A Scientist, Dr. Colgate, suggests a lens choice for plus-prevention.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Dec 16, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention-minded friends,

    Dr. Colgate asked me to post the following
    regarding plus-prevention -- on how to avoid
    entry into progressive myopia -- as
    previously discussed.

    Otis

    ----- Original Message -----

    From: Stirling Colgate

    Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006

    Subject: Re: The Majority-opinion argument against
    plus-prevention

    Otis,

    I wrote this in order to offer some guidance about what
    strength lens might be used in myopia prevention.

    It can be posted on the web site if you want to.

    Stirling

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    From: Stirling A. Colgate

    Subject: The Strength of Positive Lenses Needed to Alleviate
    Progressive Myopia

    The purpose of a positive lens is to transform optically the
    near-point focal environment of reading a book or paper into an
    optical image with focal properties of infinity. Lens "strengths"
    are measured in diopters, which is the focal length of the lens
    measured in inverse meters. A lens with a focal length of half a
    meter is then one with a strength of 2 diopters.

    Consider using a lens to image the sun onto a piece of paper
    and making it catch fire as we used to do as children. This
    teaches us that a lens of 1 diopter will focus the sun image onto
    the paper when the lens is held one meter from the paper. This is
    a relatively "weak" lens. A stronger one might focus the sun's
    image onto the paper when held 8 inches or 20 cm from the paper.
    This would be called a five diopter lens, (100 cm/20 cm) = 5
    diopters. Conversely the same lens directed onto writing on the
    same piece of paper will convert the image of the writing to the
    focal properties of the distance to the sun, i.e., infinity.

    The light rays simply follow a reverse path. For practical
    purposes for the human eye, infinity is any object at a distance
    of greater than 3 to 10 meters. Therefore if one looks at the
    paper through a one diopter lens with the paper held one meter
    from the lens the image will appear to the eyes of the viewer as
    if it were at the distance of the sun, infinity. If the paper is
    held closer to the viewer, the lens must be stronger in order to
    produce the same result.

    The fundamental assumption for myopia prevention is that the
    eye adapts to its mean focal environment. Most of us want to see
    distant objects without glasses, so-called normal vision.
    However, most of us spend many hours a day reading. This is
    performed at a distance of about 15 inches, half a meter from the
    eye, a close focal environment. In order to artificially convert
    the artificial focal environment of reading back to a natural one
    of infinity, a positive lens of plus two diopters is needed.

    A few shy young people will hold a book at 12 inches or even
    closer. Then to prevent reading- induced myopia, a plus three
    lens may be used. As a practical matter no one reads all the time
    so that a somewhat weaker lens, say 1.5 diopters for reading, may
    "hold" an eye with "normal" focal properties normal, i.e., a mean
    relaxed focus of infinity.

    On the other hand most young people will start doing
    something about their progressive myopia only when they are
    significantly myopic and then a somewhat stronger lens, say 2.5
    diopters (and a mild head ache) can be used for a month until
    partial focal restoration has occurred followed by a weaker one
    for holding the gain. Unfortunately older people progressively
    lose the physiological function of the growth in length of the
    eyeball in response to the focal environment. The length of the
    camera, the length of the eyeball, is the principle mechanism for
    the long-term (greater than six months) adaptive focal mechanism
    of the eye.


    ===============================

    For additional review of Stirling Colgate's successful
    use of the plus for vision-clearing read
    Colgate to 20/20 on my site:

    www.myopiafree.com

    There is a strong scientific basis for
    preventing the development of a negative
    refractive STATE in the dynamic, natural
    eye.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    And he asked ME to follow your posts with this:

    PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE READING ANY POST BY OTIS BROWN

    If you didn't know better, you'd think this text was written entirely
    ABOUT Otis ;-)

    ----

    http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

    Distinguishing Science and Pseudoscience
    Rory Coker, Ph.D.

    The word "pseudo" means fake. The surest way to spot a fake is to know
    as much as possible about the real thing-in this case, about science
    itself. Knowing science does not mean simply knowing scientific facts
    (such as the distance from earth to sun, the age of the earth, the
    distinction between mammal and reptile, etc.) It means understanding
    the nature of science-the criteria of evidence, the design of
    meaningful experiments, the weighing of possibilities, the testing of
    hypotheses, the establishment of theories, the many aspects of
    scientific methods that make it possible to draw reliable conclusions
    about the physical universe.

