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

_________________

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.

-MT

Before you judge others, please look at yourself.  You lack the knowledge
of pilot requirements which puts anything you say very suspect at best.

Don't believe me, just go to your favorite airport and ask around.

Allen