For Bill -- Could you check these statistics?

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Aug 23, 2006.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear prevention minded friends,

    Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections
    must be first overcome.

    Samuel Johnson

    Subject: A statistical engineering study to determine if the
    fundamental eye is dynamic -- vs. passive.


    Snippet from

    The null hypothesis as stated by Majority-opinion Dr G,

    Otis> Yes, this is the truth. (That the natural eye is a dynamic
    system -- and proven to be so.)

    Otis> If there is to EVER be change here, then we must accept the
    results of science that show that the forced wearing of
    a -3 diopter lens on a population of NATURAL EYES, will
    result in the refractive STATE of the -3 diopter group
    CHANGING by at least -2 diopters in one year.

    DrG > This is complete and utter garbage. In my profession of
    many years, I have indeed encountered instances of
    prescriptions being written in excess of the refractive
    error. In none of the cases was the myopia increased. None.


    Otis> In other words, Dr G, your hypothesis is that a minus lens
    has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of all fundamental
    eyes, i.e., the null hypothesis, that the
    fundamental eye is not a dynamic system.

    Otis> To avoid upset on your part, please use the word
    refractive STATE, and not "error" or "defect" in any form
    to respect the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.



    I have used standard statistics for this analysis.
    In my judgment, the students must understand this type of
    technical analysis, and would appreciate the type of intellectual
    and physical control they would use to protect their distant
    vision -- through their four years at the college.

    The difference of 1 diopter between the test and control
    groups in 6 months would be sufficient to reject the null "optical
    bench", or "box camera" (paradigm) hypothesis as stated explicitly
    by Dr. G.

    Since you have the technical background I would think that
    both you and pilots would be interested in conducting this type of
    study as an engineering-design effort.





    (As a dynamic system)

    Test the hypothesis that there is absolutely no neurological
    linkage between the accommodation system of the eye and the focal
    state of the natural eye.

    The mean focal state of a population of 100 natural eye is
    0.6 diopters. (The natural eye in an "open" environment.) The
    1-Sigma spread runs between zero and +2 diopters for the natural,
    or fundamental eye.

    The standard deviation is approximately 0.25 diopters. (To
    be measured as part of the experiment protocol -- for this
    specific test.)


    Will these experimental results significant, or HIGHLY
    SIGNIFICANT, and if so, what is the calculated level of
    significance of the results.

    NOTE: Standard testing states that a level of 0.05 is
    significant, and a level greater than 0.01 (1 in 100)
    described as highly significant.


    The scientists must decide between the hypothesis:

    Ho: The null hypothesis is the belief that the eye is a box
    camera, and there must be no relationship between the
    visual environment and focal state of the eye. (Stated
    as a fact by Dr. G.)

    The Ho Hypothesis: Focus of Test group = Focus of Control

    The null hypothesis states that there will be no significant
    difference in refractive STATE will develop between the two

    Ha: Test-group (will develop a more negative focal SATE)
    than Control-group (The single-tailed test.)

    The alternative hypothesis (Ha) states that the natural eye
    behaves as an auto-focused camera, and will control (change) its
    focal STATE based on the "delta" produced by the assiduous use of
    a minus lens.

    Part 2


    The values in this equation are translated as follows:

    X-Bar = Average of Test and Average of Control:

    At the start of the test, the average refractive status is
    identical for the group -- considered to be homogeneous.

    After the group of 100 individuals are randomly divided in
    half, then a difference in refractive status (measured by atropine
    or other standard methods) which will develop. In this specific
    example the difference between the two groups was projected as
    greater than 0.5 diopters after four months. This POSSIBLITY is
    explicitly DENIED by Dr. G.

    Sigma = Standard deviation:

    In statistics, "Sigma" is a required calculation. Before the
    start of this test, Standard-deviation will be calculated for the
    group of 100.

    After four months, standard-deviation will be calculated for
    the test-group and the control-group. This value is required for
    this calculation.

    C = Control Group:

    This group will wear no lens.

    T = Test Group:

    The wears the -3 diopter minus lens during the four month of
    the study.

