(Legal15.txt) Legal Notes on, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness" and your choice about using the preventive method. "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein Contents: Discussion of medicine and legal definitions of "practice". Defining "doctor" and "patient". Legal Disclaimers 1, 2, 3 and 4 ________________________ Dear Friends, Subject: Getting access to, and understanding a preventive second-opinion. Re: When is it "medical", and when is it engineering and science? This is a discussion of the legal aspects of the preventive second-opinion. But, so far, it is my judgment that the person must teach himself how to avoid entry into nearsightedness (a negative refractive STATE of the fundamental eye.) Here is the summary of the legal issues. (Refernce from herbal alternative "medicine" or Herbalists rights, legal and historical basis.) Summary In summary, the judicial history of prosecution of alternative health care providers reveals the overwhelming reliance of the courts on the manner in which a defendant describes his or her own practice, and the specific words used. The rights of alternative practitioners to practice their art has rarely been questioned by the courts. Rather, they have often been prosecuted for using words and language reserved by the medical profession to exclusively describe their business to the public. There is much logic in this approach, which is an extension of the statutes governing fraud and misrepresentation. It has always been considered unethical and unlawful for one to lie to the public about one's training and abilities. The problem is that, while the legislatures and courts claim that their only purpose is to prevent the public from being deceived as to the qualifications of health care workers and to establish high standards for a complex profession responsible for people's life and health, in reality, economic and political forces have subverted this goal and have maneuvered public health policy to ensure increased profits. These nefarious forces subvert the legislative and judicial processes by legal trickery and word games. The lives and livelihoods of many honest and well-meaning alternative health practitioners have been destroyed by such trickery. On the other hand, many alternative practitioners have fallen for the temptation of enhancing their status in a patriarchal, authoritarian society by awarding themselves titles such as "doctor". It is the intent of the author to educate alternative health providers about the true and valid purpose of the law, to point out to them the nature of their rights, and to overcome the power of the word tricksters and political con men by deflating their games. There will always be those who believe in the unlimited powers of an authoritarian government to protect people from abuse by unqualified or unscrupulous practitioners and by outright charlatans. History, however, reveals a different story: the abuses of government regulatory bureaucracies often greatly exceed the abuses by individuals. The potential abuses of herbal products will be with us as long as plants and fallible people coexist on the earth. Experience has shown that this problem cannot be regulated away. People throughout the world will continue to use herbs, even when their rulers decide to outlaw or restrict the use of herbs. Instead, it seems best to follow the advice of Thomas Jefferson: I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform them. Reference from: http://www.rmhiherbal.org/a/f.ahr3.rights.html#protect ************************************************* LEGAL DISCLAIMER 1 Let me recite my personal disclaimer. Because I am not medically trained and because I am averse to the prospect of being sued for giving advice (medical or otherwise), I am stating emphatically that everything written here ("How to Avoid Nearsightedness", including all related pages on this site) is nothing more than my personal opinion and experience. If you are interested in reading about that experience, I invite you to continue reading. If you want a medical opinion or advice, you should contact a medical professional. If something I write seems to be advice, you should re-read this paragraph and understand that I am only using literary license to convey my experiences and opinions. I offer you NO ADVICE and I do not recommend to anyone that they should subscribe to any treatment for any condition without proper medical advice, EVEN IF I TELL YOU THAT I AVOID SOME MEDICAL ADVICE OR TREATMENT FOR MYSELF. I take PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for my health. You should take personal responsibility for your health (not my advice - just my opinion). It is up to you to decide if medical professionals and the medical industry, the food industry and others act in your best interest or not. It is up to you to decide, if after reading my experiences, how and whether to address any health issues including those related to your vision. PS: These statements are adapted from Donald Rehm's "Myopia Myth" and the "Vision Freedom" site -- but the insight they developed about legal responsibility applies equally to this site. