Author Topic: Why medical people will ALWAYS FAIL YOU. (Why I do it myself.)  (Read 1218 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Subject: Why I am skilled with my own Snellen.  Why I gave up on the N. E. I.   (With all due respect - but they are hopeless).

I have a friend in the N. E. I.  (National Eye Institute).  He tells me he has NO TIME for any prevention.  Perhaps I agree with him.  But he also knows that each person he puts into a minus lens - will lose his vision permanently.

We asked him, forcefully, to help us conduct a pure-prevention study (where the person is taught refractive measurements), and he simply declined any help at all.  (We know that PILOTS, who do check, go from 20/40 to 20/20 - refractive change of +1 diopter), but his obviously success - is not considered "medical" so it is totally ignored.

I object to this discarding of human vision.  If he does not have time to help me (at 20/40), and he knows I will lose my distant vision to that minus lens - then I realize that I MUST DO ALL PREVENTION MYSELF.

This type of prevention - is not medicine - for the simple reason that no one medical has interest in the subject.  I consider that tragic - but realizing that the N. E. I. will not help me - means that I must help myself and make both my own visual acuity measurements, and must teach myself how to measure my own refraction.

This is in shear self-defense - so that I will not lose my distant vision to that minus lens.

=======

Hi Allan,

The issue of "money", and being Altruistic, caused me a great deal of trouble -
since I was interested in pure scientific truth, and wish to avoid some
self-serving interests of an OD "in his office". I did find an optometrist to
told me that bitter scientific truth.

You are correct about that bad Snellen, but even worse was that bad (box-camera)
theory of 1865. It has not changed on whit in the last 150 years.
For Altruism, think of a father, who knows "enough" to know that the minus
(quick fix) is a profoundly bad idea. While he must use it on the "general
public", entering his office - you would think that he would know enough to
saver his own children's vision - for life. This way, no "money" is involved,
only education in pure science is involved.

You simply can not "teach" this to the general public, because

1) They have no interest.

2) They want the "doc" to fix their eyes, and give them no "non-sense" about succeful PREVENTION, by
wearing a plus for all close work and,

 3) The OD knows that you get NO IMMEDIATE effect from wearing a strong plus for all close work, when still reading the
20/40 line.

For the OD, "in his office" I have great sympathy. For pure science, I have even
greater respect - and say the OD has no interest in pure-science, which rejects
the 1865 theory.

If I could change just one word, it would be the word, "NEARSIGHTEDNESS", which
his tied to that failed 1865 theory.

The fundamental eye, is proven to be dynamic. (In pure science, and all in
optometry ignore pure-science proof.) I regret that truth - but that is the way
it is.

The OD in his office, does not want a discussion. I have had an medical doctor
(who I tried to get him to support a prevention study) tell me, that, "... he
does not have time for me, or pure-prevention, that his desk is full, and he
will not help..."

I agree with him, that no solution can be developed "in an office", with a kid
sitting their with 20/40 vision.

But, where the young man, is older, say 17 years, and will look at pure
scientific proof, (i.e., negative state of all natural eye), then I suggest that
this young man must be prepared to skip, or avoid that MD, who has no "time" for
pure-science, and the fact that intelligent self-checking your own Snellen, and
great long term resolve, can produce a change of about +3/4 diopters, in that
young man.

But - this is not medicine. It is a person who actually looks at proven science,
(all eyes are dynamic), and with long-term plus wear, (which ENDS that near
environment ) for 12 months, can produce that change, and return to 20/20.
You say "prove it". Or, "this never happens". Or, "it never happens in
medicine".

For pure science - the young man must look at pure science, and choose to accept
"skiping" the minus lens, (because he passes the DMV) and wear the plus (to get
rid of the effect of that near on his NATURAL EYES.
He can not bother with the OD and the OD's failed theory.
The OD will attempt to prevent the conduct of a scientific effort that could
succeed, because it would be final proof that the minus lens is the worst
solution, when you can still read the 20/40 line. The medical person will not
help - because he, "does not have time" to teach pure science.
I know how intense the resolve it takes to self-check your own success, by
actually looking at, and reading your home Snellen. It is always difficult to
resit, both the OD, and that impressive minus lens. But that is what you must do
- if you wish to get that +3/4 diotper change (when still reading the 20/40
line).

I will post the remark of a pilot, who I encouraged to reject the minus, and
wear a plus with total commitment. I do not ask, your "average citizen " to do
this - because he will never do it.

The correct solution is to provide that education to your own (older) children,
and determine if they have the motivation to do what pilots can do.
This subject is not medicine - it is about a person recognizing that he must
check his own Snellen, and look at science and facts that supports this ultimate
goal.

I do not think you can get out of much more that 20/40. But if you have the
strong insight and resolve to do it, then I think you can return your Snellen
from 20/40 to 20/20, in about one year. This is obviously totally out-of-scope
for an OD or MD.

It would not be "out of scope" for a parent deeply concerned with his own
child's personal, visual welfare. It is that long-term plus wear requirement -
that makes this science so difficult to understand.

For proof, I will post the remarks of a pilot to objectively returned his vision
to FAA normal (read the 20/20 line).

I always regret fighting pure-scientific issues with an "OD in his office" It is
all because prevention can not be part of optometry.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Why medical people will ALWAYS FAIL YOU. (Why I do it myself.)
« Reply #1 on: May 09, 2016, 07:21:39 AM »
Subject:  Why I believe it is necessary for us to measure our own refraction.  Here is an new approach to doing it correctly.

WILL EYE DOCTORS BECOME OBSOLETE?

Barry Santini is a New York State licensed optician based in Seaford, N.Y

Of course not. But refraction as we know it is rapidly being redefined for the 21st century.

Sure, conventionally done refraction will still exist, but probably only in the emerging category of concierge medicine.

In the future, refraction will be benchmarked to the only standard that all the parties’ involved—healthcare professionals,
politicians, insurers and citizens— will agree upon is the one we can afford.

Online refraction will be treated as sufficiently adequate and its values will be considered no less accurate than the values
we accept now.

Today, eye exam frequency is dictated in large part by insurance coverage.

As human vision always remains fluid, people will begin to seek out refraction when and where they want it, and at a cost they find acceptable.

With new online testing modalities promising to improve subjective precision, increased patient confidence and trust is sure to follow.
As far as online refraction goes, the question is not whether it would or could happen. It is when.

« Last Edit: May 09, 2016, 07:25:51 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline EugeneS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 38
    • Club Kozak
Re: Why medical people will ALWAYS FAIL YOU. (Why I do it myself.)
« Reply #2 on: May 09, 2016, 11:16:43 AM »
I wish I had this information when I was yonger  :(