    Because the media bombard us with nonsense, it is useful to consider
    the earmarks of pseudoscience. The presence of even one of these
    should arouse great suspicion. On the other hand, material displaying
    none of these flaws might still be pseudoscience, because its
    adherents invent new ways to fool themselves every day. Most of the
    examples in this article are related to my field of physics, but
    similar beliefs and behavior are associated with iridology, medical
    astrology, meridian therapy, reflexology, subluxation-based
    chiropractic, therapeutic touch, and other health-related
    pseudosciences.

    Pseudoscience displays an indifference to facts.
    Instead of bothering to consult reference works or investigating
    directly, its advocates simply spout bogus "facts" where needed. These
    fictions are often central to the pseudoscientist's argument and
    conclusions. Moreover, pseudoscientists rarely revise. The first
    edition of a pseudoscience book is almost always the last, even though
    the book remains in print for decades or even centuries. Even books
    with obvious mistakes, errors, and misprints on every page may be
    reprinted as is, over and over. Compare this to science textbooks that
    see a new edition every few years because of the rapid accumulation of
    new facts and insights.

    Pseudoscience "research" is invariably sloppy.
    Pseudoscientists clip newspaper reports, collect hearsay, cite other
    pseudoscience books, and pore over ancient religious or mythological
    works. They rarely or never make an independent investigation to check
    their sources.

    Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis-usually one which is appealing
    emotionally, and spectacularly implausible-and then looks only for
    items which
    appear to support it. Conflicting evidence is ignored. Generally
    speaking, the aim of
    pseudoscience is to rationalize strongly held beliefs, rather than to
    investigate or to test alternative possibilities. Pseudoscience
    specializes in jumping to "congenial conclusions," grinding
    ideological axes, appealing to preconceived ideas and to widespread
    misunderstandings.

    Pseudoscience is indifferent to criteria of valid evidence.
    The emphasis is not on meaningful, controlled, repeatable scientific
    experiments. Instead it is on unverifiable eyewitness testimony,
    stories and tall tales, hearsay, rumor, and dubious anecdotes. Genuine
    scientific literature is either ignored or misinterpreted.

    Pseudoscience relies heavily on subjective validation.
    Joe Blow puts jello on his head and his headache goes away. To
    pseudoscience, this means jello cures headaches. To science this means
    nothing, since no experiment was done. Many things were going on when
    Joe Blow's headache went away-the moon was full, a bird flew
    overhead,
    the window was open, Joe had on his red shirt, etc.-and his headache
    would have gone away eventually in any case, no matter what. A
    controlled experiment would put many people suffering from headaches
    in identical circumstances, except for the presence or absence of the
    remedy it is desired to test, and compare the results which would then
    have some chance of being meaningful. Many people think there must be
    something to astrology because a newspaper horoscope describes them
    perfectly. But close examination would reveal that the description is
    general enough to cover virtually everyone. This phenomenon, called
    subjective validation, is one of the foundations of popular support
    for pseudoscience.

    Pseudoscience depends on arbitrary conventions of human
    culture, rather than on unchanging regularities of nature.
    For instance, the interpretations of astrology depend on the names of
    things, which are accidental and vary from culture to culture. If the
    ancients had given the name Mars to the planet we call Jupiter, and
    vice versa, astronomy could care less but astrology would be totally
    different, because it depends solely on the name and has nothing to do
    with the physical properties of the planet itself.

    Pseudoscience always achieves a reduction to absurdity if pursued far
    enough. Maybe dowsers can somehow sense the presence of water or
    minerals
    under a field, but almost all claim they can dowse equally well from a
    map! Maybe Uri Geller is "psychic," but are his powers really beamed
    to him on a radio link with a flying saucer from the planet Hoova, as
    he has claimed? Maybe plants are "psychic," but why does a bowl of mud
    respond in exactly the same way, in the same "experiment?"

    Pseudoscience always avoids putting its claims to a meaningful test.
    Pseudoscientists never carry out careful, methodical experiments
    themselves-and they also generally ignore results of those carried
    out
    by scientists. Pseudoscientists also never follow up. If one
    pseudoscientist claims to have done an experiment (such as the "lost"
    biorhythm studies of Hermann Swoboda that are alleged basis of the
    modern pseudoscience of biorhythms), no other pseudoscientist ever
    tries to duplicate it or to check him, even when the original results
    are missing or questionable! Further, where a pseudoscientist claims
    to have done an experiment with a remarkable result, he himself never
    repeats it to check his results and procedures. This is in extreme
    contrast with science, where crucial experiments are repeated by
    scientists all over the world with ever-increasing precision.

