Lawsuit2.txt Dear Friends, Subject: The force of law used against optometrists. Re: The "chilling" effect it has on ODs who would be willing to help your child with prevention using a proper-strength plus lens. Items: 1. Shira Raphaelson's commentary on her father's dedication and effort for the "cause" of prevention. 2. Dr. Maurice Brumer's commentary on his work to achieve prevention with a plus lens. The opposition to his preventive work from his "board" and his fellow ODs. 3. A lawsuit against an Airforce officer who cleared his vision to 20/20 and attempted to offer this proven method to the general public. While prevention is difficult -- it is possible. I often wondered why I received no discussion of the preventive alternative. The following describes the various social and political forces that "stop" any effort towards effective prevention, (and vision restoration from 20/50 to 20/20). We have seen a lawsuit brought against a against Captain Fred Deakins who successfully cleared his distant vision with prolonged and forceful use of a plus lens. We hear the optometrist pleading, "If we only knew how to PREVENT nearsightedness. We would do everything in our power to make this knowledge available." The tragic truth? The OD Boards effectively destroy anyone who even SUGGESTS that prevention is possible. Below is the type of pressure that is brought to bear on an optometrist who WOULD support prevention. The problem? If he offered you the use of the plus for prevention? He would get kicked out of his "profession" by his professional board. There is no incentive to help ANYONE with prevention. How could he, and why should he put himself at risk to help you? Power an money will always dictate and oppose prevention. Any more doubts about that truth? Best, Otis ________________________________ (Copy of letter -- Clarification in parenthesis. OSB) 1/7/96 - Jacob's Daughter Dear Maurice and family, February 5, 1978 I just received your letter with the shocking news of the mistreatment of Maurice because of his courageous efforts to promote a cause which could be of tremendous benefit to mankind. I went through this with my Dad, but he did not make a big enough impact to bring about the kind of retaliation which Maurice is now being subjected to. In fact, Dad was afraid his license might be in jeopardy if he continued to practice; that was one of the reasons why he retired from active practice and no longer charged for his services. I don't know if you have seen the enclosed newspaper article, (about my father's efforts with the plus-lens) but I have had some copies made to send to relatives and friends who donate or become members of IMPA (International Myopia Prevention Association). My father would have been so proud of you Maurice, as I am. I wish I knew of some way to help, but I, too, have become discouraged by the attitude of the optometrists here. I have tried to interest someone in the profession to help me start a branch of IMPA in this area, but they don't even bother to return my phone calls. They are too busy making money, I guess. After I received your letter, I went to the public library and checked out a book that made a tremendous impression on me at the time I read it many years ago, "The Cry and the Covenant", by Morton Thompson. It is the story of Dr. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis' efforts to get the medical profession to accept his simple remedy of cleanliness. He was unsuccessful. The following quoted passages are apropos. "Do you know," said Arneth slowly, "it's true of your discovery as it has been of every discovery in this whole history of medicine. When we take our medical oath we undertake to lengthen life and ease suffering. We are all united in seeking new means. And every time a man has come forward with a demonstrable truth, a remedy for good, the profession seems to have done its best to crush the discover and hide the discovery. No quackery -- no criminality -- nothing seems to make us so furious as a discovery." (Page 367) In reply to a statement by one of his few medical friends, who has just told Semmelwiess that he is being called a fool, he replies: "Well they could call me an adulterer and a thief -- they can spit on me and curse the mother who bore me -- and if they wash their hands I will smile at them. I will humbly thank them. I will get down on my knees and praise the breath that calls me fool. Only let the murdering dogs wash their hands!" (Page 369) Ignaz Philipp worked grimly on. There were evenings when he walked the streets of Buda alone, fevered for more scope, for more patients, desperate to spread the truth in a world thunderclap. And when his legs were tired and his mind had calmed at last, he made peace with things as they were. And he planned long dreams and nourished the small flame he had lit. He guarded it jealously and each month was a new hope that tomorrow, surely, tomorrow, at the very latest, the world would wake with a start and the truth would be everywhere. All his hopes were in Budapest now. From this small clinic, if he kept proving and saving, month after month, the news must one day be the world's." (Page 374) I wish I had some influence to help you Maurice, but