Dr. Prentice -- Second opinion (continued) by Mike Tyner

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Jun 6, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    I will repost our discussions - from the C. Prentice
    Review. I do take exception to your describing
    Me as "not intellectually honest". You may not
    Agree with my assessment of the behavior of the
    Natural eye - but I am intellectually honest
    About my assessment of the natural eye as a
    Cybernetic control-system.

    Re: The Second Opinion by Dr. C. Prentice -- FYI

    Subject: Discussions with Mike Tyner about Pure Science
    And the dynamic behavior of all native, or
    Natural eyes.

    Re: The Second Opinion by Dr. C. Prentice -- FYI


    Otis > Are you practicing law? Are you a "God" as you love to
    infer. Are you "perfect".

    Mike> No. I just know what "statistically significant" means.
    Your argument isn't with me, so it's silly to involve me
    personally. Your argument is with my textbooks and you
    haven't convinced me to disbelieve them.

    Otis> Mike, do the following.

    Otis> Do not patronize me. Engineers know the meaning of
    "statistically significant", although you at times seem to
    not know the meaning.

    Otis> I will post a question to you that requires that you know
    the meaning.

    Otis> Indeed I have no argument with you. Only a discussion about
    the behavior of the evolution-designed eye, as to whether is
    changes its refractive status (no defect implied) as the
    visual environment is changed in a negative direction. These
    are DIRECT SCIENTIFIC MEASUREMENTS made with out ANY
    interpretation.

    Otis> Therefore ANY competent engineer or scientist could make
    them.

    Otis> The are ALWAYS REPEATABLE, and the same result will be
    obtained. No defect (your line of work) is implied in this
    statement -- only a reporting of DIRECT MEASUREMENTS.

    Otis> Some of these studies used adolescent primates (i.e., not
    neo-natal and) and the result was the same.

    Otis> I will revised the questions concerning this issue and post
    them to you. If you had any guts you would provide an
    answer to them. But I am certain you will provide endless
    rationalizations for avoiding answering the questions. To
    embarrassing to face facts concerning ONLY the behavior of the
    native or natural eye.

    Otis> Fortunately, even the ophthalmologists I talk to exhibit more
    honesty and humility than you do.

    Mike> They honestly admit that close work has some effect on
    myopia.

    Otis> I did not say " ... on myopia", I said the refractive
    status of the eye.

    Mike> They do not honestly admit that plus controls myopia, or
    that neutralizing with minus accelerates myopia.

    Otis> Please read the statement by Dr. Stirling Colgate on my
    site about his use of the plus. I am certain that he is
    correct about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    Otis> If it can not be prevented in the first place (with a plus)
    then we should make that determination. Until that work is
    done, there is no point in arguing about stair-case
    nearsightedness produced by both a confined visual
    environment, and an environment moved EVEN CLOSER by a strong
    minus lens.

    Otis> You miss the need for an exact mathematical model for the
    behavior of the natural eye.

    Otis> But you profession has never been about prevention, because
    that would REQUIRE considerable amount of "smarts" in the
    person who desires it.

    Otis> And since the pilot who resolves to "take control", and use
    the plus with great force (from 20/50) can become successful
    by his own measurements, I fail to see how you could become
    involved, since all you wish to do is to prevent him from
    doing it.

    Mike> Intellectual honesty is the issue; You only find me
    un-humble because you're intellectually dishonest.

    Otis> That is a MOUTHFULL! But a very interesting statement
    indeed. I will forward that statement to my nephew Keith,
    and I am certain he will disagree with you on that point.

    Otis> I will also post my comments to him about the necessity that
    he "take over control" and keep his distant vision clear.

    Otis> I would suggest using the term "second opinion" so we do not
    insult each other.

    Mike> To be intellectually honest, you can't start with a
    firmly-entrenched belief and then find 100-year-old articles
    to support it.

    Otis> What Chalmers DID SAY is that the he use a strong plus (3.5
    D) on a person at -1.25 diopters (about 20/70). He further
    stated that the persons vision came up to 20/20 (better than
    the required Snellen-DMV level of today.

    Otis> He then suggested a follow-up. There wan none.

    Otis> I think there should have been, and you do not. We disagree
    on that point.

    Otis> Since there was no follow-up we all should understand why
    not.

    Otis> I got tired of waiting, and informed my nephew of this
    "intellectually frozen" situation, and said that he had a
    choice -- and would have to keep his distant vision clear
    for life -- by following the recommendations of Dr. Paul
    Romano, Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Stirling Colgate, Dr.
    Ludlam, and many others.

    Otis> It is easy the make the recommendation. It takes a person
    of considerable wisdom and fortitude to keep is vision clear
    with the plus lens -- in any event it must be a decision of
    the individual -- and not of you.

    Mike> You can't ignore the modern studies and you can't contradict
    modern science without distinct evidence, showing efficacy
    between treated and untreated groups.

