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

    Otis Guest

    Dear Mike Tyner,

    My thoghts follow the ideas of second-opinion optometrist Jacob
    Raphaelson, and ophthalmologist Dr. Prentice.

    They also follow science and fact and presented by C. Wildsoet's
    conceptual model for the natural eye -- having measured refractive
    STATES (not failures).

    But successful PREVENTON depends on the ophthalmologist who insist
    that their own children START with the plus, before their child's
    refractive STATE goes below =3/4 diotper, and their Snellen below

    In that sense, prevention is the function of wisdom of the parent and
    child. But it is never going to be "easy". But any respect for
    objective science, (paradigm by C. Wildsoet) suggests that THRESHOLD

    It is just that it can never be "delievered" in an office as

    But with respect to Bates 1913 study, it was "shut down" on the
    "advice" of majority-opinion ophthalmologists -- NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

    The formal "shut down" was because of "medical OPINION" -- NOT BECAUSE

    But any proposed FUTURE STUDY, must recognize that arrogant dis-
    respect for objective science -- CAN ALWAYS SHUT-DOWN ANY AND ALL

    That is indeed the "bias" that we face.

    Otis, Aug 29, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear Mike,

    My opinion is the same as William Ludlam's.

    But in reviewing this issue -- it is clear that he had no "control"
    over a child's (bad or unfortunate) habits.

    The issue becomes, how much "control" does anyone have over a "child".

    Clearly ODs don't have that type of "control".

    For this reason -- alone -- you can never "prescribe prevention".

    That is a choice for the person himself -- who is not yet wearing a
    minus lens.

    Second-opinion best,
    Otis, Aug 29, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Otis, could you give your thoughts on this:
    MS, Aug 29, 2010
  4. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear MS,

    If I have "thoughts" about "imagination" -- it is of Dr. Raphaelson
    who had to "imagination" to conceptualize the eye as "dynamic".

    It is also about Dr. W. Ludlam, and his efforts at prevention, and his
    letter to Dr. Raphaelson.

    But if you are talking about "dealing" with the "general public", such
    as some of the idiots posting here, the you can forget about any OD or
    MD being able to "help" anyone with prevention -- at this time.

    Science, and the conceptual model of C. Wildsoet -- is convincing to

    But what "convinces" each person here -- is up to that person.

    Just remember, Dr. Bates was not the ONLY person to "object" to the
    minus lens.

    Science itself, can "show the way" -- but for prevention ONLY -- in my

    Otis, Aug 29, 2010
  5. Shinigami Eyes

    Neil Brooks Guest

    You're an idiot, Otis -- an idiot, a liar, and a hypocrite.

    How can you LIVE with yourself ?
    Neil Brooks, Aug 30, 2010
  6. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    MS, Sep 7, 2010
  7. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear MS,

    There is an effort to make that happen.

    The reason is that we the taxpayer -- pay for the research and

    The new "legal" standard is that the researcher must, (if public
    funding is used) make this fact clear in their publication.

    Then after a year, the published paper would be on the "Internet" for

    Open-science best,
    Otis, Sep 7, 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.