alas, there is nothing I can do except to let you know how I feel about you and the dedication you are showing. Perhaps after Rehm's book ("The Myopia Myth") is published, which he indicates will be sometime this year, some impact may be made here in the U.S., which hopefully will carry over into your country. If not, perhaps you might consider coming to the U.S. to practice your profession; at least there seems to be more freedom here to disagree. Please keep me advised of future developments. I'm still optimistic enough to believe that somehow the worst is over. Sincerely, Shira Raphaelson ********** EYESTRAIN -- ITS CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND TREATMENT January 5, 1994 Dr. Maurice Brumer, OD Bayside Shopping Center Frankston, 3199, Australia Phone: 783-5822 Dear Maurice, I read your paper, "Eyestrain -- Its Causes, Consequences and Treatment". I was very impressed with your commitment to telling the truth about the eye's behavior, and the effect the minus lens has on the refractive status of the eye. I have worked for ten years with Dr. Francis Young to initiate a study at the U. S. Naval Academy among pilots to help them retain 20/20 (a focal state of zero or greater) through four years of intensive close work. I am now preparing a book with Dr. Stirling Colgate. I would like your permission to publish the full text of your paper in our academic work. Dr. Colgate defeated the problem of nearsightedness when he was 14 years old by persistently wearing the plus lens for all close work. His distant vision cleared in less than three months. (He is mentioned in the December 1993 issue of, "Scientific American", page 73, concerning stellar evolution and radioactive isotopes in a supernova.) If you send me your correct address and phone number I will give you a call and we can further discuss our research into the concept of effective myopia prevention. Sincerely, Otis Brown ============================ Remarks from Maurice June 6, 1993 Dear Sir, (or prospective patient) I enclose a recent article from the "Age" which indicates the national scandal which I referred to in my paper, "Optometry: Light of a Perverted Science", delivered before 400 Optometrists at the 6th Australian International Optometric Congress. This was greeted in silence -- despite a request for questions, and in desperation I stated that their silence was a token of agreement with the paper, and again was greeted with silence. Silence is not a good enough answer for those of our kids who are needlessly thrown on the scrap heap. Will you make time in your busy schedule to heed those kids whose plight is a national disgrace? Sincerely, Maurice Dr. Maurice Brumer, OD Bayside Shopping Center Frankston, 3199, Australia Telephone (03) 783-5833 ========================================== ABSTRACT: OPTOMETRY - LIGHT OF A PERVERTED SCIENCE Discussion that the primary obligation of an optometrist is to his professional colleague -- overriding that of the public interest. Enforcement of this code is accomplished via: o The Australian Optometric Association, Victorian Division o Victorian Registration Board o Victorian College of Optometry Consideration of spectacles (negative lens) as being a drug that can be helpful or harmful and that, as conventionally prescribed, do not meet the needs of a community suffering from eyestrain because of the prolonged and abnormal demands of our close vision civilization. Specific considerations of the damage of this to the public: (a) glasses and children's educational progress (b) development of myopia (c) headache, nervous and health problems A review of the literature of the past 100 years shows that these failings have been well documented and cannot now be accepted without criticism of optometric care. For many decades the situation has been set in concrete, while optometrist subordinate the public interest to that of loyalty to their professional colleagues. ****************************************************** PAPER: OPTOMETRY - LIGHT OF A PERVERTED SCIENCE Delivered to The 6th Australian International Optometrical Congress, September 26, 1992 to October 3, 1992 The primary obligation of an Optometrist should be to the visual welfare of his patient, indeed this is enshrined in the codes of ethics governing the profession. The reality is vastly different and rigidly enforced. It is that the primary loyalty of an Optometrist is to his professional colleagues. This loyalty, if not voluntarily given, is extracted by the: 1. Australian Optometrical Association (A.O.A.) 2. Optometrists Registration Board (O.R.B.) 3. Victorian College of Optometry (V.C.O.) The V.C.O., has an inner circle of membership which prohibits its members working with Optometrists outside the group. The O.R.B., consists of a majority of elected Optometrists who are always elected according to the recommendation of the A.O.A. It enforces its will by the threat of de-registration in an arbitrary and intimidating manner. In 1988, Mr. Spencer Zifcak, in a report for the Victorian Minister of Heath, found that, "The Board failed to accord natural justice to Optometrists. It acts beyond its powers and prosecutes selectively threatening action where it knew success was