    Pseudoscience often contradicts itself, even in its own terms.
    Such logical contradictions are simply ignored or rationalized away.
    Thus, we should not be surprised when Chapter 1 of a book on dowsing
    says that dowsers use newly cut twigs, because only "live" wood can
    channel and focus the "earth-radiation" that
    makes dowsing possible, whereas Chapter 5 states that nearly all
    dowsers use metal or plastic rods.

    Pseudoscience deliberately creates mystery where none
    exists, by omitting crucial information and important details.
    Anything can be made "mysterious" by omitting what is known about it
    or presenting completely imaginary details. The "Bermuda Triangle"
    books are classic examples of this tactic.

    Pseudoscience does not progress.
    There are fads, and a pseudoscientist may switch from one fad to
    another (from ghosts to ESP research, from flying saucers to psychic
    studies, from ESP research to looking for Bigfoot). But within a given
    topic, no progress is made. Little or no new information or uncovered.
    New theories are seldom proposed, and old concepts are rarely modified
    or discarded in light of new "discoveries," since pseudoscience rarely
    makes new "discoveries." The older the idea, the more respect it
    receives. No natural phenomena or processes previously unknown to
    science have ever been discovered by pseudoscientists. Indeed,
    pseudoscientists almost invariably deal with phenomena well known to
    scientists, but little known to the general public-so that the public
    will swallow whatever the pseudoscientist wants to claim. Examples
    include firewalking and "Kirlian" photography.

    Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and
    misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does
    not exist).
    Pseudoscience books offer examples of almost every kind of fallacy of
    logic and reason known to scholars and have invented some new ones of
    their own. A favorite device is the non sequitur. Pseudoscientists
    also love the "Galileo Argument." This consists of the pseudoscientist
    comparing himself to Galileo, and saying that just as the
    pseudoscientist is believed to be wrong, so Galileo was thought wrong
    by his contemporaries therefore the pseudoscientist must be right too,
    just as Galileo was. Clearly the conclusion does not follow! Moreover,
    Galileo's ideas were tested, verified, and accepted promptly by his
    scientific colleagues. The rejection came from the established
    religion which favored the pseudoscience that Galileo's findings
    contradicted.

    Pseudoscience argues from ignorance, an elementary fallacy.
    Many pseudoscientists base their claims on incompleteness of
    information about nature, rather than on what is known at present. But
    no claim can possibly be supported by lack of information. The fact
    that people don't recognize what they see in the sky means only that
    they don't recognize what they saw. This fact is not evidence that
    flying saucers are from outer space. The statement "Science cannot
    explain" is common in pseudoscience literature. In many cases, science
    has no interest in the supposed phenomena because there is no evidence
    it exists; in other cases, the scientific explanation is well known
    and well established, but the pseudoscientist doesn't know this or
    deliberately ignores it to create mystery.

    Pseudoscience argues from alleged exceptions, errors, anomalies,
    strange events, and suspect claims-rather than from well-established
    regularities of
    nature. The experience of scientists over the past 400 years is that
    claims
    and reports that describe well-understood objects behaving in strange
    and incomprehensible ways tend to reduce upon investigation to
    deliberate frauds, honest mistakes, garbled accounts,
    misinterpretations, outright fabrications, and stupid blunders. It is
    not wise to accept such reports at face value, without checking them.
    Pseudoscientists always take such reports as literally true, without
    independent verification.

    Pseudoscience appeals to false authority, to emotion, sentiment, or
    distrust of established fact.
    A high-school dropout is accepted as an expert on archaeology, though
    he has never made any study of it! A psychoanalyst is accepted as an
    expert on all of human history, not to mention physics, astronomy, and
    mythology, even though his claims are inconsistent with everything
    known in all four fields. A movie star swears it's true, so it must
    be. A physicist says a "psychic" couldn't possibly have fooled him
    with simple magic tricks, although the physicist knows nothing about
    magic and sleight of hand. Emotional appeals are common. ("If it makes
    you feel good, it must be true." "In your heart you know it's right.")
    Pseudoscientists are fond of imaginary conspiracies. ("There's plenty
    of evidence for flying saucers, but the government keeps it secret.")
    And they argue from irrelevancies: When confronted by inconvenient
    facts, they simply reply, "Scientists don't know everything!"

    Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic
    theories that contradict what is known about nature.
    They not only provide no evidence that their claims are true. They
    also ignore all findings that contradict their conclusions. ("Flying
    saucers have to come from somewhere-so the earth is hollow, and they
    come from inside." "This electric spark I'm making with this
    electrical apparatus is actually not a spark at all, but rather a
    supernatural manifestation of psycho-spiritual energy." "Every human
    is surrounded by an impalpable aura of electromagnetic energy, the
    auric egg of the ancient Hindu seers, which mirrors the human's every
    mood and condition.")

    Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack
    precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at
    all. Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according
    to
    their own preconceptions. What, for for example, is "biocosmic
    energy?" Or a "psychotronic amplification system?" Pseudoscientists
    often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific and technical fields
    by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific and technical. Quack
    "healers" would be lost without the term "energy," but their use of
    the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of energy used
    by physicists.

    Pseudoscience appeals to the truth-criteria of scientific methodology
    while simultaneously denying their validity. Thus, a procedurally
    invalid experiment which seems to show that
    astrology works is advanced as "proof" that astrology is correct,
    while thousands of procedurally sound experiments that show it does
    not work are ignored. The fact that someone got away with simple magic
    tricks in one scientific lab is "proof" that he is a psychic superman,
    while the fact that he was caught cheating in several other labs is
    ignored.

    Pseudoscience claims that the phenomena it studies are "jealous."
    The phenomena appear only under certain vaguely specified but vital
    conditions (such as when no doubters or skeptics are present; when no
    experts are present; when nobody is watching; when the "vibes" are
    right; or only once in human history.) Science holds that genuine
    phenomena must be capable of study by anyone with the proper equipment
    and that all procedurally valid studies must give consistent results.
    No genuine phenomenon is "jealous" in this way. There is no way to
    construct a TV set or a radio that will function only when no skeptics
    are present! A man who claims to be a concert-class violinist, but
    does not appear to have ever owned a violin and who refuses to play
    when anyone is around who might hear him, is most likely lying about
    his ability to play the violin.

    Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
    That is, we are told a story, but nothing else; we have no description
    of any possible physical process. For instance, Immanuel Velikovsky
    (1895-1979) claimed that another planet passing near the earth caused
    the earth's spin axis to flip upside down. This is all he said. He
    gave no mechanisms. But the mechanism is all-important, because the
    laws of physics rule out the process as impossible. That is, the
    approach of another planet cannot cause a planet's spin axis to flip.
    If Velikovsky had discovered some way that a planet could flip
    another's spin axis, he would presumably have described the mechanism
    by which it can happen. The bald statement itself, without the
    underlying mechanism, conveys no information at all. Velikovsky said
    that Venus was once a comet, and this comet was spewed out of a
    volcano on Jupiter. Since planets do not resemble comets (which are
    rock/ice snowball-like debris with connection whatsoever to volcanoes)
    and since Jupiter is not known to have volcanoes anyway (or even a
    solid surface!), no actual physical process could underlie
    Velikovsky's assertions. He gave us words, related to one another
    within a sentence, but the relationships were alien to the universe we
    actually live in, and he gave no explanation for how these could
    exist. He provided stories, not genuine theories.

    Pseudoscientists often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical
    thinking. Magic, sorcery, witchcraft-these are based on spurious
    similarity,
    false analogy, false cause-and-effect connections, etc. That is,
    inexplicable influences and connections between things are assumed
    from the beginning-not found by investigation. (If you step on a
    crack
    in the sidewalk without saying a magic word, your mother will crack a
    bone in her body; eating heart-shaped leaves is good for heart
    ailments; shining red light on the body increases blood production;
    rams are aggressive so someone born in the sign of the ram is
    aggressive; fish are "brain food" because the meat of the fish
    resembles brain tissue, etc.)

    Pseudoscience relies heavily on anachronistic thinking.
    The older the idea, the more attractive it is to pseudoscience-it's
    the wisdom of the ancients!-especially if the idea is transparently
    wrong and has long been discarded by science. Many journalists have
    trouble in comprehending this point. A typical reporter writing about
    astrology may think a thorough job can be done by interviewing six
    astrologers and one astronomer. The astronomer says it's all bunk; the
    six astrologers say it's great stuff and really works and for $50
    they'll be glad to cast anyone's horoscope. (No doubt!) To many
    reporters, and apparently to many editors and their readers, this
    would confirm astrology six to one!

