Author Topic: Epilogue.  (Read 2544 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
« on: March 29, 2013, 06:48:00 AM »
Subject:  Successful people: Providing and example and leadership.

I want to thank everyone who participated in these discussions, Peter, John, Steven, Todd, and others.  If I were "understanding" this issue of true-prevention (at 20/40), I would probably make the judgment that "prevention" is "worse than the disease.  It take a long-term education to make the choice to begin wearing the "plus" at 20/40 - and to continue to wear the plus - when your Snellen goes below 20/40.

I will post some remarks by and about people who have been able to over-come their fear of wearing the plus "correctly", when they saw their distant vision, "get blurry out-there".  This is truly a personal solution, since if you have the insight to re-dedicate yourself to wearing the plus - you never go seriously below 20/40, and never ever START wearing a minus - that I consider the true "killer" of long-term vision.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Epilogue.
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2013, 06:59:14 AM »
Here is a discussion of this issue.

Some ODs are highly supportive. Others are grotesquely hostile.

Finally, I just gave up on ODs - and told my nephew how to conduct his own plus-prevention prevention - personally.

I also found out that even ODs and MDs help their own children in this manner.  Of course the real issue is that successful people NEVER BECOME MYOPIC.

These remarks reflect Todd's attitude towards physical health - like keeping your "weight" under control.  This is the type of intellectual self-discipline that is required for prevention.  If you let your "weight go", you get keep on getting fatter and fatter.

If you can not inspire yourself to wearing the plus at the critical 20/40 level - your distant vision just keeps on going down, and down and down.


From my nephew Keith – who wore the plus when necessary - from age 14 through college.

Can't remember if I told you about the show "The Weight of the Nation" an HBO online documentary style presentation about how lack of discipline will kill this country's quality of life health care funding. It's four parts each over an hour.

I've watched the first two and, unlike eyes where there is almost no second opinions of plus lens use offered, being out of shape an overweight is well known but people totally ignore what is most cost effective, eat less and exercise more, and what is very well understood.

It just reminds me of the Romans and other societies who in times of plenty wrecked themselves.


Dear Keith,

When you were going though school – I simply could not provide all the details about WHY you had to do it yourself, and WHY these ODs are so arrogant and destructive.

The "test" of putting a minus lens on the natural eye (fundamental science) and PROVING that minus causes nearsightedness – is FINAL AS SCIENCE.

By science, I mean your personal education and resolve. It that sense it is like "weight control" – in that you can't "prescribe" weight control – you must do it yourself.

The problem is that most people DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE THEY ARE BEING CHEATED – with that first minus lens.

This situation is so bad, that I think the person must have a personal minus lenses (to help with "blurry out there") just to verify that a weak minus "clears" the 20/20 line.

Thus, if you do this yourself, (say at 20/30) and in fact see 20/20 through a –1, you have the wisdom to never wear it.

But you also have the wisdom to wear the plus 2 – until you begin reading the 20/25 and 20/20 line.

If you walk into an ODs office with 20/40 – you will get an extremely strong minus – and be told to "wear it all the time". That is why that "dynamic image" of the eye "responding" to that –3 diopter lens is so important in science.

Both of us know that most people will "let things go" – not "liking" the steady self-discipline that is REQUIRED for successful prevention – under YOUR control.

This is why I suggest the DMV line (20/40) be checked. If you see your Snellen at 20/40, going to 20/50 –in a college – you must understand that you have no choice.

THEN it is "either/or" – and no OD will help you with this problem.

This is indeed scientific discipline that we must learn to apply to ourselves.

This is, to me, the "lesson" that Raphaelson taught, when he described "fixing" a child with 20/40 – as "poison glasses for children".

What he needed to do, was to describe our "reading habits", as "poison near" for our natural eyes.

That is indeed what true-science will teach us – if we can learn and be responsible for ourselves.

Medical people are NOT RESPONSIBLE for gross obesity in a person. In comparative sense, (provided you are very wise about it), they are not responsible for protecting your distant vision (for life).

By their default, you are responsible.

I only "teach" the science of the natural eye – and help people who are prepared to conduct prevention for their own personal benefit.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Epilogue.
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2013, 07:04:35 AM »
Subject: Why arrogant incompetence in an OD kills our vision.

Regarding:  Do you have the intellectual judgment - to do plus-prevention the way that Todd and others have done it?

This is the reason your wise wearing of the (preventive) plus was essential.

I am often asked, why must your "do it yourself". I have concluded that there is no other way.

If you even START wearing that minus – your distant vision becomes permanently lost.

We need to build a "better scientific world" – where people are educated, understand and wear the plus – when their Snellen goes down to 20/40.

But that is never going to happen. This is the reason why it won't happen.

People think I am "Kidding" about this problem. I simply don't "kid". This is a very serious problem.

I know how truly difficult it is to inspire yourself to wear the plus when it gets "blurry out there". (About 20/40, and -1.0 diopters). 

But had you gone to an OD – you would have gotten a –2 to –3 diopter lens (in ignorance).  Had you worn that -3.0 diopter lens all the time - that would have destroyed any hope of prevention for you.

The gross incompetence (and silence about this bad effect) of these ODs would have done it. 

