Brown's View of Scientific (not OD) proof of the natural eye's behavior

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Otis Brown, Oct 4, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Subject: An OD((Mike) and an Engineer Argue About Scientific Proof

    Re: Otis> Of course the child will then develop stair-case myopia,
    (from over-prescription of a minus lens) but that is
    what we ALL are concerned about.

    Mike> And when they wear shoes, their feet get bigger.

    Otis> Talk about "bad logic". Jeeze!

    Otis> It is because of your statement that it is his BAD HEREDITY.
    You infer that a negative refractive state of the eye
    must be a "failure" because there is initially SLIGHT
    blur associated with it.

    Mike> You blame his lenses, his doctors, his parents and the
    patient himself. Anything but genetics.

    Otis> This is the consistent "story" of most optometry is to
    inveigh that your "heredity" causes myopia, and
    therefore nothing can be done about it. Just wear
    your strong minus lens, and you will get "used to it".

    Otis> Obviously, I do not "blame" anyone -- only seek to determine
    if a preventive method would work successfully if used
    properly. Again, Mike totally misses the point that the
    effect of the minus lens on the refractive status of the eye
    is proven in a scientific (but not medical) sense.

    Otis> Mike is using a method established 400 years ago because it
    works instantly. While I understand the impressive power of
    or "quick-fix", I certainly can never agree that it is
    "based on science", in any sense of the word.

    Mike: From, Bernard Gilmartin PhD Clinical & Experimental
    Ophthalmology Volume, 32 Issue 3 Page 305 - June 2004

    Mike> "Twin studies and genetic modeling have computed a
    heritability index of at least 80% across the whole
    ametropic continuum"

    Otis> Again the bullshit word "ametropic". From the MEDICAL
    theory, emmetropia is a refractive state of 0.0 diopters.
    Any refractive state that is not zero, is "ametropic". The
    words, "across the whole "ametropic continuum" means
    practically nothing in quantitative terms. What total "wise
    sounding" bullshit.

    Otis> I used to wonder why these ODs are so blind to objective
    scientific facts -- but this is part of the reason for it.

    Re: Otis> Engineers look at the true facts to work towards a
    better solution of a very-difficult problem. An open
    and creative mind must necessarily be part of that process.

    Mike> Engineers value precision. You clearly don't.

    Mike> QED (Quod erat demonstratum.)



    Subject: Response to Mike's "Proof".

    Re: Q.E.D. That which has been proposed to be proven -- has
    been demonstrated. In truth, his "proof" is completely
    circular and depends on the poorly defined word "ametropia".

    From your pasts posts, I know it is effectively a waste of
    time to present scientific research concerning the eye's behavior
    for the following reason:

    Re: "Any hypothesis for prevention of myopia that is based on the
    evidence from animal studies is based on evidence that is
    irrelevant to humans." Dr Judy

    Please note that this following analysis has to do with the
    FUNDAMENTAL behavior of all natural eyes -- that can have negative
    or positive refractive states, depending on their average visual

    Concentration is removed for "negative" refractive states.
    To continue that like-of-thought truly creates intellectual
    "problem myopia", in Judy and others.

    But for the record I state the following -- were explicit
    scientific measurements are ACTUALLY made.

    No wonder there is a "line in the sand" separating "medical"
    perception from engineering-scientific understanding.


    Dear Friends,

    At this point I would suggest separating scientific (i.e.,
    direct-experimental) truth from "medical" truth.

    This depends on how you ask your question.

    If I ask, does the fundamental eye go "down" when I place a
    minus lens on it, I am not asking a question of "cause", only a
    question of what the eye will do when overtly tested.

    In this case, I am only looking for "input" versus "output"
    type of testing.

    Since I can control the "input" (i.e., visual environment,)
    and measure the "output", it follows that I can resolve a basic
    question about the natural eye as an "entity".

    So I run this test, using "all eyes" with out regard to
    whether the refractive status is positive or negative, and look
    only for the "dynamic" characteristic.

    As an engineer, I look for the "signal", (i.e., the natural
    eye's behavior) in the presence of a great deal of "noise" (i.e.,
    random measurement errors -- which are very great in this case).

    Provided the person I am working with will accept this
    condition of technical analysis, we can establish basic (and true
    facts) concerning the behavior of the fundamental eye.

    Thus when Mike states:

    "Mike> Engineers value precision. You clearly don't."

