THE STRUGGLE – Never To Be Forgotten A Book Review by Bobby Matherne ©2011
NOTE: SEE http://www.doyletics.com/arj/struggle.htm for full review
This is an English translation of the Finnish book entitled “jotta totuus ei unohtuisi”. Why was it translated into English? Because the issue it deals with affects not only Finnish people, but all the people of the world, truly a cosmological issue. What issue does it deal with? The issue is shown clearly on the cover of the Finnish book — an eerie photo of a person wearing glasses in which the side of the person’s face is chopped off. We have all seen people wearing such glasses and barely notice them. But those observers of human nature who have studied Dr. Viikari’s works know that these strange images are due to the strong minus lens glasses they have on, and that invariably their eyes have an indescribable sadness to them.
This sadness hints at various incipient diseases of the eye and body which are due to the intense strain on the eye muscles and pressure on important nerves radiating out from the eye. The eye muscles under constant strain get locked into a spasm which in a weight lifter we call “muscle-bound”. Such muscles are permanently tight, and in the case of the eyes, the muscles keep a tight grip on the eyeballs like a tennis ball being squeezed in a vise and forgotten about for decades, until we open it up and find that the interior surface is deteriorating and a piece of rotten rubber has detached from the inside wall of the tennis ball. When these conditions happen in the human eyeball, we call them, macular degeneration and retinal detachment.
We also know that she has fought to save the eyes and lives of thousands of people who have been saddled with these onerous and often unnecessary minus lenses for over fifty years as a Medical Doctor and Ph. D. specializing in ophthalmology. Early in her career she recognized that the automatic prescription of minus Diopter lenses to her patients did more harm than good, that many of them did not have true myopia (a genetic elongation of the eyeballs), but had a temporary form of myopia induced by doing close work as a child or growing adult. She named this condition pseudo-myopia, and a more perfect name cannot be found to describe a condition which only simulates the condition named.
None of her thousands of patients treated by her over the years complained about her treatment of them, but on the contrary, most of them expressed gratitude for her work which allowed them to see better and to be relieved of various physical symptoms which bothered them, the most prominent one being migraine headaches. People from all over Finland came to her for their migraine headaches and left with healthier eyes and fewer, if any, migraines. Her procedures required extensive followup with each of her patients, especially those with medical problems whose symptoms were being alleviated by her treatment, and she recorded the details of each patients progress. She collected these case studies and compiled over a thousand of them into large volume entitled Panacea, which is available in English for study by medical professionals everywhere(1). The cover photo of the book is filled with sad eyes marked by the characteristic vertical furrows which a colleague of hers, Professor of Ophthalmology Dr. Matti Saari, has named the “Viikari Syndrome” since it was Dr. Kaisu Viikari who first noted the diagnostic value of those furrows. See closeup of cover image at right.
Her biggest struggle, as documented in this small book, was with most of her own colleagues who tried to squelch her work, to minimize the value of her contribution to the understanding of how prescribing the wrong eyeglasses can cause physical problems through the human body. Why? is a good question. I doubt we will ever know the real reasons, because those will remain in the hearts of those who opposed her work, who stopped her work from being published in scientific journals, and those who ridiculed her contribution to understanding the etiology of many illnesses that originate in the region of the eyes. Here in this book she documents her struggle in her own words and with letters from associates and reports of various meetings. Knowing these things had happened, in her own heart she felt a need to lay them out for the world to see. If her work were worthy, as she knew it was, she could not stand by idly and be grounded by the crippling crowd of seagulls around her, but instead she had to lift herself into the air and soar like Jonathan Livingston Seagull. This book is her flight as the Seagull Jonathan.
Who was the Seagull Jonathan? A seagull who flew higher and faster than his fellow seagulls, even flying on foggy days when other gulls only huddled on the ground, scoffing at his folly. For Jonathan’s achievements he was called before a Council. He wanted no honors from them, only the chance to share what he had discovered with his colleagues, to show them the new horizons ahead for them. What he got instead was a deathly shock:
[page 38, 39] “Jonathan Livingston Seagull,” said the Elder, “Stand to Center for Shame in the sight of your fellow gulls!”