    This table contrasts some of the characteristics of science and
    pseudoscience

    [TABLE SNIPPED. WOULD NOT DISPLAY CORRECTLY. SEE:
    http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html ]

    This table could be greatly expanded, because science and
    pseudoscience are precisely opposed ways of viewing nature. Science
    relies on-and insists on-self-questioning, testing and analytical
    thinking that make it hard to fool yourself or to avoid facing facts.
    Pseudoscience, on the other hand, preserves the ancient, natural,
    irrational, unobjective modes of thought that are hundreds of
    thousands of years older than science-thought processes that have
    given rise to superstitions and other fanciful and mistaken ideas
    about man and nature-from voodoo to racism; from the flat earth to
    the
    house-shaped universe with God in the attic, Satan in the cellar and
    man on the ground floor; from doing rain dances to torturing and
    brutalizing the mentally ill to drive out the demons that possess
    them. Pseudoscience encourages people to believe anything they want.
    It supplies specious "arguments" for fooling yourself into thinking
    that any and all beliefs are equally valid. Science begins by saying,
    let's forget about what we believe to be so, and try by investigation
    to find out what actually is so. These roads don't cross; they lead in
    completely opposite directions.

    Some confusion on this point is caused by what we might call
    "crossover." "Science" is not an honorary badge you wear, it's an
    activity you do. Whenever you cease that activity, you cease being a
    scientist. A distressing amount of pseudoscience is generated by
    scientists who are well trained in one field but plunge into another
    field of which they are ignorant. A physicist who claims to have found
    a new principle of biology-or a biologist who claims to have found a
    new principle of physics-is almost invariably doing pseudoscience.
    And
    so are those who forge data, or suppresses data that clash with their
    preconceptions, or refuse to let others see their data for independent
    evaluation. Science is like a high peak of intellectual integrity,
    fairness, and rationality. The peak is slippery and smooth. It
    requires a tremendous effort to remain near it. Slacking of effort
    carries one away and into pseudoscience. Some pseudoscience is
    generated by individuals with a small amount of specialized scientific
    or technical training who are not professional scientists and do not
    comprehend the nature of the scientific enterprise-yet think of
    themselves as "scientists."

    One might wonder if there are not examples of "crossovers" in the
    other direction; that is people who have been thought by scientists to
    be doing pseudoscience, who eventually were accepted as doing valid
    science, and whose ideas were ultimately accepted by scientists. From
    what we have just outlined, one would expect this to happen extremely
    rarely, if ever. In fact, neither I nor any informed colleague I have
    ever asked about this, knows of any single case in which this has
    happened during the hundreds of years the full scientific method has
    been known to and used by scientists. There are many cases in which a
    scientist has been thought wrong by colleagues but later-when new
    information comes in-is shown to be correct. Like anyone else,
    scientists can get hunches that something is possible without having
    enough evidence to convince their associates that they are correct.
    Such people do not become pseudoscientists, unless they continue to
    maintain that their ideas are correct when contradictory evidence
    piles up. Being wrong or mistaken is unavoidable; we are all human,
    and we all commit errors and blunders. True scientists, however, are
    alert to the possibility of blunder and are quick to correct mistakes.
    Pseudoscientists do not. In fact, a short definition of pseudoscience
    is "a method for excusing, defending, and preserving errors."

    Pseudoscience often strikes educated, rational people as too
    nonsensical and preposterous to be dangerous and as a source of
    amusement rather than fear. Unfortunately, this is not a wise
    attitude. Pseudoscience can be extremely dangerous.

    Penetrating political systems, it justifies atrocities in the name of
    racial purity

    Penetrating the educational system, it can drive out science and
    sensibility;

    In the field of health, it dooms thousands to unnecessary death or
    suffering

    Penetrating religion, it generates fanaticism, intolerance, and holy
    war

    Penetrating the communications media, it can make it difficult for
    voters to obtain factual information on important public issues.
     
    Neil Brooks, Dec 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    Salmon Egg Guest

    <snip>

    I must comment that Dr. Colgate has used great complexity to describe
    something relatively simple. I would like to know Dr. Colgate's background.
    I should point out that I do tend toward believing + lenses are likely to
    help prevent progressive myopia.