This is the real reason for doing it yourself.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Epilogue.
« Reply #3 on: April 01, 2013, 07:24:45 AM »
Subject: Knowing the truth - that if you reject wearing the plus in school - your vision goes down at -1/2 diopter per year.

Regarding:  Optometrists can never help you with this.  We should never pretend that they can.

I know few are willing to accept this challenge of  "deeper knowledge" and necessary self-motivation.  We can all be supported in reaching this conclusion - by the fact that our close relatives are will HELP us understand this tough choice.

I certainly understand WHY and OD in his office - will NEVER explain WHY the plus is necessary, and more seriously, what is certain to happen if we choose to reject wearing the plus - when success is possible.

I was also concerned with the "risk" of the plus (if any) - but to be fair-minded, I also know the "risk" if you refuse to wear the plus - properly.

 The "minus" has even worse risk - since it is known to cause  myopia in this totally normal eye.  (This is something else that that no OD will ever tell you.)

Unlike most, Keith asked WHY it would be wise to wear the plus - through the school-years.  I basically explained that is was like, "weight control" - in that it is "personal". 

No OD or MD is ever concerned with your weight, or vision.  That is what makes it even more important for you to understand this self-responsibility. 

Here is Keith's assessment of these issues.



Dear Uncle,          February 19, 1990

     Thank you very much for the book, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness".  I got it yesterday after I came back from the weekend.  I am looking forward to reading it soon, but for now I have a great deal of school work to read.

     I would imagine you'll be pleased to have me tell you that one of the first things I did after opening your book was to check my eyes with the eye chart.  I am able to read the 20/20 line on the eye-chart. I have been using my drug store plus lenses most of the time now.  I have always passed the driver's license eye test.

     I use these glasses nearly 100 percent of the time when I read text books and use them for about 70 percent of the total reading I do.  I started using them as much as possible again because, at the end of last semester my sight was pretty bad (I didn't check them on a chart).  I am lucky to have an uncle who showed me back in eighth grade that I could prevent my nearsightedness.

     One thing college has taught me is to listen to others and then use or adapt methods to work for me.  In the last few years I have had a great deal more reading work to do. If I don't use the magnifying lenses I notice fairly quickly that my sight starts to deteriorate.  Then I realize it's time to do something to stop that process.

     At the moment, I am wearing the magnifying lens because I know what it does for my vision.  Thanks for taking the time to tell me how to avoid a situation, wearing glasses at all times for the rest of my life, that I would find unpleasant, and for sending me a copy of your book so I can learn more in-depth about the methods I am using.

          Keith B.


I wish ALL OF YOU PROFOUND SUCCESS.  But equally, I would have you understand the difficulties of prevention.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Epilogue.
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2013, 04:32:05 AM »
Subject: Discussion about rejecting the minus lens.

I always support those who work on prevention.  Here is the commentary by an ophthalmologist for your interest.

In the final analysis - successful prevention depends on commitment to the goal of the person himself.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Epilogue.
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2013, 01:15:23 PM »
Subject: Ophthalmologist who, with personal WISDOM, forced there own child to wear the plus.

Regarding: I have a profound respect for people who are totally HONEST with me about this issue of plus-prevention.

Here is a true professional on this subject - of taking PERSONAL responsibility for true-prevention.


CLOSING WORDS (by Kaisu Viikari January 2013)

It is, of course, possible to find a blanket explanation for the particularly
fervent opposition to my message that has continued for 40 years:

When this idea of mine was, in the beginning, shot down in Finnish medical
journals that lacked suitable experts, it was easy for international scientific
publications to pick up where they left off.

It was, and still is, too bitter a pill, completely impossible to swallow, for
the professional body engaged in myopia research to admit that the entire
foundation of their work is collapsing.

In this, humility and the Hippocratic Oath (First - Do No Harm) do not have even the
smallest role to play.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Epilogue.
« Reply #6 on: April 05, 2013, 09:05:59 AM »
Personal Note:
It was indeed a very-wise optometrist who put me through all these issues.  Because he went through them himself - and had made himself nearsighted in the way we all do it.  (Long-term nose-on-book habit.)
But, rather that attempting to "fix" himself - he devoted his work to insisting that his three children always wear a strong plus for all the close-work they were forced to do.  That in fact works.  But equally, for obvious reasons - no OD or MD can ever "prescribe it".
It is my great respect to him for  making that issue very clear to me.
There is no real meaning to the suggestion that I "share" responsibility with an OD or MD. There are many reasons for this truth.

Either I have the knowledge, wisdom, and fortitude to do it myself (at 20/40 and -1.0 diopters), or NOTHING GETS DONE.
Either I take FULL responsibility to do "all of it", or "none of it".  That was the real lesson I learned from a very insightful optometrist.

Most people "dabble" with the plus - for a week or two - and don't see "results". But no one hear claimed you COULD see any results in that short time.

Assuming your profession REQUIRES naked-eye 20/20 (and you start at 20/40), a good estimate (for a person who does not quit), is that it would take about nine months to get that change of 1.0 diopters, and 20/20. Very few people have THAT kind of self-interest and motivation - in my opinion.