It felt like being hit with a board. His knees went weak, his feathers sagged, there was roaring in his ears. Centered for shame? Impossible! The Breakthrough! They can’t understand! They’re wrong, they’re wrong!
“. . . for his reckless irresponsibility,” the solemn voice intoned, “violating the dignity and tradition of the Gull Family. . .”
To be centered for shame meant that he would be cast out of gull society, banished to a solitary life on the Far Cliffs.
“. . . one day, Jonathan Livingston Seagull, you shall learn that irresponsibility does not pay. Life is the unknown and the unknowable, except that we are put into this world to eat, to stay alive as long as we possibly can.”
Jonathan begged to be allowed to plead his case, but to no avail, the Council had already, before the meeting, made up their minds. They saw in Jonathan someone who had broken the conventions of life as a seagull, had violated the code of seagull-dom, and he was cast out of their midst without a hearing.
If you, dear Reader, felt bad when you read what happened to the fictional Jonathan, a seagull, how much worse you must feel you read of a similar thing happening to a human being, Kaisu Viikari, by a “Council” of her fellow doctors! She only wanted to share with them what she had found, to show the new horizons ahead for eyeglass wearers, horizons of freedom from various scourges of eye-diseases. She knew that her colleagues made huge sums of money “fixing” the results of these diseases, while the patients — the ones Dr. Kaisu Viikari cared most about — suffered through multiple operations, expensive medications, and untold suffering — suffering, which she had come to understand through her research, that could mostly be eliminated. She was ignored, ridiculed, and minimized, but like Jonathan, she did not crawl off in a corner, but continued to fly by writing this book. Its goal is her effort to set the record straight: it is the record of the various “Councils” and “Editor-in-Chiefs” whose censure she had to endure.
The first “Council” was the Meeting of the Finnish Ophthalmological Society which came after the entire body of ophthalmologists had received their copies of Tetralogia, her first book containing over 700 case studies. Kaisu writes, “It was only natural that the Finnish Ophthalmological Society asked me to give a lecture at its meeting.” I imagine the good doctor expected a respectful attention to her lecture and some well-reasoned questions afterward. What she got was skewered on a barbeque instead.
The first questioner to rise had no questions at all, but simply denounced her lecture.
[page 11] The date of my lecture was 10 March 1973. . . . after I had finished, the first one to ask for the floor was Arvo Oksala, a Professor from Turku. From his seat in the middle of same minded group, he stood up with a heavy heart to say how he saw the issue of pseudo-myopia as a “matter of belief” and did not consider the lecture worthy of discussion. He found it regrettable that a book like this had ever been written.
Kaisu, like Jonathan, was not in front of the “Council” to be honored, but instead, to be disgraced by a large group of prominent men in the audience. Of the five or six people who asked for the floor, the only support for Kaisu’s work came from a female colleague. Pirkko’s comments at the meeting were not recorded, but this earlier letter shows the esteem in which she held Dr. Viikari’s work.
[page 11] The most memorable one of these was the bold contribution of Pirkko Koivusalo, which showed she had understood the gist of my lecture. At an earlier date, she had written to me: “Since my trip to study abroad, Tetralogia is the best thing that has happened to me in my progress as an ophthalmologist. With extreme thankfulness for finally meeting an honest ophthalmologist, your previously skeptical fellow believer. In the middle of our Christmas preparations, my humblest thanks!”
The next hurdle Kaisu had to face was the Duodecim Medical Journal, whose Editor-in-Chief requested a synopsis of her lecture. She included in her submitted synopsis the following details about migraines.
[page 14] As this should be of interest to every doctor, I present an unselected material of 174 migraine patients, in which every patient was found to have either considerable hyperopia or clear pseudo-myopia. Particular attention should be focused on migraine cases with neurological symptoms.