    N = Number in group:

    100 individuals will start the test, with 50 in each group.
    It is expected that a number of individuals will not be able to
    complete the test for various reasons. In this example, 45
    individuals were in the control group, and 35 in the test group,
    thus meeting the protocol of this scientific study to determine if
    the eye is a dynamic, versus passive, system.


    The null hypothesis Ho, assumes that the means of the two
    groups are identical after the completion of this study.

    The following "Z" static is calculated as described below.

    [ X-Bar(Control) - X-Bar(Test) ]

    Z = ----------------------------------------------------------

    Square Root [ Sigma-C ^2 / N(Control) + Sigma-T ^2 / N(Test) ]

    The change in refractive STATE is expected to be greater-than
    -0.5 diopters.

    Z = [( 0.1 ) - ( 0.6 )] / SQRT [ (0.25^2 / 45) + (0.25^2 / 35) ]

    Z = 8.87

    Notes: C = Control Group
    T = Test Group
    N = Number in group
    X-Bar = Average of Test and Average of Control
    Sigma = Standard deviation
    ^2 = Squared
    SQRT = Square Root of

    Since this result exceeds 2.33, which is the 0.01 (99
    percent) confidence level, we can say that it is highly probable
    that the eye is a control-system, and that this result is in
    agreement with the previous experiments that demonstrate that all
    eyes will change their refractive STATE in a negative direction
    when forced to wear a -3 diopter lens 16/7 for four months.



    ------------ Percent -----------

    Significance Level: 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.002

    Critical "Z" values 1.645 2.33 2.58 2.88
    for the one-tailed


    The values chosen for this review are representative numbers.
    The results of an a formal study will produce similar outcome. It
    is worth the effort to establish the above suggested relationship.

    On the basis of this test, using the one-tailed test at a
    level of significance of 0.01 we should reject the null
    hypothesis, Ho, that the natural eye is a rigid box camera, and
    that there is NO RELATIONSHIP between the eye's visual environment
    and its focal STATE.

    DrG > This is complete and utter garbage. In my profession of
    many years, I have indeed encountered instances of
    prescriptions being written in excess of the refractive
    error. In none of the cases was the myopia increased. None.


    So, Dr. G, your null hypothesis fails under pure
    scientific testing.

    At the very minimum, the second-opinion, that a negative refractive
    STATE can be prevented -- has scientific merit.

    Have a nice day,

    otisbrown, Aug 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    LarryDoc Guest

    You have no friends here.

    Listen you sick old man. Enough of your rants. And now stop abusing the
    basic and accepted policies of USENET news groups. If you want to
    communicate with a specific individual then do that via email or
    telephone, not by posting a subject directed toward that person.

    Of course you take that one step further, as the text of your bogus
    subject has nothing to with it.

    What I can't understand is that everyone here is quite aware of your
    agenda and the FACT that your posts are mostly lies and otherwise
    completely without merit, yet you continue. You'd think you go away and
    find a place where someone might actually engage you in conversation
    instead of continually attack you. That is truly sick/demented or
    whatever pyscho babble you want to call it.
    LarryDoc, Aug 23, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Larry, I have heard your majority opinion many times.

    You do not respect the fundamental eye as a dynamic
    system. That is your majority opinion, and definitely
    not based on objective facts.

    If you wish to continue to believe that the natural eye
    is not a sophisticated, and therefore not a dynamic
    system -- then do so.

    There are second-opinion optometrists who recognize the
    need for basic change in concept, and support a person's
    right to an informed CHOICE in this preventive matter.

    But that is the nature of scientific analysis of the
    behavior of all fundamental eyes.

    But further, I asked Bill to check the statistis and
    math -- as the concern pure scientific issues -- and
    not you.

    Let use hear what Bill has to say about science
    and the dynamic behavior as the natural
    eye as a paradigm.

    otisbrown, Aug 24, 2006
  4. otisbrown

    Simon Dean Guest

    You wouldn't know a fact if it met you face to face said "hello, im a
    fact" and shook your hand. You'd probably just try and force it into
    plus lenses and show it a photo of some chickens.

    He has an email address, use it, you cancerous leech.
    You mean the Bill who isn't a vision professional?
    Simon Dean, Aug 24, 2006
    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.