Optometry - a "Point-of-Sale" BUSINESS.

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  There were some very wise optometrists that I talked to...

But it is very difficult, when you have a minus lens you can sell - to "be professional" and talk about self-responsibility.  There is tremendous PRESSURE, when you haev a person sitting in a chair (and the person is ignorant of how he self-induced negative status) to then IMPRESS him with a minus lens. Here is the commentary by Blue-OD.

... because none of them have been shown to work!!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11874738

Read and think.  Think about the concepts of myopia prevention described by the sceintific literature and by expert researchers in the field.  Not wing-nuts and axe-grinders who think there is a conspiracy between eye doctors and optical companies to "hook" people on glasses!  I guess the chinese are even more hooked than those of european descent because their myopia rate is 3x the european/american rate.  Must be the evil communist party, right Otis?
+++++

There is no possibility of a rational discussion of prevention with this type of OD. This is why I have my own Snellen, and trial-lens kit.  I will post my response shortly.

[OtisBrown]

Subject: Why an OD - set up to impress you INSTANTLY with a minus lens - will
NOT discuss plus-prevention with you.

The issue is NOT MONEY. But it is the person himself - who MUST teach himself
that a person in his office (tragically) can not help you - until you are wise
enough to HELP YOURSELF.

Here is explicit reason as stated by Rapahelson.

This CONVINCED me - that I had to be wise, get my own Snellen and make certain I
always passed the required line under MY control. If I don't do that - I lose
my distant vision PERMANENTLY.

I don't "discredit" any OD. I just recognize the need for personal widsom to
do prevention myself.

++++

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)

++++++

The evidence, over the last 100 year, has shown that Raphaelson was correct.

But the "public" has a honstile attitude towards this preventive step.

Only the wise - will be successful - and any OD can not conduct prevention for
you.

I will now post the ENDLESS PERSONAL INSULTS I receive from these "Point of Sale" - ODs.

[OtisBrown]

Subject: Why you have no choice - but to conduct prevention YOURSELF.

I finally realized that the ONLY possibility for true-success, was the parent who himself worked on true-prevention, and helped his own children understand the concept - and the child HAD to 1) Sit up 2) Read through a +2 to +3 and 3) Monitor his own Snellen to make certain that no "excessive OD" ever prescribed for that child.  Nearsightedness (in its early stage) is always self-induced (from science and fact).  But unless the individual will take educated responsibility - it is hard for me to understand how a "medical person" could do anything about it - for the reasons you state.  Here is my friendly supportive commentary:

++++
Dr. Nate:

I think there are 3 barriers to hormesis really taking off in the medical field.

1.  Reimbursement doesn't support it (meaning it doesn't fit the current business model of medicine-and I don't expect that to change as medicine becomes more socialized.

Otis>  The real problem is the person who can not understand and properly use the plus when he is still at 20/50.  Our recent efforts to help "Zane" prove that point.  Zane was in "fear" of the plus - as he stated.  There is no way that anyone, scientists, engineer, or medical doctor, could help Zane.  This is not even about "money" - it is about the intelligence and self-motivation of the person himself.

2.  Patients don't expect it.

Only a very "deep" education of the person himself - could convince the person to 1) Monitor his Snellen, and 2) On his own, and by his own self-interest, begin wearing a strong plus as his Snellen goes down past 20/30 to 20/40.  This removes the word "patient" from our discussion.  To much intelligence and self-interest is involved to "treat" a person with a plus. But Nate, in your learning - you can help your three children with this preventive process.  Other ODs and MDs have helped THEIR children - even as they realize there is no way you can help the "general public".  Prevention is ALWAYS PERSONAL.

3.  Patients often times don't want it.

Otis> That is totally correct. Unless "educated", they will always prefer the minus lens.  That "education" is indeed difficult - and can not be done is a "doctors office".  I am not a "mind reader" - so I never know what any person might want.  The only exception is a pilot at 20/40, who MUST get to 20/20, in about six months.  I think I would get THAT person's attention - and he would do what is truly necessary.


Nate MD>  Currently I am a pathologist, which means that I don't treat patients at all, so this is somewhat academic.  But previously, I was a family doctor.  Although I wasn't aware of all the aspects of hormesis that you have brought out, I did know that type 2 diabetes could be quite effectively treated with aggressive modification of diet and exercise.  But very few of my patients would actually do it (I can't actually think of any).  Also, since starting this eye therapy program, I have told many people about it.  Lots have told me that they think it is great, but very few have tried it themselves.  Most say that they just aren't disciplined enough.  Contact lenses are an instantaneous and fairly good solution, and most people seem happy with that-after all, they did work for me for about 30 years.

Otis> The N.E.I should just state this clearly.  We know that a child who "just" gets down to 20/40 (about -1/2 diopter) will continue DOWN by -1/2 diopter per year, for each year in high school - unless the plus is started at that 20/40 level.  Thus even given my high level of interest, that "rate" must be understood by any parent interested in prevention.  If the minus is even "started" - it only makes matters far worse.  Then you have the problem of "reversing" something that NEEDED TO BE PREVENTED at the -1 diopter level.

Otis> The question is - who should provide that level of scientific information.

Best,

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  How does a person get "beyond" the point-of-sale problem??

We all must "make a living".  I do it as an engineer, and get paid for it.  By my training and experience - I EXPECT TO GET PAID - IN THIS "PRACTICAL WORLD". 

So why do I "object" to an OD doing it to the "ignorant, not-motivated public"?  After all, it is not the OD's job to explain to you HOW to prevent, when prevention can only "work" to about 20/40 to 20/60. 