Three months later, far longer than usual three weeks, Kaisu received a letter from the Editor-in-Chief rejecting her synopsis because it differs from “prevailing views”. Instead of publishing the synopsis of her innovative work, they rejected it exactly because it was innovative! Not because it was wrong, not because it was non-scientific, but simply because it was heresy to the very organization that should be devoted to bettering the health and eyesight of patients, not to upholding its dogma. Clearly it infuriated Dr. Kaisu as she writes of her response to the rejection:
[page 16] After waiting for three months, my synopsis was turned down not on its merits but because my work differed from the prevailing ideas. This led me to ask, “Does not all progress in this world come from those who think differently than prevailing ideas?“
With these thoughts Dr. Kaisu decided to resign from the Medical Society Duodecim. She shares her reason for resigning in this book on page 16, “In plain language this meant that a society which, instead of showing interest in progress in the world keeps rehashing the same centuries-old dogmas, is not for me!” A further insult in the form of a thinly veiled bribe came from Assistant Professor Ahti Tarkkanen, who was asked by the Editor to mediate with Kaisu. He offered her a grant for some continuing education in London. She asked him, “Why would you trust my judgment in something like that, if not in this matter? No thank-you!” After several further insults to Kaisu, her husband’s synopsis of a letter to the Finnish Surgical Society was left unpublished and was dubbed of “local interest only”. This was a lecture by world-renown surgeon, Dr. Sauli Viikari, who performed the first open-heart surgery in Finland. Subsequently Sauli joined his wife in resigning from Duodecim(2).
Dr. Kaisu Viikari’s work has revealed such simple conditions as these: pseudo-myopia comes from doing close work, refractive errors are connected with headaches, migraines can be relieved by the use of reading glasses. (Page 54) I am not eye doctor, but I know a lot about my own eyes. I was an early and avid reader of books and any kind of reading material I could get my hands on. I always took out the maximum number of books allowed from the Public Library while I was in elementary and junior high. I read thousands of comic books, hundreds of old Reader’s Digests, and whatever magazines I could find. By the time I was 17, I could not see things in the distance closely. I was diagnosed as myopic and with my first negative lenses, I could see leaves on trees again! I thought these glasses were the best invention ever made! At 36 I tried contact lens for awhile, but they were difficult to keep clean and hard to use when riding a motorcycle so I went back to my simple glasses(3). I read and tried the Bates Method of seeing without eye glasses, to no avail. Bates’ eye exercises offered me no help. Later I went to unifocal lenses (4) which allowed me to see up close and at a distance, but they restricted my vision to a sweet spot in the middle of the lenses, forcing me to move my head from side to side while reading a page! I hated them, but eventually I got used to them.
Finally a year and a half ago, a friend brought Dr. Kaisu Viikari’s attention to my review of another innovator’s pioneering work(5) and she contacted me. After reading her bookPreventing Myopia, I immediately bought myself some reading glasses. I ordered some +.5D on-line, and bought +1.0D glasses at local drugstore (the smallest +D lenses sold in drugstores). What I was doing was counter-intuitive for me! I could read a book without any glasses on. I prided myself on my myopia, that I could read tiny print that other people needed to put reading glasses on to read. And here I was voluntarily putting on reading glasses to read something I could read without them! “How dumb is that?” I thought. Yet, it seemed clear to me as a physicist, that if my eyes were not myopic until I was 17, those 14 plus years of close work could have caused my eye muscles to have elongated my eyeballs, so that without glasses on, I became myopic, not from some genetically elongated eyeballs, but from the action of doing close work without plus lenses on, which is exactly what Dr. Viikari was proposing. So I wore plus lense from morning to night. Carrying around three pairs of glasses was a real pain, needless to say. At least I only needed one pair with my old negative lenses which were -2.0D.