    I object in strongest terms. I place the highest value on
    SCIENTIFIC precision. But SCIENTIFIC precision is not to Mike's
    liking. Maybe his idea of "medical precision" means something to

    In fact, the testing that Francis Young has conducted
    demonstrates that the natural eye "tracks" or "follows" its
    average-value of accommodation (or average visual environment)
    with a "precision" or correlation coefficient of 0.97. You would
    have to be an engineer or scientist to truly understand the
    implications of that level of precision concerning the natural
    eye's behavior.

    It is hard for me therefore to understand Mike's total
    blindness towards scientific matters, other that to say that he is
    blinded by his "professional position". It is also difficult for
    me to see how ANY OBJECTIVE scientific fact or scientific truth
    could ever penetrate this "medical mind".

    It is true that I DO NOT deal with a great mass of people
    walking in off the street -- and I never will. If he pointed this
    truth out to me -- I would agree that I am not "medical" in
    character or intent.

    But when he states that I am not precise in proving that the
    natural eye "tracks" its average visual environment (on a
    scientific level) I object in strongest terms.

    Here is a further statement of that analysis.

    In engineering-science you put your statement to the test.

    In the "OD-World" you think of endless reasons to avoid
    facing true-facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural

    Mike insists that the natural eye does not go "down" (in
    terms of measured refractive status) when you place a minus lens
    on it -- and I do mean ALL natural eyes. I insist on running that
    type of test to confirm Mike's statement. In fact Mike is not
    correct in terms of scientific testing.

    If I take a population of natural eyes and measure the
    refractive status of all of them.

    That forms a gaussian distribution of refractive states for
    the natural eye.

    Now I test your null-hypothesis that the natural eye does not
    "change" from a forced change in the average visual environment.

    The forced change is -0.8 diopters.

    If your thesis is correct, then no refractive change will
    develop for the test group, relative to the control group,


    Refractive status = Heredity or genetics.

    In fact I agree to a genetic COMPONET in the equation for the
    eye's refractive status, thus "genetics" explains little. i.e.,

    Refraction = Offset + Accommodation + Step [1- e^ (-t/TAU)]

    When this test is conducted, the refractive status of the
    test group changes by the approximate value of the imposed
    step-change in the accommodation system.

    For the e ^ (t/TAU) function, the correlation coefficient is 0.97.

    By your insistence, quoted from your belief that
    neither lens nor environment has ANY effect on the
    REFRACTIVE STATE of all natural eyes, you must
    believe that the correlation coefficient is 0.0,
    or if greater than that -- well it must be
    a mistake of some sort, or we deny and exclude
    the result of all scientific animal studies.
    We only deal with the great mass of people
    walking in off the street demanding very-sharp
    vision instantly. Our "charter" does not
    extend beyond that point.

    I think we have a serious scientific (not medical) problem
    here, in that you never allow your concept:

    Focus = Genetics ever be experimentally tested -- because you don't like
    the consequences of understanding the scientific fact that the
    natural eye CONTROLS its refractive state to its average visual



    Otis Brown, Oct 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. If you had to choose, which condition would be more adaptive and appropriate
    The question is irrelevant, the human eye has the faculty to work at
    any distance for any duration of time.

    I can read microscopic print at 6 cm, and the same 0.5 mm characters I
    can read at 35 cm, and at 50 cm but not so readily.

    I am 35 years old.

    I am not satisfied, want to read those carachters at 1 meter.

    Last night I could see the 20/10 line of the Snellen chart indoors,
    with good light illuminating the chart (I was at 4 meters with a
    recalibrated eyechart).

    I still suffer a bit the illusion that white letters upon a black
    background are more readily readable than black letters on a white
    background... But I am working on this.

    By the way, I am at 700 seconds of sungazing the high sun (I prefer
    midday than when the sun is low), blinking continuosly the eyes
    (although the sun is not so powerful now in Italy). After the
    sungazing, the vision is always more clear than before.

    If somebody intelligent is interested in learning more on these
    things, please visit

    My worst prescription was in 1986, -4 myopic, -1 astigmatic, each eye.
    I was 17 years old and was using contact lenses. My vision without
    glasses was less than 1/10.

    My worst measurement with an autorefractometer was -6 myopic, -1
    astigmatics, almost two years ago. But I could see the 20/20 line, but
    only after some minutes of exercising the mind not to strain. After
    few months, the same machine measured -3 myopia in each eye with no
    astigmatism and I was more prompt to see the 20/20 line.

    I have dropped any kind of glasses whatever since three and a half
    years now.

