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