Within a month or so, I noticed that I could see more clearly. After a year, my vision has improved in bright sunlight so much that I no longer wear glasses to drive and I can read the print on street signs and billboards, two things I would have thought impossible just 18 months earlier. I have never had migraines and the last regular headaches I remember were from my early work career when I spent a lot of time poring over computer printouts designing and debugging software. So the plus lenses had no effect other than to allow me to see clearly without glasses when I am outside. Look at all the photos of me in any Digest before 2010 and I will have glasses on, and any since that time, there’ll be no photos of me with glasses on. I now carry a pair of +1D reading glasses with me, and have my original pair of +.5D glasses on right now as I am typing on my PC. They remain by my PC as the +1D’s require my head to be closer to screen than I am comfortable with. I always have a pair of +2D glasses for reading at home, which I can do comfortably. This simple protocol of using the strongest +D or plus lens eyeglasses has begun to cause my accommodation spasm to release, very gradually, over a year’s time. If I sit at computer and forget to put on my plus lens, my eyes have begun to remind me via a vague discomfort which goes away as soon as I slip the pluses on.
The goal with plus lenses is to have your eye muscles as relaxed when you are doing close work as they are when you take them off and look to the distance. If your eye muscles do not have to do work in either the close or far viewing state, your eyes will remain in focus and healthy for the rest of your life.
You cannot feel the Asp, the Accommodation Spasm, in your eyes. I never felt it in my eyes with the -2.0D lenses on for over 50 years. But since going to plus lenses for close work, the reverse is true and I am able to just barely notice a signal from my eyes saying, “Put on your plus lenses.” This is my testimony.
There is hope that gradually eye doctors and specialists will come to understand the importance of providing a mean for relaxing their patients’ accommodation muscles. The medical consequences of pseudo-myopia are so widespread and the cause so under-recognized as to be considered epidemic proportions. The public institutions that keep longitudinal records of eyesight acuity are the service academies of their cadets. They have noted that while about 19% of cadets begin their studies as myopic, over 50% of them leave with so-called myopia, and that must be close-work-induced myopia, or to give it a proper name, pseudo-myopia.
One way to experience release of the accommodation spasm (Asp) is to put on +D lenses (can be +2 to +10D) and look dreamily at a distant object without trying focus. The eyes cannot focus on anything and the Asp gives up. This is difficult to do in most offices which are completely enclosed, but Dr. Viikari could leave her office door ajar with a view of the street and easily perform this operational test, called fogging. In this next quotation Dr. Viikari tells a colleague about a fogging demonstration she set up in her office(6).
[20-March-2011 email] I must tell you, that when the Swedish opticians, May 1987, held their meeting at my surgery in Turku, they saw “the miracle of accommodation relaxation” when fogged to the license plates on cars across the street. After going back home, one of them cut out a hole and installed an easily opened hatch over it in the wall of his examination office in order to get a longer distance for examining his patients’ eyesight. (edited from personal communication)
Dr. Kaisu Viikari, after over fifty years of helping patients to see and feel better, is hoping that this book, documenting her Jonathan Livingston Seagull-like struggle against the recalcitrant masses of her colleagues, will gradually bring a re-birth in interest in her thousands of documented cases of healing patients without harming them. Professionals like the Swedish optician above and the newspaper reporter below can help bring her work into focus for all those in the optical profession who are more interested in helping people than in making a fortune using the latest laser-guide surgery tools to reshape eyes which provide better eyesight for a few years, followed by the inevitable onset of accommodation spasm and the ills it brings.
[page 25] The most beautiful metaphor for my life’s work came from Vieno Räty, a reporter for Turun Sanomat. Her extremely insightful interview dealing with the message of Tetralogy was published under the heading: “We will all need glasses at some point in our lives” in Turun Sanomat in May 1973. As we were talking together, she told me that she had all the time been reminded of Seagull Jonathan, the forty pages of which book it took Richard Bach, a direct descendant of Johann Sebastian Bach, eight years to write. I dashed out to purchase a copy — and indeed, “the flock huddled miserably on the ground” could not fail to bring associations of our meetings. I am grateful to her for this hint.