unlikely. The Boards' actions being to the detriment of rational debate about the future of the profession." This Board was not to be distracted by any criticisms of its performance. The Ombudsman (Victorian) reporting after investigating the workings of the Board in 1989-1990-1991 reported. "A process of investigation taking months or even years before a formal inquiry is made by the Board does not seem to be in the interests of the customer, the provider or the profession." In reply to the Ombudsman, Mr. Peter Dwyer, the Chairman of the O.R.B. since 1985, states "That the Board receives complaints which fall outside its jurisdiction. However they are investigated nonetheless. A process that can take years." He then states ominously, "It should be noted there have been some positive outcomes from this process." These powers of investigation are given to investigate infamous conduct in a professional respect. To be found guilty of this is to expect de-registration. Therefore embarking on a lengthy investigation can be done only in the sure knowledge of striking dread on the recipient of this investigation. Therefore the investigation becomes the punishment -- a method copied from the Spanish Inquisition. Considering the close association of the A. O. A. and the O. R. B., some members of the Board are frequently members of the A. O. A. executive. It becomes clear how the O. R. B., becomes the enforcing arm of the A. O. A. In a small profession, Optometrists with non-conformist views are soon well known. So we can see this leopard never changes it's spots and pursues its own agenda with a ruthless determination. The aim of this behavior is to entrench self interest, protect the elite and stifle a free and open atmosphere and present to the public a monolithic view of Optometry. Prescription spectacles are a drug that can be helpful or harmful depending on how prescribed and worn. There exists in the community a latent fear of glasses. This stems from a fear of their addictive powers and a worry whether this addiction is helpful or harmful. Most patients have little understanding of what help they need and how to question the advice they are given to monitor its quality. For over a century various theories for the wearing of glasses have been contested. This contest has never been free and open for if the dominant theory (Donders-Helmholtz) that glasses exist only to correct the errors of vision is found to be wrong then it can be demonstrated that a great and needless harm has been caused for many decades of glasses prescribed on this basis. Therefore it has been essential to the Optometric Establishment to guide Optometry with an iron hand and to prevent the public from that which is its right to know. The situation is self perpetuating, for the longer it is maintained, the more important it is to maintain it. Everyday the victims become more numerous. I have been in Optometric practice continually for 25 years and cannot witness the carnage in silence. In the last 25 years the situation has not improved. Man has, in Australia, progressed from stargazer to scribe in 201 years and yet the emphasis is for better vision with (negative lens) glasses as it is preached and practiced is for distant seeing. The harmful belief about better vision with glasses comes from a failure to understand the needs of a close vision civilization and the need to prescribe (positive lens) glasses to reduce the effort of seeing. Our eyes do not just see; they work to see. Seeing is to our eyes as walking is to our legs. A reasonable amount of walking is necessary and will do us good. A small proportion of fast walking or running will do us no harm. But too much fast walking or running will not only tire our legs but our whole body. The same, and even more so, is true of our eyes. Distant seeing is like walking. Nearer seeing is like fast walking. Very close seeing is like running; it will tire and affect not only our eyes but our entire body. Vision being an active function is therefore subject to mild as well as severe strain. Normal seeing means the natural way of seeing which is mostly far seeing and only occasional near seeing. Abnormal seeing means using your eyes mostly for near and only occasionally for far seeing. It is near seeing which intensifies and increases eyestrain. Prolonged near seeing affects our eyes and health visibly and invisibly in many ways, physically and psychologically. It wastes our nerve energy and increases nerve tension. Eyestrain caused by abnormal near seeing is responsible for many problems in children. Specifically: MYOPIA -- SHORT SIGHT: Studies of Eskimo families show that there is virtually no short sight in the parents and grandparents whilst there was an incidence of short sight of 58% in their offspring. The short sight coinciding with the introduction in 1950 of American style compulsory education. When schooling is a hardship even with normal eyes, a child may develop an instinctive aversion to education. This natural aversion to the school room may lead to many forms of delinquency. Our adults are confined to offices, shops and factories. Unlike children who can make certain physical adjustments in their eyes to overcome the strain of near