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LEGAL DISCLAIMER 2 "How to Avoid Nearsightedness", is an educational tool that can assist you in accurately understanding the eye's proven dynamic behavior. Our book is not intended to be a medical text, nor does it substitute for medical diagnosis or treatment of eye disease by an ophthalmologist. The techniques developed for prevention are derived from the concept presented in the book and is considered to be the second opinion. This second opinion is based on proven scientific facts as they concern the dynamic behavior of the natural and fundamental eye. It is the reader's sole responsibility to determine the suitability of this book's advocacy for his use. Once you make up your own mind to use the preventive method, you should then find an OD who will support you in your major effort -- based on your own best judgment. There are ODs who are now helping their own children in the use of the plus lens for prevention. That is the type of "open minded" OD you need. This site is dedicated to your own personal interest and your own goal in life -- where you assume complete technical and legal control over your own eyes. You must understand the intended purpose of this site and assume all risks and liabilities resulting from your actions. I can tell you personally that I wish I had been offered the preventive method advocated here. I acknowledged that the method is difficult and requires your own understanding. I wish I had been offered this alternative -- when I was at the threshold. I believe that the method would have been effective at that point. Because of the advocacy of Dr. Jacob Raphaelson, I realized that the person (you) must play a very strong role in prevention. If the effort is neglected or ignored at that point (by you) then nearsightedness can not be prevented. In the future you will find some ODs who will help you -- once you personally make the decision to use the plus for prevention. The very nature of these scientific arguments assumes that you have both the knowledge and motivation to take a large if not total responsibility to carry out the preventive work successfully. *********************** LEGAL DISCLAIMER 3 TRUTH ON THE INTERNET Truth goes through three stages: First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally it is accepted as self-evident. I subscribe to the "HONcode" principles of the Health On the Net Foundation. [Although technically, I deal with the eye's behavior as a well-engineered system, and present objective facts on that basis. Therefore the term "health" is not the quite correct term to use to describe the method of prevention that I advocate in my book and on this site.] In conformance with the principles of the HONcode, I state that: 1. Funding, services and material for this site are provided solely by advocates for prevention. Our advocacy is a result of an exhaustive effort on our part to determine if nearsightedness can be prevented. I published a book to detail this judgment of optometrists, ophthalmologists and myself on this matter. No commercial interests (including the commercial interests of doctors, hospitals, and/or the optical industry and the pharmaceutical industry) are involved. 2. Our advocacy exists solely to benefit you and for that reason I consult with professionally qualified, scientists, engineers, consumer advocates, and medical people. 3. Unlike the American Medical Association, which routinely spends millions of dollars influencing legislation and the operation of our government to benefit its members financially, I spend no money for such purposes. 4. The purpose of this site is to provide you information which might enable you to make an intelligent choice between two mutually exclusive alternatives. The specific issue concerns the scientifically proven effect that the minus lens has on the refractive status of the natural eye. If you do not believe this scientific truth -- then you should run the experiment yourself. Only you must judge the experimental outcome. Science works in no other way. MORE ABOUT TRUTH AND THE INTERNET The Internet has made a nearly unlimited amount of scientific (and health) information available to the public, and reliance on this source will continue to increase. In past generations -- before the widespread availability of such information -- one could do little else but rely upon the advice of one's doctor. Please remember that "the doctor" has children of his own. Some doctors who understand the deep scientific issues and proof involved are helping THEIR OWN CHILDREN in the use of a plus lens for prevention. This is the origin of the "second opinion" concept in medicine. Information from the government and the media tends to be censored and further, is intended to serve the interests of big money and "traditional medicine". Further, some public sprinted engineers and pilots have been sued to shut them up. You will not find a program devoted to prevention with a plus on television, nor even on public television. This would antagonize too many powerful and vested interests. Now, because of the true freedom of speech that does exist on the Internet, all this is changing. We are learning how much influence "traditional methods" can have on our lives. We are learning that there is more than one opinion on nearly everything. In many cases, the opinions are profoundly contradictory or even in direct opposition. Finding the truth