For Bill -- Could you check these statistics?

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 sci.med.vision:

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.

DrG


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.



Otis


**************************************


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.


Best,


Otis

_____________________________________________________


A TEST TO DEMONSTRATED THAT THE FOCAL STATE OF THE
FUNDAMENTAL EYE "FOLLOWS" THE ACCOMMODATION SIGNAL

(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.)

QUESTION:

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.


SOLUTION:

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
Group

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


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.



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE:

------------ 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
test


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


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.

DrG


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,

Otis

 

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.

 

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.

Otis

 

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?