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

Dear Mike Tyner,

Subject: Don't question MS's background or intelligence.

Dr. Bates had the courage to ATTEMPT a preventive program
(Bates-1913). That took personal effort. There was indeed some
"success" to that effort. But it was "shut-down" because the
"majority-opinion" did not "like" the concept of threshold-prevention.

That is NOT SCIENCE, that is intense "office bias" at work.

The issue of a person understanding "Null Hypothesis" testing of the
NATURAL EYE, must be a SCIENTIFIC ISSUE, not a "medical issue".

But then, encourage Engineer/Scientists (like Colgate) to fully
apprciate the POSSIBLITY of threshold-prevention.

MS, whether "right" or "wrong" (or Bates for tha matter, or Colgate,
or Francis Young, or Dr. Kaisu, or a host of others who judge the
"need for change") still deserve or respect -- even if you, in your
majority-opinion don't agree with the concept of prevention.

Science and second-opinion (prevention) best,

 

There's no question.

He/She/It is exhibiting no signs of either.

And idiot ... like you.

But you're also a pathological liar.

 

Mr. Brooks why did you evade my question? What did these people tell
you to do? Can't you remember?

 

I didn't evade your question.

I'll answer it again.

It was YEARS ago.

If YOU want to find out who they are, and what their protocol was, YOU
may attempt to find the Bates practitioners, located on 5th or 6th
ave, in San Diego

 

Remember: You're the one who cited your "no improvement" having been
treated by a random bunch of people who call themselves Bates method
teachers as if that somehow negates its efficacy.

 

So if it can't be disproven it must be true? Fallacy.

 

"Nobody has ever cured refractive error using Bates and nobody is ever
going to."

So you say we should all accept that statement as true because it's a
null hypothesis? Before we accept that statement as true shouldn't we
properly investigate Bates' work and see whether we can test it? Or
should we just not bother?

 

Dear MS,

The Term "refractive ERROR" -- is an ASSUMPTION.

The term "error" means any refractive STATE that is not EXACTLY ZERO.
(That is indeed the Donders-Helmholtz concept -- that Mike Tyner was
taught to BELIEVE).

Thus the word "cure" has no meaing in the above context.

But what Mike wants to say is that HE, in his office, will NEVER HELP
ANYONE WITH SECOND-OPINION PREVENTION.

This is the same un-justified "attitude" that shut-down Bates 1913
study (partially successful).

This is a matter of "status-quo" shutting down "future hope".

You can't "cure" the refractive STATES of the natural eye.

Enjoy the science of prevention,

 

Dear MS and Mike Tyner,

I got to give Bates credit for flagging an "issue".

It would be nice if both you an Mike Tyner would review this study.

So far, NEITHER of you has done that.

I will not say that I "agree" with Bates, but I do believe that
PREVENTING an negative STATE of the natural eye is possible.

Mike Tyner tells you that PREVENTING ENTRY into a negative STATE for
the natural eye -- IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Given the PROVEN behavior of the natural eye -- it is hard to see how
he has proven this sweeping statement of his.

Here is Bates study.

http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/myopia-prevention-teachers.php

A preventve study would have to involve the intellectual judgment of
the PERSON HIMSELF -- to include the person also measuring his
refractive STATE.

This indeed would require that the person keep his "eyes" and his
"mind" open to the possbility of changing his refractive STATE from
-1/2 diopter to +1/2 diotper, and CONFIRMING that result with his own
DIRECT MEASUREMENTS.

This could be conducted with people who SEE GREAT VALUE IN CHANGING
THEIR REFRACTIVE STATE BY THAT AMOUNT.

I have done it myself -- from +1/2 to +1.0 diopter -- using basic
measurement equipment (Trial-lens kit).

Indeed, one professional optometrist changed her refractive STATE from
a negative value to normal -- but it took strong personal resolve to
do it.

That truly is the second opinion.

Enjoy the science and motivation of prevention,

 

Dear MS,

Mike Tyner stated that is it IMPOSSIBLE to change the refractive STATE
of the natural eye from a negative value (he calls it an "error"). He
is talking though his hat. But let us just call that his OPINION, and
not science.

In fact other optometrists have changed their refractive STATE from a
negative value towards a postive value -- exactly the opposite of what
Mike said.

Here is the statement for your examination and review.

No this is not "Bates" or "exactly Bates" but no FUTURE study ever
will be like Bates.

But is does show that preventing ENTRY has some hope.

But never with Tyner involved. NEVER.

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




Dr. Orfield’s Success
Subject: Even ODs are successful with systematic prevention.

There is a tendency to insist that even prevention is impossible. It
is necessary to listen to ODs who, with dedication and effort, have
managed to get their refractive STATE to change from a negative value
of -3 diotpers (about 20/200) to normal under THEIR dedicated
control. A refractive STATE of zero is essentially 20/20.