    I have lost much time in this endeavour thanks to the stupidity of the
    so-called Bates teachers and vision educators.

    There are many people like me in Italy, recovering their vision
    working by themselves with intelligence.

    I have accumulated many anectodal cases of people recovering.
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Oct 4, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike and Rishi,

    I will answer Mike's question as follows:

    Mike> > If you had to choose, which condition would be more adaptive
    and appropriate for a lifestyle of literacy and close work?

    Otis> I would choose a life of "reading", with the
    "near work" moved out to optical-infinity with a plus

    Otis> That way I could have the best of both worlds.

    Otis> But that would mean that I MUST understand the
    nature of an engineering trade-off. Keep my distant
    vision clear by this process (as Dr. Colgate did),
    or take the "easy path" and NOT use the protective
    plus lenses, and see my distant vision going
    downward at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.

    Otis> It is a choice -- but is honestly difficult
    for most people. We all understand it that way.

    Mike> > Do you care?

    Otis> I care deeply that a person have enough clarity-of-thought
    to consider this possibility. I care that YOU infrom him
    of this choice by sending him to sites like

    so that the person can fully review this type of option
    when it can be effective. If he reviews these arguments,
    and turns down the concept of prevention with the
    plus, then of course you have no choice but to
    apply that minus. But at least the person
    (and parent) have faced a choice that obviously
    has life-time consequences.

    Otis> I cared enough to help my sister's chidren
    with the plus, and took them to an OD who prescribed
    a plus (in a bifocal). THAT got their attention.
    The realized the consequences of NOT using the
    plus -- and continued using it an passing
    their Snellen-DMV test -- always.

    Otis> It is nice the Steve Leung OD is helping
    his own child of 6 years old, who now puts
    on a plus whenever she sits down to read.

    Otis> So that is the nature of "caring", as
    I see it.

    Otis> This is indeed a profound shift in
    attitude and method from the tradition
    of the last 400 years.


    Otis Brown, Oct 5, 2004
  4. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    I sent this to a young man who cleared his
    vision from 20/60 to 20/25 with the plus.

    Yes, I do care.

    But, yes, true-prevention is indeed difficult.




    Subject: What is scientific truth? What is a right-of-choice?

    Subject: Do I "care"? Do you "care"?

    Re: If you had to choose... (MT)

    Re: Do you care? (MT)

    Sometimes I wonder if I care "too much".

    I care about abstract scientific truth. I care about YOUR
    right of choice. I care about what you want in your life. I care
    that the "preventive" method that Dr. Raphaelson advocated have
    an absolute solid scientific basis. I care that the "The Printer's
    Son" rejected Dr. Raphelson's offer of correct-use of the plus
    lens. I care that you make a choice that YOU can prevent that
    -1/2 diopter/year change from both "close work" compounded by that
    minus lens.

    But in the final analysis, what I "care" about does not
    matter as much as your "caring" about your own, personal long-term
    visual welfare. "Caring" does come down to a very personal level





    Mike Tyner Statement:

    Mike> You missed my point, and simply seized the opportunity to
    spout the same stuff all over again.

    Mike> The point was that when you can discard a half-diopter of
    cylinder because it isn't "necessary", then you don't think
    like any of the engineers I've met. Q.E.D.

    Otis> Engineers who respect Dr. Raphaelson, and his difficulties
    with "The Printer's Son", are very rare indeed. Engineers
    who will sacrifice a great deal of their "personal efforts"
    are extremenly rare. I grant you that.

    Mike> Criticizing vision science for using terms like "myopia" and
    "ametropia" is about as logical as criticizing an E.E. for
    using terms like "positive" and "ground".

    Otis> It is not science I critized. In fact I consider research by vision
    science have produced proof (as Francis Young did it) concerning
    the fact that the eye moves "down" when you place it in a more-confined
    visual environment.

    Otis> The term "criticism" has to meanings.

    1. Completely negative -- complaining, etc.

    2. Attempting to understand past mistakes, and devise a better
    solution for the future (i.e., a difficult but more
    reasonable solution that puts major responsibility for
    "control" in the person himself. After all, his eyes
    belong to him, and a decision of the nature of "prevention"
    will affect his for the rest of his life. I like to make
    my decisions on the objective facts that Francis Young
    produced, and not on your "opinion" which simply perpetuates
    the simplistic method of the last 400 years.