Dr. Nate had explained some of the problem.  I long ago understood that it was my personal "habit" as a child that induced negative status for my natural-and-normal eyes.

So how do we "break" this impasse?   Todd managed to resolve the issue - by following Brian Severson's advice, until he was successful.

People like Jacob Raphaelson, also INTUITIVELY "figured out" that the plus had to be intensively and systematically worn, if it was to be successful.  But this was because Dr. Raphaelson was  a father of three children, and realized that the ONLY help these children could get - had to come from a dedicated FATHER, and that no OD could provide the type of continuous support that will be necessary, for prevention.

I truly don't think any OD or MD can help with prevention - for the above reasons.  But if an MD or OD is a father, and sees his child with "nose on page", he can pry the child's nose off the page.  With further wisdom and motivation, he can get the child to sit up, and always read through a plus - if the child gets down-to 20/40.

But it will take a dedicated father to do this.  I think that is the only way this terrible situation can change - in favor of prevention by the family.

[OtisBrown]

Subject: Why you must get past the "OD and his point-of-sale business".

Here is the reason ( and I understand why the OD - in his office ) will say that they will NEVER help you with the plus at 20/40, and -1.0 D.

Dr. Jacob Raphaelson realized that a negative STATE of the natural eye was always "self-induced", and this status could be prevented - if the "plus" were started at the 20/40 to 20/60 level.  Here is the commentary of "Official ODs theology" about how and educated parent and child MIGHT respond:

+++++

Raphaelson's statements and questions:

The first interview occurred in 1936.

At that time I had made a school survey on how close children bring their eyes to their work when they are reading, writing or drawing.  I had reported my findings to the professor.

He had advised me to see Dr. Wingate Todd of the Brush Foundation at Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio.  This I had done.

Now, on this second interview, I told the professor that my conclusions were that every child who enters school should be given a pair of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a dual purpose.

First, it would prevent the eyes from becoming myopic (near-sighted), and second, it would save the children a lot of nerve energy in doing near-work.  He answered me by saying that, although he might agree with me in theory, he did not agree that it would be practical. 

“It would not be practical for the simple reason that the parents wouldn’t stand for it.”

For this reason I am writing this book mainly for the parents, and, as much as possible, in the language of parents.  I am trying to enlighten the parents and to inform them that the road the medical and optical professions have taken in regard to spectacles and their relation to vision and health is the wrong road.

+++++
It is not that I am "attacking" a point-of-sale person.  But it is true that, unless the person has an excellent education about the PROVEN adverse effect a minus has on all natural eyes - he will not take plus-prevention SERIOUSLY - when it must be used.

There are people who argue with me, and tell me that they want to go to a "DOCTOR" who will then presumably recommend that the person (child) begin wearing a strong plus at 20/40 - to get to a NORMAL positive refractive STATE, and therefore 20/20.

It should be obvious - to the most stubborn of us - that this is never going to happen.  It should be clear as to WHY this will never happen.

This is why the few lucky people, who manage to figure this out, teach themselves the wise use of the plus, and SLOWLY get their Snellen clear to pass the required DMV test.

I am not "against" the point-of-sale person.  I just value my distant vision to  realize WHY they can not help me with true-prevention.

Otis

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  I finally realized this:

Regarding:  Many a truth - is said in jest.

I agree with you. I have friends who are ODs, and they do the BEST THEY CAN. The minus "works", and that is it. The OD is indeed between a "rock and a hard place". They must do, "pay back" the $100,000 for under-graduate, and the $150,000 loan for OD college.

Now they are indeed a "prisoner" of this incredibly expensive system.

Today, I do my own "vision checking", and just keep my vision at 20/20 myself - using a simplified trial-lens set, and a Snellen chart.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYCo_fzXjjo

++++++

Knowing all of the above (This humerous - about the OD, and about the depth of ignorance of the "public")  - I realize that prevention is impossible for anyone (patient or doctor) in an office.

I refuse to call myself a "patient".  I am an intelligent person, and with proper instruction, and strong resolve I could slowly get my refraction to change by 1.0 diopter ( clear from 20/40 to 20/20 ).  Just don't fall into the conception that ANY OD can ever help you.

Enjoy,

[OtisBrown]

Subject:  It costs $250,000 for the above disgruntled optometrist - to do what?

Regarding:  I must provide myself the "education" to do "refraction" myself - because I have no other choice.

I did not pay that amount - to be "qualified".  But what does this OD do? 

He puts me in a "chair", and holds a minus or plus lens in front of my face, and decided if that "clears my Snellen". 

What is so complicated that I must go to an OD - to have him do that for me - when I can do it for myself? 

The OD is totally committed to "paying off" that $250K debt.  I sympathize with him - but  he does not have any interest in *my* long-term visual welfare.  His profession is NEVER prevention - is it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7cU-0onSvI

This is finally why I do this myself.  The OD will also tell me I am not "legally" qualified to do this myself.   Yet he will tell me that "all prevention is impossible - because of science.

But his profession is NEVER about successful prevention. 

There is nothing in his life - that concerns *my* desire to protect *my* vision for life.  It might require dedication an persistence to wear the "plus" correctly - but as long as I pass the DMV (and much better) I never have to deal with an OD in his office.

Further, if I ever DID let my Snellen go down to 20/40, I would get a "minus one" from Zennioptical.com and use it as necessary - until I got my Snellen to exceed the 20/40 line.  I hope I had the intelligence and will-power to accomplish that goal myself. 

I just must be smart enough to figure this out.