Dr. Kaisu Viikari is not some “hausfrau” or “society lady with a hobby” as various of her critics have derided her. She is a Medical Doctor with an M. D. and Ph. D. in her field of Ophthalmology. She devoted her life to helping patients and her colleagues for the most part have ridiculed her work instead of learning from it. It is easier to ridicule an innovator than it is to investigate them, besides, investigation might lead to understanding, and that might change the investigator. Most optical professionals are too busy with the latest contact lenses and newest laser tools to investigate a method which involves time-consuming examination and follow ups with the goal of healing a patient by prescribing inexpensive lens they can buy at any local drugstore. When the doctor is not willing to do what’s best for a patient, often the patient will rebel and find a way to do it without the doctor. Optical professionals at all levels are threatened by the work of Dr. Viikari, but it is really their cavalier attitude which threatens their patients, who with a simple Google search can do what their eye doctors could not or would notdo for them: give themselves healthy eyes and bodies.
Footnote 1. Kaisu Viikari’s book Panacea was written in 1978 and contains over 1200 case studies. It was preceded in 1972 by her Tetralogia with 723 case studies. Tetralogia is available only in Finnish. In a personal communication, Dr. Viikari says she handled over 2500 migraine patients. In Panacea she says there are also hundreds of patients with other symptoms connected to accommodation strain.
Any questions about this review, Contact: Bobby Matherne
Footnote 2. In a pathetic, almost humorous side-note, some years later the Duodecim Society called on the phone and told Kaisu that they were planning to give their annual award to Sauli. The Society didn’t even know he had resigned, an indication that his resignation had been kept secret from most members of the Society.
Footnote 3. Biggest problem with contact lenses, as I learned from Dr. Viikari, is that, with eyeglasses, you can take them off and look outside to rest your eyes during the day. With contacts, they stay on from bedside to bedtime.
Footnote 4. Unifocal lens is a generic name for what would be called a “progressive lens” in Finland and Europe — one which gets progressively stronger in plus direction as one’s eyes move down the lenses — and which provides bifocal type vision without the distracting line across one’s vision. To achieve this progressive focusing, the field of clear vision must be restricted to the center of the lenses.
Footnote 5. Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis discovered and promoted the practice of physicians sanitizing their hands before and after doing surgery. This was an heretical idea in Vienna at the time, and hundreds of thousands of women were dying in childbirth in the city’s lying-in hospitals which doubled as teaching hospitals. Doctors commonly went from putting their hands in cadavers to putting them into live women in childbirth. The director of the hospital had Semmelweis committed to a mental hospital for daring to save these women’s lives. See “The Cry and the Covenant” at http://www.doyletics.com/arj/tcatcrvw.shtml .
Footnote 6. Without seeing the actual circumstances, it is difficult to get an idea of Dr. Viikari’s arrangements for her office area: by opening a door through the back of her office, she was able to use the license plate of her car, which she purposely parked in that spot, for the fogging examination.
Here are the covers of two earlier books by Kaisu Viikari.
After examining them carefully, I wrote to her that her book covers
are a lesson in themselves.
Examine them for yourself and note how the faces have vertical frowns and other symptoms of ocular accommodation spasms on the Book Cover of her book, “PANACEA”, and how the face on the cover of “jotta” is shrunken by the heavy minus Diopter eyeglasses. She sees these frowning and unhappy faces as correctable symptoms of pseudo-myopia caused by over prescribing of minus lenses. One gentleman wrote after she helped remove his ocular-caused unhappiness, “You saved my life. I am no longer suicidal!”
You will recall that you were kind enough to give me a prescription to order a pair of .75 positive glasses in order to avoid migraine in later years. Now the glasses have arrived and I am happy to report to you that the result is incredible.As you will see from the following description the change ‘Before and After’ seems unlikely but I am prepared to testify that it is true.
