Author Topic: Medical Jorunals Prohibit Science Concepts.  (Read 1419 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Medical Jorunals Prohibit Science Concepts.
« on: January 29, 2014, 01:34:49 PM »
Subject:  Freedom of speech - in medicine.

Item: This is what I object to - suppression of publication of successful plus-prevention by medical journals.

Item: A journal that DENIES publication of new scientific ideas and ideals (for plus prevention) is no longer a SCIENTIFIC journal.

It is a simply a "shop journal" - having little to do with scientific truth.

Here is an example of that arrogance (because of editorial ignorance).
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 01:41:37 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Medical Jorunals Prohibit Science Concepts.
« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2014, 01:40:51 PM »
Subject: In order to have science - you must be given the right to publish.

Dr. Kaisu was that scientists - who demonstrated success with the plus.  You would think that a scientific (medical) journal would publish.  You would be wrong.

About Dr. Kaisu Viikari - the doctor that discovered successful plus-prevention, and the reaction to this scientific discovery.

The first “Council” was the Meeting of the Finnish Ophthalmological Society which came after the entire body of ophthalmologists had received their copies of Tetralogia, her first book containing over 700 case studies. Kaisu writes, “It was only natural that the Finnish Ophthalmological Society asked me to give a lecture at its meeting.” I imagine the good doctor expected a respectful attention to her lecture and some well-reasoned questions afterward. What she got was skewered on a barbeque instead.

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

[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.

Kaisu, like Jonathan, was not in front of the “Council” to be honored, but instead, to be disgraced by a large group of prominent men in the audience. Of the five or six people who asked for the floor, the only support for Kaisu’s work came from a female colleague. Pirkko’s comments at the meeting were not recorded, but this earlier letter shows the esteem in which she held Dr. Viikari’s work.

[page 11] The most memorable one of these was the bold contribution of Pirkko Koivusalo, which showed she had understood the gist of my lecture. At an earlier date, she had written to me: “Since my trip to study abroad, Tetralogia is the best thing that has happened to me in my progress as an ophthalmologist. With extreme thankfulness for finally meeting an honest ophthalmologist, your previously skeptical fellow believer. In the middle of our Christmas preparations, my humblest thanks!”

The next hurdle Kaisu had to face was the Duodecim Medical Journal, whose Editor-in-Chief requested a synopsis of her lecture. She included in her submitted synopsis the following details about migraines.

[page 14] As this should be of interest to every doctor, I present an unselected material of 174 migraine patients, in which every patient was found to have either considerable hyperopia or clear pseudo-myopia. Particular attention should be focused on migraine cases with neurological symptoms.

Three months later, far longer than usual three weeks, Kaisu received a letter from the Editor-in-Chief rejecting her synopsis because it differs from “prevailing views”. Instead of publishing the synopsis of her innovative work, they rejected it exactly because it was innovative! Not because it was wrong, not because it was non-scientific, but simply because it was heresy to the very organization that should be devoted to bettering the health and eyesight of patients, not to upholding its dogma. Clearly it infuriated Dr. Kaisu as she writes of her response to the rejection:

[page 16] After waiting for three months, my synopsis was turned down not on its merits but because my work differed from the prevailing ideas. This led me to ask, “Does not all progress in this world come from those who think differently than prevailing ideas?“

With these thoughts Dr. Kaisu decided to resign from the Medical Society Duodecim. She shares her reason for resigning in this book on page 16, “In plain language this meant that a society which, instead of showing interest in progress in the world keeps rehashing the same centuries-old dogmas, is not for me!” A further insult in the form of a thinly veiled bribe came from Assistant Professor Ahti Tarkkanen, who was asked by the Editor to mediate with Kaisu. He offered her a grant for some continuing education in London. She asked him, “Why would you trust my judgment in something like that, if not in this matter? No thank-you!” After several further insults to Kaisu, her husband’s synopsis of a letter to the Finnish Surgical Society was left unpublished and was dubbed of “local interest only”. This was a lecture by world-renown surgeon, Dr. Sauli Viikari, who performed the first open-heart surgery in Finland. Subsequently Sauli joined his wife in resigning from Duodecim(2).