about fundamentally scientific topics -- when properly implemented -- can result in your being able to enjjoy clear distant vision for life. The facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye. can be agonizingly difficult to establish. How does one determine if information presented on a Web site is accurate? Even organizations with prestigious sounding names and people with impressive titles do not necessarily know or speak the truth. Their beliefs are very often flawed because of a biased education, limited experience, open or hidden financial interest, face-saving concerns, peer pressure or other factors. When you learn to ask the right question you can lead yourself to a better answer -- than we have had in the past. That is the philosophy and approach presented to you on this site. The history of health care is full of instances where something easy-to-use was widely believed to be a fact by all the experts -- and was later shown to be false. When you actually CHECK the experimental data yourself, you find that the "wildly held" belief that "environment" has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of the eye is indeed a "false belief". You must be thorough and complete to gather as much information as you can before making a scientific and/or "health" decision. The truth is there but you must search for it using YOUR qualities of common sense and scientific judgment. ********************************************** LEGAL DISCLAIMER 4 This site is dedicated to the concept of freedom of speech as established by the U. S. Bill of Rights. In addition there is the issue of academic freedom, since I hold the unpopular but accurate concept that the natural eye is proven to change its refractive state when the visual environment is changed. Optometrists and ophthalmologist who disagree with this concept should respond on this forum with an honest discussion, rather than bringing legal actions against me. I will post their objections so that you can judge the nature of their opposition to this reasonable concept that the evolution-designed eye is dynamic rather than passive. It is your right to be adequately informed about this preventive "second opinion". By open, honest technical review and discussion you should be able to learn more about their reasons for the objections to effective prevention with a plus lens. Yes, prevention (and recovery from 20/60 to 20/20) is difficult. But why not be fair minded about both the difficulties and opportunities of prevention? To avoid confusion as to the nature of the discussion, please use the term, "focal state" to describe what you actually measure. This will save us a great deal of technical difficulty, and these words will enable us to avoid anger and misunderstandings. We can have an accurate technical discussion about the behavior of all eyes. The Donders-Helmholtz theory and picture of the eye as a box-camera is no longer a technically accurate concept of the eye's behavior. When all fundamental eyes are tested they always change their focal state in a negative direction when a minus lens is placed on them. All primate eyes do this. This is a matter of engineering and science -- and confirmed by direct experimental test. Since this issues is not about medicine, nor even related to medicine, (unless you believe that a positive or negative focal state of the natural eye is an organic defect) you can examine the objective factual data yourself and reach your own conclusion about the inherent behavior of all fundamental eyes. There is no intention to make improper statements, only the desire to help you form an opinion about the course of action that you MIGHT take to clear your distant vision to 20/20. (i.e., to change your focal state from -1/2 diopter to a value of +1/2 diopters). This change can be of great value to you if your long-term career goal requires that you have 20/20 distant vision for life. I believe that evolution designed a sophisticated automatically focused camera. A scientific review of this type should precede any discussion of the defective eye -- or the "cause" of any defect. Since the focal state of the eye tracks the average visual environment, (or accommodation system) then the eye can not be regarded as defective if it has either a positive or negative refractive status. Ultimately your own review of the objective experimental data will help you resolve the issue. I am concerned about being accused of making statements about the eye that I have never made. I have never said that a confined environment causes the eye to become defective. In simple terms I stated that, since all eyes track or follow the average visual environment, a more negative environment will simply produce an eye with a more negative focal state. I am responsible however, for technical typos and inaccuracies that may exist in the text of my book. If you find them, please contact me so that I can correct them. I provide this engineering advice with the idea that I wish I PERSONALLY could have been on the "receiving end" of this advice. By this, I mean WHEN the method COULD have been effective for me. I take this advice as an "either-or" decision you must make BEFORE you begin wearing a minus lens. I hope YOU understand the recommendations and suggestions in that context. Otis Brown