Cartoon Figures Illustrating Life-Changing Nature of Removing Ocular Accommodation Stress. From the Rear Book Cover of Dr. Kaisu Viikari’s ‘Panacea’ Book are these two cartoon faces drawn at the bottom of a letter from Dr. János Székessy.
THE VIIKARI SYNDROMEProfessor Matti Saari has rightly named the vertical frown, the Viikari Syndrome, because Dr. Kaisu Viikari has uniquely and incontrovertibly identified the etiology of the vertical frown as resulting from a severe accommodation spasm which can lead to various severe medical conditions. Her success with treating these medical conditions, especially migraine headaches, by adjusting eyeglass prescriptions led to her attracting thousands of patients to her surgery in Turku, Finland from all over Scandinavia, and Northern Europe.
Bobby Mathernen arvostelu – käännös Liisa Honkasaari FM
* Katso englannin kielinen arvostelu: http://www.doyletics.com/arj/struggle.html
Miksi ihmiset perustelevat sanojaan ja tekojaan? Haluaisit kai tietää? Miksi? No siksi. Hyvä on. No siksi on yleinen vastaus kysymykseen miksi. Vastaamme niin, kun emme halua vastata emmekä perustella kieltoa. Charles Tilly tarjoaa neljä eri vastausluokkaa ihmisille, jotka haluavat perustella. Nämä vastaukset muodostavat tämän kiinnostavan ja hyödyllisen kirjasen aiheen ja sisällön.
Miksi tämän kirjan vuoksi kannattaa vaivautua? Minulla on neljä syytä, joiden vuoksi haluan jakaa sen lukijoiden kanssa. Ensinnäkin minulla on tapana lukea kirjoja, joiden aihepiirinä on tietoisuuden kehittyminen. Tämän kirjan nimikin jo kertoo kirjoittajan pohtineen, miten ihmiset perustelevat tekemisiään tai heille sattuvia tapahtumia. Omaksumani tavan vuoksi minun oli ostettava tämä kirja ja luettava se.
Toisekseen, antakaahan kun kerron teille tarinan. Olen juuri saanut kirjan, jonka kirjoittaja, innovatiivinen suomalaislääkäri, kohtasi vaikeuksia ammattitovereidensa keskuudessa. Hän kirjoittaa vaikeuksistaan kirjassa nimeltä jotta totuus ei unohtuisi. Autoin häntä saamaan kirjansa englanninkielisen version, jonka syntyperäinen suomalainen kääntäjä oli kääntänyt suomesta, selvemmälle ja arkipäiväisemmälle englannin kielelle. Editointiprosessin aikana luin hänen kirjansa useita kertoja ja perehdyin hänen yhteentörmäyksiinsä auktoriteettien kanssa, jotka kieltäytyivät julkaisemasta hänen lääketieteellisiä artikkelejaan lehdissään. Kirjan sisältämien kirjeiden kautta sain tietoa syistä, joiden vuoksi eri julkaisujen toimittajat eivät julkaisseet hänen töitään.
Kolmanneksi olen freelancetoimittaja, eikä kukaan rajoita sitä, mitä voin lukea ja arvostella. Koska tapani on arvostella kaikkea mitä luen, omien sääntöjeni mukaan tämä kirja oli sopivaa luettavaa. Se olikin hienoa, sillä minä halusin lukea sen.
Neljänneksi, nyt kun minulla oli kerrottavana tarina siitä, miksi halusin lukea kirjan, minulla oli lukemisen tapa, johon kirja soveltui, ja koska olin luokitellut kirjan sopivaksi luettavaksi omien sääntöjeni mukaan, ainoa tekninen yksityiskohta, josta minun piti huolehtia, oli tilata kirja Labyrinth Book Catalog –palvelusta ja odotella sen saapumista.