    Otis> I do not "contradict" studies demonstrating that the natural
    eye is a cybernetic system that will always move down (test
    group relative to control group) when a minus lens is placed
    on a homogeneous group.

    Otis> You confuse engineering-science with pure medical issues my
    friend.

    Mike> Intellectual honesty means starting with the assumption that
    you don't really know the answer, then reading the available
    research and drawing conclusions based on preponderance of
    evidence.

    Otis> Before we even ENTERTAIN any idea of "defect" we assume that
    the natural eye is dynamic (or not -- your thesis(.

    Otis> In the "pure" experiment, we do not classify refractive
    states as "defects". We simple report what we measure, not
    what you conjecture. Talk about intellectual honesty!


    Continued:


    Mike> You certainly have not produced a preponderance of evidence.

    Otis> That is a matter of opinion. Further, concerning what? The
    effect on the refractive status of the natural eye. I
    suggest that you have never even checked this specific
    issue.

    Otis> The preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the natural
    eye "moves negative" when you place a minus 3 diopter lens
    on it. This suggests that the minus lens is not even safe,
    and probably produces stair-case myopia.

    Mike> Even Dr. Leung has not decided that we should be putting
    plus on all "pre-myopes".

    Otis> That remains an open subject. With respect to his own
    children, he will put them into a mild plus lens -- as did
    Dr. Raphaelson with his own children. But I agree that he
    can not offer this approach to the public that walks into
    his office -- until the person has sufficient understanding
    of the preventive process to use it properly.

    Mike> Dr. Leung does not claim that neutralizing myopia
    accelerates it.

    Otis> There you go again -- making assumptions, and doing no
    checking. When did you talk to Dr. Steve Leung. Could you
    post what he stated? I have heard you making statements
    that " ... all scientists believe as you believe".
    Absolutely false. Some might, and some might not -- but
    never "all".

    Mike> Get used to it. I will continue to get in your face when
    you tell the public that plus lenses prevent myopia and
    therefore doctors refuse to offer this valuable service.

    Otis> And of course I will get in your face when you tell a person
    that the natural eye is not a sophisticated system -- and
    does NOT change its refractive status (which any engineer
    could measure) as the visual environment is changed -- which
    the engineer can directly control. The issue is a matter of
    direct scientific measurement, not a matter of your wishful
    thinking. But of course it is easy to bamboozle the public
    that enters your office.

    Mike> I will speak up when you say there is some harm in wearing
    minus lenses.

    Otis> I would suggest you take the test I propose to demonstrate
    the proven dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    Mike> I should, because the FDA and the community of professionals
    who actually measure and research myopia do not agree with
    you.

    Otis> I have considerable involvement with the community of
    "professionals", and they do not agree with you. Some do --
    some don't, but medicine has always been a matter of
    contrary opinions, ergo, the majority (your opinion) and the
    second (Dr. Paul Romano's). Here

    Mike> You are a voice crying in the wilderness and your arguments
    have strong intuitive appeal,

    Otis> Well, thanks Mike, even though a "left handed" complement.

    Mike> ... but no rational basis.

    Otis> A VERY rational basis if you consider the natural eye
    behaving as a cybernetic device. But I do respect the fact
    that you personally could not offer prevention to the
    general public. It takes a large degree of understanding
    and commitment in the person himself to make the preventive
    effort effective. i.e., the person "closes the loop" buy
    checking his own eye chart, and personally pushing hard with
    a strong plus lens (from the 20/50 level). As Dr. Chalmers
    Prentis stated, most people don't understand the need for
    is, and therefore will not do it. But that issue speaks
    more to the motivation of the person (or lack there of) than
    anything else.

    Otis> The scientific facts can tell you what is a reasonable
    possibility. But human nature (unless specifically
    nurtured) will "fight" prevention.

    Best,

    From

    Otis Brown

    and

    Mike Tyner
     
    Otis Brown, Jun 6, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements


  2. Hello Otis.

    How could possibly be people that do not agree with that?
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Jun 6, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    We argue together at times -- and against each other
    at times.

    But one thing is certain -- we advocate fundamental
    change, and strongly that a person be "empowered" to
    make a decision when a decision by that person
    could produce a desired solution.

    It always takes considerable courage (particularly in
    medicine, and medicine-related (OD) fields.)

    The two people who advocated profound change, were
    Dr. Prentice and Dr. Bates. Both were "shouted down"
    by the majority opinion. The majority opinion
    has great power to obstruct serious people
    who wish to work towards effective prevention -- even
    as I know how difficult that can be.

    But perhaps our discussions can cast a new
    and better light, on the preventive
    alternative -- even though it appears that
    the individual has no choice but to examine
    the scientific fact (presented on my posts),
    and decide the type of effort he is personally
    willing to commitment to.

    Best,

    Otis

    Engineer
     
    Otis Brown, Jun 7, 2004
    #3
    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.