Could someone with free access to JAMA get me these two articles? x

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Shinigami Eyes, Aug 7, 2010.

  1. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    And skimming through his book once or twice or reading Wikipedia
    doesn't count as investigation.
    MS, Aug 14, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Sunning is not a word Bates ever used. Maybe you should read PSWG
    MS, Aug 14, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Or maybe you and your colleagues could stop being so lazy and get busy
    MS, Aug 14, 2010
  4. Shinigami Eyes

    Neil Brooks Guest

    More useless shit from what could easily be Otis's illegitimate child
    (outside of the fact that .... that implies that there was once a
    woman ... any woman ... somewhere ... willing to sleep with him....).
    Neil Brooks, Aug 14, 2010
  5. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear MS,

    Don't kid yourself. The majority-opinion ODs are never going to
    "investigate themselves". They have a "business", not a profession.

    But the second-opinion ODs described an over-prescribed minus as being
    "poision glasses for children".

    Don't take one person's OPINION (Mike Tyner) as representing the
    opinion of all professionals. That much is false.

    Rather, think of them as protecting the "status quo" -- and they are
    very good at doing that.

    Science and threshold prevention best,
    Otis, Aug 14, 2010
  6. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear MS,

    There are quite a few "objectors" to that minus lens.

    Here is an interesting site of others who "object" to "failure to
    inform of the PREVENTIVE CHOICE".

    Otis, Aug 14, 2010
  7. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear MS,

    Subject: What science tells us about the effect of a minus lens on the
    natural eye.

    Here is a summary -- in a clear dynamic image.

    Look at the top two items, 5 and 6.

    They show the natural eye responding to a strong minus -- the eye
    getting "longer" because a minus lens was placed on it.

    That is pure science -- not the "optometry business".

    It is always true that you can "impress" a person with minus -- after
    he induces a SLIGHT negative state in his natural eyes.

    But what folows, is a very strong minus.

    The the the result is indeed "permanent".

    We argue for a PREVENTIVE study, where each wise person has the
    education to make the preventive choice, before his Snellen goes below

    Then prevention (as suggested by the Bates 1913 study) could be made
    EFFECTIVE under control of the person himself.

    Otis, Aug 14, 2010
  8. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear MS,

    Subject: Broad perspective on the PREVENTIVE second-opinion.


    SCIENCE -- VISION -- Second-opinon:


    From Spectacle Hobby by Jacob Raphaelson, OD

    The bad effects of minus lenses on vision and health have been
    recognized by many optical men in earlier years, in this and other

    There have been many voices raised against the promiscuous use of
    minus glasses at the beginning of th century, and a few feeble voices
    were heard up to the decade of 1950.

    In the decade of 1950, the fitting and wearing of minus glasses
    became the rule rather than the exception.
    In the last century, in the land of the Tzars (Russia), minus glasses
    were sometimes used to evade military conscription.

    A few months before the appearance for army examination, the conscript
    went to an optical doctor and got a pair of strong minus glasses which
    he wore steadily until prior to the examination.

    He was then sure that he would be rejected on account of his vision.

    The minus glasses had weakened his eyes and made his distant vision
    very poor.



    S. Drucker, O.D. Optical Journal-Review,

    One of my clearest impressions in handling myopia cases is that almost
    all cases of stationary myopia consist of young people who refuse to
    wear their correction except for those occasions that make a positive
    demand for normal vision.

    Conversely, almost all cases of progressive myopia appear to be
    individuals who adhere most faithfully to the principle that their
    corrections must be worn constantly.

    From a clinical point of view, the conclusion would seem inescapable
    that minus lenses are an important factor among the causes of
    progressive myopia.


    In 1914, when the state of Maryland secured its optometry law, a
    clause was inserted to the effect that optometrists could not
    prescribe minus lenses to children under 15 years of age "except on an
    order or advice from a physician."

    In 1938, Neville Schuller, vision specialist of Toronto, Canada,
    stated, "I would like to have a law established forbidding the
    prescribing of minus glasses without extenuating circumstances.

    O.D. Rasmussen, O.D., Kent England, stated in his book, "Myopia, in
    more than ninety-five percent of cases, begins between five and ten
    years of age.

    It increases largely because the myopic eye is given distance lenses
    for reading."

    C.P. Rakusen, O.D., Shanghai, China, said, "from my experience in this
    land of myopes (i.e. China) I have formed strong prejudices against
    the evil of weak minus prescriptions in all ages."

    Samuel Druker of Brooklyn, N.Y., in the Optical Journal wrote,

    "The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of
    progressive myopia it might b necessary to list concave lenses

    From many articles that have appeared in the past on the subject of
    'Optical Poison,' a familiar term a decade ago, many other
    optometrists appear to have the same idea."


    Joseph Kennebeck, OD (in Why Eyeglasses are Harmful for Children and
    Young People, 1969, pp. 53-54) tells how minus lenses turn functional
    myopia into structural myopia:

    Dr. X said my patient allowed him to go over her eyes, and he reported
    that he found Miss Y should have minus .50 glasses, the same Rx I
    found but would not fit at the time, which I told Dr. X. He asked me
    why I would not prescribe it.