    Bill
    -- Fermez le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Dec 16, 2006
    #3
  4. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    But why -- if/since they're KNOWN to induce double vision in some
    (unsuspecting) people, and since they've failed to impact myopic
    progression in ANY but the near-point esophores, in testing --
    shouldn't the recommendation be that anybody that wants to try them
    work with an optometrist to be sure that binocular function is
    evaluated and prism, if appropriate, is prescribed.

    Again, even Don Rehm seems to get this. Can't figure out why this
    other guy doesn't, and why he shows such callous disregard for those in
    whom he has CAUSED double-vision....
     
    Neil Brooks, Dec 16, 2006
    #4
  5. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest


    I'm sure many people do. It's a lot easier to slap on a plus lens or
    take vitamin C than to actually deal with the problem.
     
    Dan Abel, Dec 17, 2006
    #5
  6. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Ahem. Ahem. There is simply no credible visual scientist today who
    thinks that plus lenses can stop the progression of myopia. None, zip,
    zero, nada. Therefore, you will not find any serious papers being
    published using plus lenses to treat myopia anymore.

    So, Otis, it looks like you have this particular niche all to yourself.
    I know you enjoy it, and you can print all the inane drivel that you
    want. Heck, some people may actually believe you, and if they have
    lots of time to waste, well who is going to stop them?

    But, the one thing I won't do is to propagate a bad idea, an old idea,
    a disproven idea, discarded onto the junk heap of pseudo-science.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 17, 2006
    #6
  7. otisbrown

    Salmon Egg Guest

    I read this sentence very carefully. I am not sure how to interpret it. When
    you say "anatomical myopia" do you restrict the term to in situ anatomy? I
    can understand how using plus lenses might not improve existing myopia. The
    question is: Can positive lenses prevent eye anatomy from becoming even more
    myopic? That is, can it prevent the eyeball from lengthening the way it
    happens to many bookworms?

    Bill
    -- Fermez le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Dec 17, 2006
    #7
  8. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Essentially, what you are asking is whether or not making the eye
    artificially myopic with a plus lens will prevent the eye from becoming
    myopic. This is like saying a positive eye will prevent itself from
    becoming more positive.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 17, 2006
    #8
  9. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Bill,

    I posted Dr. Colgate's remarks as a counter to those
    people who insist that "...a scientists BELIEVE".

    Stirling is a physicist like you.

    If you will contact me from my site:

    www.myopiafree.com

    by email I will send you his complete C.V.

    It is indeed impressive, and he is a
    member of the National Academy of Science -- as
    I recall.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 17, 2006
    #9
  10. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    So, Leukoma,

    You are saying that:

    1. The natural eye is NOT DYANAMIC, as
    per the Wildsoet Dynamic-eye paradigm, and that:

    2. A -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the
    refractive STATE of a population of fundamental eyes.

    3. With measurements made OBJECTIVELY with
    a retinoscope/cycloplegic.

    4. This testing PROVES that the refractive STATE
    of the eye FOLLOWS the average value of accommodation.

    Stirling got is RIGHT. Wildsoet's blue-eye tint paradigm
    is confirmed.

    So let us say that preventing a negative refractive STATE
    of the natural eye is possible -- if the person himself
    has a competent grasp of this scientific paradigm.

    See, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", by
    Thomas Kuhn, to understand the use of mathematical
    models to represent experimental reality.

    And let us just describe your box-camera PARADIGM,
    the majority-opinion and let is go at that.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 17, 2006
    #10
  11. otisbrown

    A Lieberma Guest

    Dear Bill,

    When you get this made up list of credentials from a person who has no
    credibility, please post to the group.

    Thanks!

    Allen
     
    A Lieberma, Dec 17, 2006
    #11
  12. otisbrown

    Jan Guest

    schreef:

    Otis, can you show me where Dr. Leukoma wrote what you are stating below?

    I can't remember seeing him (Dr. Leukoma) publishing this.

    Please enlighten me.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Jan, Dec 17, 2006
    #12
  13. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    [snip Otis's psychotic attempt to put words into other people's mouths]

    .....Reason #11,278 why people think you're an idiot, Otis.
     
    Neil Brooks, Dec 17, 2006
    #13
  14. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    And if he starts at age 2.

    Mikr> 2-year-olds don't get nearsighted.

