are not, "our concern".  In fact, the "objectors" are put-down and denied, for suggesting that plus-prevention is possible.  (The argument against this OD, is that  there is, "no proof", that the natural eye is dynamic.  He was effectively "shut up" by his own optometric association.

(This is truly a "closed society" - that will never help you with prevention.  I have essentially concluded that I can not be a "patient", and only with wisdom, and intentional, and long-term motivation, can I keep my vision at 20/30 or far better.  Even the BEST, OD "objector", still can no help me.  So I must teach myself how to measure both my refractive STATE, and visual acuity.  I know the OD want to help me - but they can not.  It is too difficult for them.)

I would read, again, the remarks against Dr. Brumer on the U. of Melbourne, letter.  (In fact final proof exists - showing that the eye is dynamic.)  But all proof is ignored, if it would "disturb" the OD in his office.  Science if far greater than that concern.  But do not ask a OD to "fight for your welfare", they will be drummed out of optometry, if they speak the truth.

I am friends with Dr. Brumer.  But I still say - if you wish to prevent, (and change your refractive STATE by +1.5 diotpers), get your own Snellen, and "test lenses" and do it yourself.  If Dr. Brumer had received a FAIR HEARING, I would not say, "do it yourself".   This OD organization is "intellectually corrupt" to the core - for the denial of Dr. Brumer.

I post here - because he did his best.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2015, 07:52:06 PM by OtisBrown »