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

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
20/50.

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
PREVENTION IS POSSIBLE.

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

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
THE EFFORT FAILED.

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

That is indeed the "bias" that we face.

Enjoy,

 

Dear Mike,

My opinion is the same as William Ludlam's.


http://myopiafree.i-see.org/PREV73.TXT

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, could you give your thoughts on this:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci....66d7f2b92e/34272e256b7a22b2?#34272e256b7a22b2

 

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
me.

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
judgment.

Best,

 

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

How can you LIVE with yourself ?

 

Nevermind. Found someone with access thru their uni.

 

Dear MS,

There is an effort to make that happen.

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

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
free.

Open-science best,