You lack of "concern" -- versus a pilot's "concern".

otisbrown@pa.net · medicine forum Guru Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 1447

Dear William,

You lack of statistical knowlege about the
natural eye going "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter
per year does cause me concern.

There are ODs (not like you) who express this
concern -- with their own chilren.

I gained this "concern" from Raphaelson and his
statment of "The Printer's Son". In this
statement it became clear that (baring any
true-medical problem) the person himself
would have to assume considerable responsibility
to "protect" his long-term vision with the plus.

Clearly this required intense motivation. If a
person highly values his distant vision, then
that transfer of techincal competence is
possible. But the transefer is complete.
He either does it with great force -- or
he does not do it at all.

Each person is different in this regard -- but
a person whose life-time goal it to retain
his 20/20 (through a four year college)
has a good prospect of "clearing" his
vision under this specific circumstance.

That is why I suggest that this concept
be presented to pilots entering a four
year college where THEY review
you "spin" on statistics, versus
the real-world PUBLISHED statistics.

At their age they could see the obvious
bias in your statement -- as well as
the lack of scientific rigor in the statement.

But since you posed the question about my
"obsession" with true-prevention here are some of
the reasons.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

_________________

William Stacy wrote:

Stacy> I've also kind of wondered about his (Otis') obsession with
desperate pilots **. As an optometrist in the USAF during
Viet Nam, stationed at a pilot training base (lubbock, tx)
I often would waiver a student who'd gone myopic. I always
thought the AF used the uncorrected 20/20 just to cut down
on the applicant pool. I also thought that they let way
too many hyperopes in (who later in life couldn't see any
instruments if their glasses got knocked off, unlike the
myopes)...

** You can put my "obsession" to do this work to Jacob Raphaelson.
The easy way is indeed the minus lens, and an OD will
"cause" himself a great deal of difficulty -- if he
attempts to get involved with it. So 99 percent of the ODs
just go with the "flow" and use the minus. Given the fact
that 99 percent of the public has no real interest in ANY
work of prevention -- I must say that I can't blame them.
Most of us lack the self-fortitude to do it -- under our
own control.

** As for the "desparate pilot", I would say that my remarks are
directed at the "intelligent" pilot who has a great deal to
gain -- when he clears his distant vision to 20/20. This
is a matter of rational, thoughtful review of a great
amount of scientific data, and the fact that these ODs are
profoundly biased "position". Anyone who is "desparate"
should NEVER attempt to use a plus. I never attempt to do
ANYTHING until I have exhaustively reviewed the scientific
facts myself. I also ask that the person (or pilot) I talk
too -- also go through a similar review. It takes a strong
man to realize this -- and do it himself -- as Fred Deakins
and other pilots have done it. These OD LOVE to imply
something different that this -- for their own purposes.

** And lastly, I did this work to help my sister's chidren
"protect" their distant vision -- for life -- which they
did, no thanks to the likes of the biased ODs on
sci.med.vision. This is a "living" tribute to Dr. Jacob
Raphaeslon and his work on the preventive second-opinion.

Mike Tyner · medicine forum Guru Joined: 24 Mar 2005 Posts: 1299

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote in

A Lieberman · medicine forum Guru Wannabe Joined: 30 Apr 2005 Posts: 194

On 30 Apr 2005 07:47:54 -0700, otisbrown@pa.net wrote:

Google