Miksi sitten esitän näin seikkaperäisen kuvauksen kirjan ostamisesta ja lukemisesta? Koska yllä antamani neljä syytä vastaavat niitä neljää perusteluluokkaa, joita Tilly kuvaa kirjassaan ja joilla me vastaamme kysymykseen miksi: 1) tavat, 2) tarinat, 3) säännöt ja 4) tekniset kuvaukset. Luonnollisestikaan kaikki miksi-kysymykset eivät edellytä tukeutumista kaikkiin neljään luokkaan, mutta mikä tahansa kysymys vaatii ainakin kahta vastaustyyppiä. Jopa lyhytsanaista vastausta No siksi voi voidaan pitää tapana sitä viljelevän henkilön kohdalla.
Kirjassaan jotta totuus ei unohtuisi Kaisu Viikari, lääkäri ja silmätautiopin tohtori, kertoo yrityksistään julkaista Suomen silmälääkäriyhdistyksen kokouksessa pitämänsä esitelmän referaatin yhdistyksen lehdessä. Hänen työnsä, jota hän kuvaa tarinoiden ja yksityiskohtaisten teknisten selostusten kautta, hylättiin seuraavasta syystä: “Se erosi vallitsevista käsityksistä.”Tässä tapauksessa tieteellisen julkaisun toimittaja turvautuu tapoihin ja sääntöihin, sen sijaan että olisi yksinkertaisesti antanut Viikarin tarinoissa ja teknisissä kuvauksissa esittämien syy-seuraussuhteiden puhua puolestaan. Tätä kirjaa lukiessani toisin sanoen tajusin, miten vastakkaiset voimat ryhmittyivät asemiinsa: kumpikin puoli valitsi kaksi neljästä Charles Tillin kirjassaan esittämästä neljästä luokasta.
Lisäksi osapuolten välillä vallitsi juuri sellainen neuvottelusuhde, jota Tilly kuvaa (seuraavassa kappaleessa).
Oman kirjoittajanurani aikana olen tehnyt yhteistyötä kolmen innovaattorin kanssa, Joseph W. Newmanin, Doyle P. Hendersonin ja tohtori Kaisu Viikarin. Olen eri vaiheissa toiminut neuvonantajan, kääntäjän, tulkin, tietokirjailijan ja asioihin perehtyneen harrastelijan roolissa näiden omien alojensa asiantuntijoiden kanssa työskennellessäni. Heistä jokainen tarjoaa maailmalle panacean, jonkin ongelman yleispätevän ratkaisun. Newman on keksinyt lupaavan menetelmän tuottaa rajoittamattomia määriä energiaa muuntamalla kupariatomeja suoraan energiaksi. Hendersonin kosmologinen keksintö tarjoaa meille maailman, joka on vapaa pelosta, vihasta, huolesta ja kaikista ruumiillisista tiloista, joiden vallassa ihminen on ennen kognitiivisen muistin täyttä kehitystä viiden vuoden iässä. Viikari on omistanut elämänsä silmätautien tutkimukselle ja kärsivien potilaiden hoitamiselle, ja hän tarjoaa meille vapautta silmälasien mukanaan tuomasta likinäköisyydestä ja sen aiheuttamista lukuisista muista sairauksista, kuten verkkokalvon rappeuma ja irtoaminen, kaihit ja migreeni.