When I post remarks here - it is always with the full knowledge that these "medical journals" are completely blind about the meaning of, an "open SCIENTIFIC discussion", of new concepts.

Even if Dr. Kaisu were possibility wrong in some detail - you would NEVER FIND THIS OUT, as long as publication of successful plus-prevention is DENIED.

This is the true tragedy of a "medical closed mind".  We all suffer because of it.

Please post your own judgment.  I vote for scientific freedom of speech here.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 01:50:22 PM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Medical Jorunals Prohibit Science Concepts.
« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2014, 01:47:52 PM »
Subject: Here is the metaphor for Jonathan - from the above.

Who was the Seagull Jonathan? A seagull who flew higher and faster than his fellow seagulls, even flying on foggy days when other gulls only huddled on the ground, scoffing at his folly. For Jonathan’s achievements he was called before a Council. He wanted no honors from them, only the chance to share what he had discovered with his colleagues, to show them the new horizons ahead for them. What he got instead was a deathly shock:

[page 38, 39] “Jonathan Livingston Seagull,” said the Elder, “Stand to Center for Shame in the sight of your fellow gulls!”
It felt like being hit with a board. His knees went weak, his feathers sagged, there was roaring in his ears. Centered for shame? Impossible! The Breakthrough! They can’t understand! They’re wrong, they’re wrong!

“. . . for his reckless irresponsibility,” the solemn voice intoned, “violating the dignity and tradition of the Gull Family. . .”
To be centered for shame meant that he would be cast out of gull society, banished to a solitary life on the Far Cliffs.

“. . . one day, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, you shall learn that irresponsibility does not pay. Life is the unknown and the unknowable, except that we are put into this world to eat, to stay alive as long as we possibly can.”

Jonathan begged to be allowed to plead his case, but to no avail, the Council had already, before the meeting, made up their minds. They saw in Jonathan someone who had broken the conventions of life as a seagull, had violated the code of seagull-dom, and he was cast out of their midst without a hearing.

If you, dear Reader, felt bad when you read what happened to the fictional Jonathan, a seagull, how much worse you must feel you read of a similar thing happening to a human being, Kaisu Viikari, by a “Council” of her fellow doctors! She only wanted to share with them what she had found, to show the new horizons ahead for eyeglass wearers, horizons of freedom from various scourges of eye-diseases. She knew that her colleagues made huge sums of money “fixing” the results of these diseases, while the patients — the ones Dr. Kaisu Viikari cared most about — suffered through multiple operations, expensive medications, and untold suffering — suffering, which she had come to understand through her research, that could mostly be eliminated. She was ignored, ridiculed, and minimized, but like Jonathan, she did not crawl off in a corner, but continued to fly by writing this book. Its goal is her effort to set the record straight: it is the record of the various “Councils” and “Editor-in-Chiefs” whose censure she had to endure.


I never deny the difficulties of plus-prevention (at 20/40, and -1 diopters). I just dispute the "scientific authority" of these "concils" and their obvious denial of scientific truth.

I enjoyed the post by Medical Doctor Nate - and his successful change of +2 diopters in two years.  This is consistent with what we know is proven about the dynamic behavior of all natural eyes.

But it is extremely difficult to CONVINCE a person, at 20/40, and -1 diopter, that he should take PERSONAL responsibility to do all PREVENTIVE WORK, under his control.  If Nate had started his work, at -1 diopters, he would be at +1/2 diopter, and 20/20 sometime in 2013.

Some day, a medical doctor like Nate, will realize that his children must be supported by having them wear a +2 to +3 diopters, when their refractive status starts going below -1 diopter.  In my opinion, that is the only way you can prevent it.

But these issues are VERY SERIOUS, and can not be resolved - until there is "publication honesty", and that is blocked by these medical journals, because they insist, that "prevention with a plus - will never be possible".

That is just not true - as science.

It is possible, but it depends completely on the intelligence and long-term motivation of the person himself.  A lot of my postings are about that issue.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2014, 05:42:03 PM by OtisBrown »