seeing, most adults are unable to do this. Their eyes are set. They seldom become short sighted. Their eyestrain is absorbed and distributed over the whole body. They then become conditioned to nervous and bodily disorders. It should be clear to the public that prolonged and intensive near seeing is not good for our eyes and our health. The public has a fundamental right to know how their glasses may increase or decrease the effort of seeing in our modern society and the effects this has on their health. Better vision with (positive lens) glasses would be a blessing to mankind if we made use of glasses in the proper way instead of the curse that it is for many. Sadly, this will never change whilst Optometrists subordinate the public interest to the loyalty of their professional colleagues. If this paper, EYESTRAIN -- ITS CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND TREATMENT, helps the public to be better able to question and monitor the eye care they are being given, then it will have served its purpose. ********* (Commentary on Dr. Brumer's paper, "EYESTRAIN -- ITS CAUSES, CONSEQUENCES AND TREATMENT", by Otis Brown) (A better title would be: "Hostility Towards Nearsightedness -- Causes and Consequences". This woulld remove the emotionalism that is so destructive to the process of scientific understanding and accurate assessment of the normal eye's Behavior. OSB) (Published in MYOPIA NEWS, 2Q-1979) Dr. Brumer had previously been denied permission to present his paper at the August, 1977 ANZAAS Congress because it was too critical of the prevailing methods of eye care. This paper is of interest because of the author's intellectual and emotional commitment to: 1. Coming to grips with nearsightedness. 2. The reaction of other members of his profession. (Extremely critical!) 3. The reaction of the public (nonexistent) to Dr. Brumer's effort to come to grips with the situation. 4. The fact that this "understanding" (that the plus lens works) existed in 1977, and, since then, (for the past 14 years) nothing further has happened! Heavy emphasis is placed on Frank Young's scientific work concerning: 1. Plus-Lens (Bifocal) use on the eye. Frank's result showed that the negative lens caused the normal eye to move into nearsightedness at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. The positive lens stopped the eye's movement into myopia. (I think the rate was -1/40 diopters per year -- effectively a zero progression into myopia.) 2. Dr. Brumer also discussed Frank Young's Eskimo study -- also very important. The parents and grandparents were not nearsighted -- their normal eyes had a positive focal state. Up to 80 percent of the children were nearsighted. (Their normal eyes had a negative focal state.) 3. Dr. Brumer did not discuss the normal eye's behavior, nor did he mention Frank Young's experiment with monkeys, which are even more convincing! But, as he states, there is a wealth of information about the eye, and if we learn to represent, digest, and act in good faith upon the factual information we will be able to control the situation. ============================================= Dr. Maurice Brumer, OD Bayside Shopping Center Frankston, 3199, Australia Telephone (03) 783-5833 March 29, 1994 Dear Otis, Many thanks for your letters of the first and thirteenth of February, and your manuscript. I was very touched by your concern expressed in your letters. However, I can state that I have been in continuous Optometrical practice since 1967 in the same town. The AOA is a professional organization and has nothing to do with my right to practice. This is governed by an act of parliament and a registration board. However, (to remove my license) they would have to prove infamous conduct -- and they would not dare. I conduct a rigorous practice based on the principles of glasses that enhance the functioning of the eyes -- some of which are included in your paper. I enclose a sample advertisement to show you what I promote to the public. My exclusion from the AOA was publicly reported in our own local optical newspaper, "Insight", and I send you some of the reports which will interest you. My exclusion was hard earned, and fills me with pride as you can see. It is the only qualification I sport after my name. Your manuscript could only be written by other than the eye profession -- as to write it is to criticize current Optometric practice as it has been for 100 years. No Optometrist would do that -- no matter his belief -- as his first obligation is to his professional colleagues, and the second obligation is to his patients. Here in Australia this (negative-lens, standard-practice) is ruthlessly enforced. No one would volunteer for the treatment meted out to me. I have had no regrets on my course of action as I have found the contest with the profession vastly challenging and made enjoyable by their incompetence and arrogance. I learned Optometry on my father's knee, who authored 2 books: 1. Eyestrain, its Causes, Consequences and Treatment. 