Tapojen ja sääntöjen ylläpitäjät ovat estäneet kaikkia kolmea innovaattoria pääsemästä eteenpäin. Newmanin hämmästyttävälle keksinnölle ei myönnetty patenttia, vaikka se sai kaikkien sitä tutkineiden asiantuntijoiden täysimittaisen tuen ja vaikka Newman oli laatinut erinomaisen teknisen kuvauksen sen toiminnan syy- ja seuraussuhteista. Henderson avasi Los Angelesissa vastaanottonsa huumeklinikan naapuriin. Hän otti vastaan huumeklinikan toivottomat tapaukset ja paransi heidät. Hänen menetelmänsä muutti alkoholistit kohtuukäyttäjiksi ja lesbot biseksuaaleiksi. Tämä kuohutti niitä, joiden mielestä kyseessä oli tapojen ja sääntöjen rikkomus, joten Hendersonia uhkasi syyte luvattomasta lääkkeiden määräämisestä, ja hänen vastaanottonsa suljettiin. Tämän jälkeen alkoholistit saivat vapaasti pysyä alkoholisteina. Kaisu Viikarin innovatiivinen tapa määrätä pluslasit uhkaavan likinäköisyyden ehkäisemiksi esti itseään ruokkivan kehityksen, jossa jatkuvasti vahvemmat miinuslasit saavat aikaan pseudomyopiaa. Kollegat tyrmäsivät hänen esitelmänsä vain siksi, että hän käytti sanaa pseudomyopia, joka ei tuolloin sisältynyt näkemisen ammattilaisten sääntöihin, eikä mahdollisesti sisälly vielä nykyäänkään. Kukin näistä oman alansa innovaattoreista koki saman kohtalon: koska heidän työnsä ei vaikuttanut noudattavan tapoja ja sääntöjä, heidän työnsä vaiennettiin aivan samoin kuin tohtori Ignaz Semmelweisin innovatiivinen työ antiseptiikan alalla: sairaalan johtaja paheksui Sammelweisin työtä ja toimitti hänet viimein mielisairaalaan. Samaan aikaan tuhannet naiset kuolivat synnytykseen, kun lääkärit vielä jonkin aikaa jatkoivat käytäntöään saapua ruumiita käsiteltyään hoitamaan synnytyksiä pesemättä välillä käsiään, vaikka Semmelweis oli jo todistanut, että näin voitiin pelastaa ihmishenkiä! Semmelweis tunnetaan antiseptiikan isänä, mutta lääketieteen ammattilaisten varjopuolta harvoin mainitaan hänen yhteydessään. Toisin kuin Semmelweisin, Barbara McClintockin innovaatio tunnustettiin ja hänen elämäntyönsä pääsi arvoonsa vielä hänen elinaikanaan. Newmanin, Hendersonin ja Viikarin tapauksessa lopullinen tuomio on vielä julistamatta, mutta aina kun luutuneita paradigmoja esiintyy millä tahansa alalla, pitää aina ajatella tulevaisuutta. Gregor Mendelin uraauurtava työ sileiden ja ryppyisten herneiden parissa unohdettiin yli kolmeksikymmeneksi vuodeksi, kunnes William Bateson ymmärsi sen arvon ja antoi alalle sen nykyisen nimen, genetiikka.
Edessämme on tutkimusmatka elämään. Mihin olet matkalla? Mitkä säännöt ja tavat sitovat sinua ilman, että olet niistä edes tietoinen? Oletko kuin kala, jolle sammakko sanoi: “Sinä olet aina veden alla.” Kala vastusti väitettä jyrkästi ja sanoi: “Minkä ihmeen veden? Kai minä itse tietäisin, jos olisin vedessä.” Tämä kuvaa sivistyneen, sääntöjen ja tapojen sitoman ihmiskunnan tilannetta. Me elämme niiden vallassa jatkuvasti ja enimmäkseen emme tunnusta niiden olemassaoloa. Kun joku rohkenee ehdottaa jotain, mikä ei sovi sääntöihin, katsomme häntä epäuskoisena, karkotamme hänet, yritämme parhaamme mukaan olla välittämättä hänestä ja hankkiudumme hänestä eroon. Saatamme jopa nauraa hänelle, pilkata hänen työtään, ja mainita syyksi säännöt ja tavat, joita katsomme hänen rikkovan. Innovaatiot ovat kuitenkin aina osoittautuneet vahvemmiksi kuin tavat ja säännöt, ja ajan pitkään ne pääsevät voitolle epäilijöistä, vastustajista ja halventajista. Tämän tuloksena syntyvän uuden vallan alla ihmiset unohtavat nauttivansa juuri niistä eduista, joita kerran pitivät mahdottomina.