Dear Mike,
Subject: In your office you are a GOD.
Re: And the "patient" must hang on every word you say.
Futher, my remarks about your "recommendations" for plus-PREVENTION
can indeed get you FIRED, and you lose the benifit of your $100,000
education.
No, I can't ask you to take that kind of risk -- at all.
But even if you made the recommendation -- ALL WOULD DEPEND, NOT ON
YOU -- BUT THE PERSON HIMSELF.
Thus, as I pointed out, Fred was successful, because he recognized
this issue for what it is -- AND DID IT ALL UNDER HIS (NOT YOUR)
CONTROL.
But, 100 years ago, another medical doctor recognized this "problem".
A "solution" CAN NOT BE MEDICAL.
But rather it MUST BE by the insight and judgment of the "educated"
person himself.
Here is the medical review:
==========
Subject: Medical Recommendation for plus-prevention.
Here is the publication of a medical doctor who:
1. Deduced that prevention would be possible to prevent (before the
minus), and
2. Stated that the "public" (you and I) would most likely REJECT
this method -- because of the judgment required to do this
effectively.
3. Recognized the Snellen-clearing would be possible, but not
much beyond the -1.5 dioter (20/60) stage.
Enjoy,
Otis
=================================
By Chalmer Prentice, M.D.
Transcription (c) A. Wik, 2004
----------+ | Chapter IX | +--------
The following are some very interesting experiments in myopia
which can be verified by any operator, and which prove that
refractive myopia depends on ciliary spasm, and that, even in
axial myopia, considerable repression can sometimes be made at the
near point. In either class of cases, repression must be made at
the near point. In various lengths of time, we shall be able to
reduce the myopia one or two dioptres, sometimes more. In most
cases satisfactory results will require considerable time and
patience; but a few experiments after the following example will
suffice to show that in some very advanced stages of myopia, it is
possible to suppress, or at least check, its onward course by
repression at the near point.
This fact renders the fitting of minus glasses to myopic eyes
an open question.
EXAMPLE CASES
Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
-1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no cchange for the space of
two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.
After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
just perceptibly less.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;
...but the process is very tedious for the patients, and
unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost
impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[Comment: Anyone considering "prevention" must understand this
issue. There is no "easy way" of prevention. As Chalmers
said -- the person must fully understand this issue. It is
for this reason that I suggest full transfer of "control"
to the person himself. If he lacks the motivation to look
at the chart, and "clear" himself, then no "third party"
(i.e., OD) can do it for the person. This is why I
separate a true-medical problem from preventing a negative
refractive status in the natural eye. I believe that the
above statement simply clarifies that point. OSB]
________________________
Subject: Realizing the truth
Dear Scientific friends,
Subject: Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states.
I suggest that there is a profound difference concerning "pure
science" and "pure medicine". And I suggest the difference is
this:
Medicine: Must deal with a great mass of people walking in off the
street. There might be some "intelligent" people but
that can never be the assumption of the medical doctor.
The result is that we get "canned" procedures that
"work" instantly. I consider that people in this
profession have no choice but to conduct that kind of
work -- and I would do the same thing IN THEIR
PROFESSION. That would not make it "right" but I do
understand them -- and what they are doing.
Science: Must "step back" from that situation, and think about the
behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system.
Engineers and scientists simply do not deal with
children, nor with others that do not understand
the need to work on prevention with the plus.
But when you ask very fundamental questions about whether a
population of eyes (primates) are dynamic, you get the
"second-opinion" answer, that POTENTIALLY a negative refractive
STATE could be prevented -- before the minus lens is applied.
I believe that pure science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not
medical experiments -- proves this point.) But that is the nature
of our arguments. Many concepts in science simply can never be
reduced to "medicine" and we should understand that truth.
This how we should separate "medical issues" from scientific
concepts -- experimental and objective testing.
But that is why it took a scientist like Dr. Stirling
Colgate to do the "work" correctly and clear his vision from 20/70
to normal.
His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the
primate eye, again on a pure-scientific (not medical) level.
Please use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can
have positive and negative refractive status (as a dynamic device)
and this analysis will become much clearer.
Best,
Otis
|