2. The Therapeutics of Ocular Refraction. He practiced in Manchester, England, 1930 - 1960, and, although a contemporary of Raphaelson, I believe they came to similar views independently of each other. So believe me it is very easy to take the abuse the AOA heaps on me and my self confidence is improved by it. Indeed, if I was ever (again) to address that body I would thank them for the contest we have engaged in. I am not one of their victims -- I do not accuse them. They are accused by those whose trust they have abused -- those from whose lives they have stolen. 1. Children who are not helped to read, who are shut out from education. 2. Children and adults whose eyes have undergone a permanent structural alteration, i.e., elongation, to the eyeball, preventable but not reversible. 3. Children and adults suffering eyestrain affecting their quality of life and health. Their voices cry out -- worse, they accuse. It falls to us to hear their cry. Your manuscript is a small step in redeeming this great wrong. I promise you that I will use your completed book to gain inspiration and to bring it to the attention of the public, here in Australia. We owe this to our patients so that the work of, Victor Brumer, Jacob Raphaelson and Francis Young, will not be swept aside -- and (current traditional optometrists) will not be able to plunder yet more victims with impunity. I have not as yet received your book, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness." Kindest regards, Maurice *********************** "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein Dear Friends, Subject: The following is on public record -- as maintained by the State of N. J. I am not revealing "protected" information in this discussion. I obtained a copy of the this lawsuit against America20/20 by contacting N. J. Board. They mailed me a copy. I am personal friends with ODs, MDs and this Air Force Captain. But this type of lawsuit sends a "chilling" message to destroy anyone OD, Engineer, or Pilot who would work towards the goal of achieving effective prevention with a plus lens. Individually, ODs are all fine people. But collectively (i.e., the state "Board of Optometry", can take action that is destructive -- in my opinion.) Specifically, I believe that you should be informed (automatically) about the POSSIBILITY of using the plus lens for prevention. I do not know if you would take this advocacy seriously or not -- but I trust your intelligence to understand your "right of choice". An Airforce officer cleared his distant vision while in college from 20/60 to 20/20 by systematic use of a plus lens. He judged that all pilots could use this method to keep their distant vision clear -- through four years of college. He then set up a company called American20/20, which supplied a package of plus lenses and a book describing how to use the plus to clear your distant vision to normal. You can buy these plus lenses in a drug store over-the-counter with no prescription. If you buy these lenses and use them for reading are you REQUIRED to be an optometrist. I think not. Donald Rehm and I have an interest in your right to be informed and choose between two alternatives to dealing with incipient myopia. This is an "open" site, and your personal visual welfare is involved. Otis Engineer ******************************** Mr. Donald Rehm International Myopia Prevention Society Dear Don, This is the document that insists that ANY selling of plus spherical lenses to PREVENT nearsightedness constitutes "the practice of optometry". Sincerely, Otis Brown __________________________________________________ N.J. BOARD EXTRACT FROM THE CHARGES AGAINST AMERICA2020. Optometry is hereby declared to be a profession, and the practice of optometry is defined to be the employment of objective or subjective means or both, for the elimination of the eye for the purposes of ascertaining any departure from the normal, measuring its powers of vision and adapting lenses or prisms for the aid thereof ... A person shall be deemed to be practicing optometry within the meaning of this chapter who in any way advertises himself as an optometrist, -- -- OR WHO SHALL EMPLOY ANY MEANS FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF THE POWERS OF VISION OR THE ADAPTATION OF LENSES OR PRISMS FOR THE AID THEREOF ... OR TO USE TESTING APPLIANCES FOR THE PURPOSES OF MEASUREMENT OF THE POWERS OF VISION OR DIAGNOSE ANY OCULAR DEFICIENCY OR DEFORMITY, VISUAL OR MUSCULAR ANOMALY OF THE HUMAN EYE OR PRESCRIBE LENSES, PRISMS OR OCULAR EXERCISE FOR THE CORRECTION OR RELIEF THERE OF. (Emphasis - in caps -- added in the original legal document.) **************************************** Subject: Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Medical: First . . . do no harm! Dear Don, Here is the way I look at legal responsibility. Don > I am not afraid of the idiots in NJ, but am interested in how they got away with this. Otis> They got away with it for several reasons: 1. This captain is an officer in the U. S. Air Force. He did not have the time to engage in endless litigation with the power and money of the N. J. Board of Optometry (A STATE ORGANIZATION). 2. The captain has two small children. He had to be devoted to them. He simply could not "fight" this OD board. 3. While the captain worked his way out of nearsightedness using the plus lens, most people have no interest in this activity. 