Here are some comments by Dr. Orfield on the subject:

=============
By Dr. Orfield
Note: The author underwent myopia reduction from a spectacle
prescription of -3.87 DS and -3.37 DS to -.50 DS and -.25 DS
over a period of seven years.
Whenever I am considering a minus lens increase for a progressing
myope I
think of Ray Bradbury’s story, “The Man in the Rorschach Shirt,” about
the
psychologist who got new glasses and suddenly saw only “pores.” Losing
his more
holistic insights, he said: “Have you ever thought, did you know, that
people
are for the most part pores..Pores. A million, ten billion .. pores.
Everywhere
and everyone. People crowding buses, theaters, telephone booths, all
pore and
little substance. Small pores on tiny women. Big pores on monster
men ..”31

The experience of giving up myopia has made me very conservative
in lens
prescribing, especially in new myopes. I see that our instruments and
darkened
rooms and the myope’s tendency to accommodative spasm lead us to
frequent
over-dosing with minus. This then unfortunately determines forever
after that
person’s brain program for seeing space.

Arnold Sherman describes myopic progression as the process of the
patient’s
visual system transforming itself so that it is suited fornear, if
flexibility
is not possible. Then:

When an adaptation is decompensated (by stronger minus lenses), a
readaptation will occur in order to achieve steady state performance
at near
tasks, resulting in a further increase of myopia.32

He calls the continual prescribing of more minus without any
intervention
the “iatrogenic” cause of myopia.

 

But wouldn't it be nice if we could take everything in the universe and
put it in two buckets, one marked "true' and one marked "false"? And
they never moved?

But I don't think you understand what that means. MS means to find
testing methods that prove that Bates had it right. Anything that
doesn't show that gets tossed out the window, because, obviously, it's
wrong. And then you just keep testing until you "prove" it true.

 

Is that a null hypothesis or do you state that as fact? Make it clear.

 

Dear Mike Tyner,

Subject: What "I" measure as my refractive STATE.

What I expect an ENGINEER on the threshold to measure (who has a
chance to clear his Snellen -- and change his refractive STATE under
HIS -- not your) control.

As some people have pointed out, these were "kids" who could not
measure their refractive STATE.

This is why I suggest that, the person (Engieer/Pilot) go through and
"educational" phase where he is taught (or teaches himself) how ot
measure his refractive STATE.

Then, it would be HIS measurement (as a collective "group") that would
establish the results of the study -- NEVER YOU.

That is one of the issues of the 1913 study -- the child could not be
part of the study.

But where a person is OLD ENOUGH, and RESPONSIBLE ENOUGH (say 18 years
old) as a freshman in an ENGINEERING COLLEGE, and has the internal
"insight" to be A leader OF THIS TYPE OF STUDY, THEN I THINK HE WOULD
BE EFFECTIVE.

But each man should read Dr. Colgate's experience -- to start
PREVENTION BEFORE ANY MINUS IS APPLIED.

No PREVENTIVE study (where the educated and MOTIVATED person is
involved) HAS EVER BEEN ATTEMPTED.

This truly is an "open" scientific question.

Enjoy analytic science and prevetion.

 

"Nobody has ever cured refractive error using Bates and nobody is
ever
going to."


Would Mike Tyner clarify that statement?

Thanks,

 

Dear MS,

As always, Mike Tyner "invents" things -- for his "majority-opinion"
to be "perfect".

It is rather clear from the statements made by Dr. Bates, that these
kids DID NOT MEMORIZE.

I have my own Snellen, and check my visual acuity on a monthly basis.

Even so, I have no memorized it.

But to make this situation VERY CLEAR -- there is a "randomized'
Snellen that could be used IN THE FUTURE so the ENGINEER could verify
his Visual Acuity, and that issue WOULD BE RESOLVED.

Here is the "Electronic Snellen" -- for scientfic work:

http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html

Click on "Display" and read at 20 feet -- adjusting the "scale" of the
chart as described.

I doubt that anyone would want to "cheat" himself on this personal
verification work.

Each Engineer could cross check by use of this Snellen.

MS -- would you agree with this test?

Science and verification best,

 

Dear Mike,

Subject: It matters, not what you meaure, but what a highly qualified
expert measures (to include Engineer/Scientists - who CARE.

Yes, any report of ANY AND ALL SUCCESS -- will be ignored by you, and
your belief that ALL REFRACTIVE STATES ARE "RANDOM".

Thus you can "explain away anything and everything".

You have a right to "think" that way, but SCIENCE IS NOT LIKE THAT.

But let us just call your "vision" of a "random universe" -- the
"majority-opinion".

Orderly Science best,

 

You're an idiot, Otis.

A liar and an idiot.

 

WHERE did you go, and WHY did you come back, Otis ... you pathological
liar ... and ... idiot ?

 

Dear MS,

While Mike Tyner believes that PREVENTION IS IMOSSIBLE, and you can
NEVER clear your Snellen under YOUR CONTROL, other ODs believe just
the opposite.

Here is one of them.

http://www.oepf.org/jbo/journals/5-5 Orfield.pdf

Why "bother" arguing with Mike Tyner?

Please explain.

Science (and exclusively prevention) best,

 

Liar.

Absolute idiot and PATHOLOGICAL liar.


How can you live with yourself ?