    I told him that Miss Y's dynamic skiametry findings were plus 2.00
    [farsighted], and that I was giving her orthoptic treatment, etc....


    What became of the plus 2.00 dynamic skiametry findings?

    Something had to take place, and change.

    I reasoned that this was eliminating the plus 2.00 skiametry
    findings, and creating a worse condition.

    To think that the wearing of minus .50 would do that, and it would,
    meaning the refractive media would have to become permanently 2
    diopters more convex, and that the circular ciliary muscles would have
    to become stronger than they were--too strong.
    Otis, Aug 14, 2010
  9. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Maybe you shouldn't evade valid questions.
    MS, Aug 15, 2010
  10. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    How if Dr. Bates' science was so sloppy did he repeatedly publish in
    the journals? Was it his money or supporters or influence?

    How will we duplicate a treatment we know little or nothing about?

    Why should practitioners define a standardized procedure and stick to
    it? What if patients don't all respond in the same way to the same

    Of the "100,000" eye doctors since Dr. Bates have they or you made any
    attempt to properly investigate Dr. Bates' work? As in his his
    journal reprints, his magazines, his book, his wife's book etc.
    MS, Aug 15, 2010
  11. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    No such practitioner around as far as I've seen..
    What if it doesn't work in the first place unless you vary it?
    I don't assume that. You assume I assume that.
    MS, Aug 15, 2010
  12. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    You asked: "If someone claims that they have a procedure or treatment
    that eliminates all refractive error, what is the best way to test
    that hypothesis? "

    My answer: We'd need to know what that procedure or treatment is to
    test it.
    And you still evade those four questions.
    MS, Aug 15, 2010
  13. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    I assume what?
    An assumption.
    MS, Aug 15, 2010
  14. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Certainly not.
    MS, Aug 15, 2010
  15. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    It isn't wrong. We can't test a hypothesis if we don't know what that
    hypothesis is.
    An assumption.
    MS, Aug 15, 2010
  16. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Subject: The NULL HYPOTHESIS.

    The "null hypothesis" is that a minus 3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on
    the refractive STATE of a population of natural eyes.

    But this is SCIENCE of the natural eye -- and you prefer to IGNORE IT.

    Science (and not your scientific blindness) best,
    Otis, Aug 16, 2010
  17. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear Mike Tyner,

    Reviewing the dynamic behavior of the fundamental or natural eye -- to
    test its dynamic behavior.

    I happen to believe that threshold-prevention is possible -- for the
    person who is prepared to understand scientific testing of the natural

    But that reamains an open question.

    Certainly, for the scientist who has the initiative for preventoin
    (before any minus is applied), prevention into a negaitve state for
    the natural eye is possible SEE:

    So this issue is NOT what you do "in your offiece", it rather is the
    insight of a person like Dr. Colgates (at age 14) to "wake up" and get
    his refractive STATE to change from a negative value to a postive
    value under his diciplined control.

    It is clear that true-prevention takes both scientific interst as well
    as motivation to do PREVENTION correctly.

    But the second-opinion remains that it is possible.

    Enjoy the science (not medicine) of it,
    Otis, Aug 16, 2010
  18. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear Mike Tyner,

    I don't go in your office an push your Phoropter out of the way and
    "argue" with you -- do I?

    Not at all. You do what you do.

    But for a person (like Dr. Colgate) -- and those who would follow him,
    the issue is NOT CURE. It is preventoin.

    The issue is the presumed "safety" of the minus lens.

    But objective testing of the NATURAL EYE, should suggest "concern"
    about the over-prescription of the minus lens (i.e., prescribing for
    "Best Visual Acuity" -- for instance.)

    So the "Null Hypothesis" is that the "Global Natural Eye" is not
    dynamic, i.e., the minus has no effect on it. Scientific testing of
    this natural eye -- shows this result.

    But since you refuse to entertain the idea of prevention, it would be
    necessary to set up a "threshold PREVENTION effort" with Engineers,
    who will make their own refractive STATE measurements using their own
    trial-lens kit.

    This "dynamic paradigm" makes great sense in science, and for a pilot
    in a four year college, it could enable him to clear his Snellen from
    20/40 to 20/20, and (a postive refractive STATE), and under HIS (not
    your) control.

    Null-hypothesis testing best,
    Otis, Aug 16, 2010
  19. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear Mike Tyner,

    You are correct. There are a lot of people who:

    1. Don't understand the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye
    (Science -- not "medicine") and
    2. Don't understand the concept of "Null Hypothesis" testing of the
    natural eye.
    3. Such people would self-ellimate -- before any true, honest and
    successful prevention study could be started.

    You have my sympathy, that you are forced to "deal" with such people.
    This is why I expext nothing at all from you in your office.

    Let there children continue to receive a strong minus lens, and
    develop stair-case myopia from it. It is obvious that you have no
    hope of dealing with such "people".

    Scientific (but not medical) prevention best,
    Otis, Aug 16, 2010
  20. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    He's not alive today so obviously we can't test that. Lucky for us he
    left behind a huge amount of published material describing his
    treatment which we can investigate and test.
    Call it what you like but it's wrong to state it as fact.
    MS, Aug 16, 2010
    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.