4. The optometrist, Marc, who supplied information for his book, would not stand up for the Airforce officer. He should have -- but he did not. Welcome to the "fear" produced by these OD Boards. Would you put your professional position "at risk" for a friend? Don > The capital letters in the paragraph in the document seem to refer to activities performed on a person who is present, not advice and personal opinion given freely to someone who is somewhere else. Otis> I think the Board did a "wrong thing" because: 1. If a citizen had COMPLAINED to the board -- then that would have been a different matter. But no one did. 2. If there was some intimation that the plus HURT the eye in some way, then the board should have spelled out exactly what that "hurt" was. But no optometrist (who is honest) can say this. 3. I know the captain personally. This Airforce Officer honored his money-back guarantee with NO CONDITIONS. No one ever complained. There was no reason to stop him. Don > What happened to free speech? Otis> Don, I have posted four disclaimers on my site about this issue, for exactly that reason. I think that a mature adult should take personal responsibility for his choice in this matter. Don > They talk primarily about testing and measurement. Otis> Both of us are engineers. We know how to do this to perfection. However they regard us as incompetent. Don > Those words seem to say that if you sell an eye chart to someone you are practicing optometry! Otis> Exactly! Since they have all the power and money -- they will ALWAYS get away with it. That -- and they can impress the public with a strong minus lens -- and NO OWN will ever challenge them! Don > .....And I don't really see where it says that selling plus lenses, with the suggestion that they are often used to prevent myopia, is illegal. Otis> That is indeed a murky area. I use the word "prevention" because that is EXACTLY what I mean. The fact that you had to work to clear your vision from 20/50 to 20/20 is a side issue. KEEPING you distant vision is going to mean: 1. You monitor your distant vision by looking at an eye chart. 2. When you distant vision is less that 20/20 you simply get "busy" with a strong plus lens, and clear your distant vision as required. 3. It that the "practice of optometry"? I don't think so. 4. With my sister's kids, I explained this to them. Tragically, to only way you avoid nearsightedness is to AVOID the optometrist and is over-prescription of a strong minus lens. How do you do this? You take complete control, clear your vision (always better than DMV-Snellen), and you never have any legal requirement to "see an optometrist". There is no other way that I know of that is effective FOR PREVENTION. Don > If Wal-Mart hung a sign on their rack of reading glasses saying that such glasses are sometimes used to prevent myopia, would they be practicing optometry? Otis> The N. J. Board of optometry would sue Wal-Mart. Don > I think I could have demolished their arguments easily. Otis> I think so too. However the general public listens ONLY to the OD, and LOVES that minus lens -- until they learn the sorry truth of this difficult situation. Don > Apparently www.seeclearlymethod.com gets away with a similar program because they have OD's on the site, including Francis young. Otis> Yes, I saw and read the site. Francis is indeed getting old. I greatly appreciated Francis. Don > Fred had an OD named Grossman , but my guess is he didn't want to take a strong position. Otis> Please refer to the "pressure" brought against Dr. Maurice Brumer, OD. I can not blame an OD for NOT PROMOTING PREVENTION -- given that type of legal pressure against speaking out against the traditional negative lens. Otis> No one wants to commit professional suicide. That is what Marc would have had to do. Marc Grossman must making a living dealing with the great mass of public that walks into his office. He must make a living and can not worry about the real effect that the minus lens has on the natural eye. People don't normally fall on their swords -- for no purpose. The only man who did that was Dr. Jacob Raphaelson -- and that was after he retired. Don > If this is the Marc Grossman who is listed under me as a vision expert on www.allexperts.com he is very wishy-washy in his profile. Otis> I understand their position -- I don't like it, but I understand it. As an optometrist I acknowledge that I could do no better that they do. That is the explicit reason why I am not an optometrist. Don > Typical! Otis> And tragic -- when they band together and put a man out of business who has the right (although difficult) answer. Otis> The reason that they do not go after "seeclearly" is that the method is not effective. Otis> The plus lens (in the early stage) is effective -- and they had to STOP all the questions they were going to get when that fact becomes clear. Otis> The law suit was not about protecting the public. That is the LAST consideration. It was about protecting money and power. Science and a "fighting chance" for a person who wishes to AVOID nearsightedness is a big joke to them. Go figure. But with equal truth, prevention is indeed difficult and depends completely on the insight and motivation of the person who engages in it. Best, Otis