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

And skimming through his book once or twice or reading Wikipedia
doesn't count as investigation.

 

Sunning is not a word Bates ever used. Maybe you should read PSWG
again.

 

Or maybe you and your colleagues could stop being so lazy and get busy
investigating.

 

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....).

 

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,

 

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".


http://www.myopia.org/

Enjoy,

 

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.


http://vision.berkeley.edu/biomodule/News_Updates/Flash/Introtoeye.html

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
20/50.

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

Enjoy,

 

Dear MS,

Subject: Broad perspective on the PREVENTIVE second-opinion.

Enjoy,






SCIENCE -- VISION -- Second-opinon:

OPTICAL POISON

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
countries.

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
themselves.

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....

He said with WEARING THE MINUS .50 FOR A WEEK OR TWO, THE DYNAMIC
SKIAMETRY PLUS 2.00 FINDINGS WOULD BE GONE. ....

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.

 

Maybe you shouldn't evade valid questions.

 

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
procedure?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

I assume what?

An assumption.

 

Certainly not.

 

It isn't wrong. We can't test a hypothesis if we don't know what that
hypothesis is.

An assumption.

 

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,

 

Dear Mike Tyner,

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


http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/hypothesis_testing.html


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


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:



http://myopiafree.i-see.org/AboutUs.txt


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,

 

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.


http://vision.berkeley.edu/biomodule/News_Updates/Flash/Introtoeye.html

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,

 

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,

 

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.