    Otis> A person being "criticized" tends to hunker down and "fight"
    to defend himself using every means (fair of foul) to
    protect himself. I am afraid that Mike thakes the first
    meaning. Intelligent discussion about facts are destroyed
    by that #1 reaction of Mike.

    Mike> If you're going to lecture us on visual physiology, please
    use the terms that vision physiologists use.

    Otis> Yes these antique terms are in common use -- but with poor
    quantitatve definition. "Emmetropia" means a refractive
    status of exactly 0.0 diopters. (I have yet to see any
    other exact definition, since Mike loves "precision"). The
    word "ametropia" means all eyes that are not "emmetropic".
    That means that almost all eyes are "ametropic", i.e., not
    normal. An lastly, a positive refractive status is defined
    as hyperopia, and a negative refractive status is "myopia".
    If you use these terms you will become as confused as Mike
    is. But it works to his advantage to obfuscate and confuse
    these issues. Thus is perpetuated the tradition of the
    last 400 years -- as "science"? I think not.

    Mike> If you don't like ODs, then fine, use the terms and
    definitions employed by the OTHER vision professions.

    Otis> Mike makes another assumption. In fact I loved Dr.
    Raphaelson like my father. What courage, what compassion.
    It was a matter of his complete frustration that he could do nothing
    about it -- on a "medical" level.

    Otis> If by "other professions" you mean scientists like Dr.
    Stirling Colgate, and Pilots like Fred Deakins, then yes --
    there is another way of "looking" at the behavior of the
    natural eye, by running SCIENTIFIC experiments, that always
    produce repeatable quantitative results.

    Mike> Making up your own terms just sounds silly.

    Otis> Avoiding miscomceptions of box-camera words is the first
    step in understanding the behavior of a very sophisticated
    system -- that does in fact control its refractive state
    (which you measure) to a negative change in your visual

    Otis> Why does anyone else have a problem describing the eye as
    having positive and negative refractive states? Only those
    who have been taught the tradition of the last 400 years --
    AND BELIEVE IT -- despite the facts presented.

    Mike> As to all the other stuff,

    Otis> By "other stuff" I assume Mike means direct proof that the
    natural eye goes "down" when you place a minus lens on it.

    Mike> ...what if you have a valid argument - what if using plus
    for some interval between birth and age 12 prevents some

    Otis> Make that between age 5, when school starts till graduation
    from college. This issue clearly depends on the
    decision of the individual
    himself. Assuming that the person is "smart enough" to
    recognize the trade-off (use the plus and verify your eye
    chart vision yourself), then yes, perodic use of the plus
    will in fact prevent a negative refractive status for the

    Mike> If the "natural eye" is "dynamic",

    Otis> This issue is not "if", since I am a stickler for DIRECT
    PROOF, i.e., the behavior of the natural primate eye. That
    type of proof is essential for science, but you call it
    "stuff" and Judy says she ignores all "animal" data as
    being "irrelavant" to the behavior of the human-primate

    Mike> ...would not some of them become more hyperopic?

    Otis> Since your definition of the eye's refractive status is so
    very poor, (i.e., emmetropia = 0.0 diopters) is follows
    then that either the eye is myopic or hyperopic. If you
    clear your refractive status from negative to positive,
    then you are "hyperopic". I hope you understand why I
    reject words that imply "defect" when the eye has a
    completely normal or natural refractive status.

    Otis> In fact, Francis Youngs monkeys (entire population)
    maintained in an "open" environment had refractive status
    of 0 to 2.0 diopters -- and are completely normal. Under
    Mike's classification system they are are all "defective".
    That is misleading in the extreme.

    Mike> If you had to choose, which condition would be more adaptive
    and appropriate for a lifestyle of literacy and close work?

    Otis> If I were offered a choice of clearing my vision from 20/70
    to 20/25, and thus completely ending my dependency on that
    minus lens -- I would make that choice. Whatever the
    choice I MIGHT make, I would feel that the decision would
    have life-time consequences for me, and therefore I should
    be given a considerable amount of time to review the
    true-facts concerning the issue of keeping my vision clear
    for life.

    Otis> I could therefore, by wise use of a plus, I could both live a life of
    "literacy" and keep my distant vision. That is the
    "choice" I would hope I would have the opportunity to make.

    Mike> Do you care?

    Otis> I cared greatly about my blood-relatives. But ultimate
    success depended on THEIR intelligence and motivation. I
    cared about their right-of-choice as I stated it above. Do
    you care?



    Otis Brown, Oct 5, 2004
    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.