    Otis> Jeeze, Mike, you must have missed the post
    of a "concerned" mother whose child's visual acuity
    was 20/50 -- so someone prescribed a -10 diotper
    lens for the little tyke.

    Otis



    -MT
     
    otisbrown, Dec 17, 2006
    #14
  15. otisbrown

    Salmon Egg Guest

    1. If I were using chemical terminology my questions would be:

    2. Does adding a positive lens to whatever a myopic eye is at a given
    instant stabilize the focal properties of that eye?

    Does adding a positive lens to whatever a myopic eye is at a given instant
    cause a change in the kinetics of that eye's anatomical focal kinetics?

    My guess is that the answer to the first question is no.

    My guess is that the answer to the second depends upon who gives the answer.

    Bill

    -- Fermez le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Dec 17, 2006
    #15
  16. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Absolutely not. Glad that I could be of help.

    The problem is that you are not approaching the problem with the right
    set of tools. You expect that everyone will just translate the
    research into your own terms, so that you don't have to break a sweat.
    Oh, you and Otis both.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 18, 2006
    #16
  17. otisbrown

    Salmon Egg Guest

    Scientists sometimes try to explain their work in a way so that a person
    with a decent scientific education, say at the graduate level, can
    understand the essence. The Scientific American sets a decent standard for
    explaining science to non-specialists. The American Scientist, Science, and
    Nature may require somewhat greater specialized knowledge of jargon and
    other details. But their entire raisons d'ĂȘtre is for communicating to
    scientists. I do not see much of that kind of communication happening for
    optometry. I realize that such an undertaking (explanation in simple but
    non-trivial terms) cannot be forced upon one.

    Although I cannot expect the typical scientist to match up to Richard
    Feynman, he really tried to explain quantum physics at a simple level
    without dumbing it down.

    Bill
    -- Fermez le Bush
     
    Salmon Egg, Dec 18, 2006
    #17
  18. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Why don't you come visit me for an eye exam. I'll answer any question
    you ask and try to put it into simpler terms you can understand, such
    as astigmatism is like a football instead of a basketball. You might
    even be satisfied with that kind of an analogy.
    Some writers have that talent. I don't make my living that way.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 18, 2006
    #18
  19. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Let us just say that you believe that the natural
    eye is not a dynamic system, and
    that the accommodation system is not
    controlled by micro-blur at the surfact of the
    retina (as both systems are sophisticated and
    competent.)

    For "convenience of practic" you believe that
    the the natural eye is NOT DYAMIC with
    respect to the AVERAGE VALUE OF ACCOMMODATION,
    and that when you place the accommodation SYSTEM
    at -6 diopters, that the natural eye will not
    change its refactive STATE accordingly.

    Ok, yeah, I understand your shop-practice
    majority opinion.

    You then tell the parents that, kids doing this
    will have NO EFFECT on their reafractive STATE.

    See below:

    http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/SaveEye.html

    Sorry, Mike, you want to believe somthing -- then go
    ahead and believe it.

    I certainly do agree that any PREVENTIVE step
    will involved "intrusion" into a child's life. And I would
    agree that YOU are not resonsible to institute
    that INTRUSION.

    But I believe, that at least for pilots who truly
    VALUE their distant vision would be interested
    in plus-prevention at the threshold -- as
    Dr. Colgate was interested as a scientist.

    But what this issue truly must face is the
    necessity of "empowerment" of the parent
    and child to begin understanding these
    issues BEFORE that first minus is applied.

    This is the issue that Ron "woke up" to, and
    instituted plus-preventive work with his
    own child, and cleared his Snellen from
    20/70 to 20/25.

    The real issue is this ... who is going to
    be in "control".

    If the issue is prevention (after all medical issues are
    elliminated) and the ONLY issue is a negative
    refractive STATE of -1.25 diopters -- then
    I think that the parents should be willing to
    take a greater degree of responsibility to
    institute this preventive work UNDER THE
    DIRECTION OF A COMPETENT SCECOND-OPINION
    OPTOMETRIST LIKE STEVE LEUNG.


    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Dec 19, 2006
    #19
  20. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    [ssssnip]

    Let us just say that you continually putting words into other people's
    mouths is a worse form of intellectual dishonesty than your ignorance of
    the scientific method, your bald-faced lies (Oakley-Young), or your
    inability to form an argument without invoking several logical fallacies.

    You really are a pathetic character, Otis.
     
    Neil Brooks, Dec 19, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.