Jan, Why should the "prevention" concept be destroyed?

Dear Jan,


Subject: "I declare that Otis' idea about preventing myopia
in humans must be destroyed." Jan (normally Dutch
spoken)

It is still not clear why Jan wishes to destroy our concept
that concerns nearsightedness prevention with a plus. (i.e.,
Otis' concept must be destroyed.)

Please be more articulate and accurate concerning you idea
that the natural eye is not dynamic -- with respect to its average
visual environment. (i.e., the AVERAGE value of accommodation.)

If you stated that you do not "like" the concept of
the dyanamic eye, then that would be fine with me.
But "destroy". Why?


POINT #1

Medicine is a field of the "second opinion". There is no
dishonor in expressing a belief about objective scientific facts
-- that differs from the "majority opinion".

I would never say that "the second opinion" should be
"destroyed". Why do you make that statement about our belief and
expectation that then natural (primate) eye is dynamic as PROVEN
by direct experimental measurements.


POINT #2

Statement: Theodore Grosvenor of the University of Houston
College of Optometry -- a proponent of the role of bifocals in the
prevention of myopia -- insists that persistent close work causes
myopia. He stated that, "Once the eye has started to stretch, it
may be too late to keep it from stretching," he says, explaining
that most of the children in the study had already become myopic.
"The ultimate study would be to put reading glasses on
first-graders before anyone has developed myopia," he says.

Since my statement about true-prevention is IDENTICAL to Dr.
Grosvenor's, I fail to understand why my concept of the natural
eye's behavior "must be destroyed".

Are you stating that Dr. Grosvenor's opinion must be
destroyed. Please explain.



POINT #3

Quite a few ODs are aware of the experimental data (primate,
adolescent) that shows that the refractive status of the test
group goes "down" relative to the control group. You choose to
totally ignore this type of repeatable, scientific data and proof.
I affirm that this data must be part of science. You insist that
this type of scientific proof it MUST NOT be part of "your"
science. Should your unique concept of science be the ONLY
concept allowed?



POINT #4

While it might be very difficult for an OD to offer "correct
use" of a plus lens -- that is hardly an excuse for believing that
a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of the eye.
The second-opinion is that the minus lens as an "undesired"
secondary effect as stated below. Should their honest opinion
about the effect of the minus lens on the eye's refractive state
"be destroyed". Please explain.


Statements:

No clinical or statistical studies have ever demonstrated the
long-term safety of a (minus) "corrective" lens.

Here are sample excerpts from the professional literature
voicing concerns about the safety of (minus) "corrective" lenses:

"The use of compensatory lenses to treat or neutralize the
symptoms does not correct the problem. The current education and
training of eye care practitioners discourages preventive and
remedial treatment." R.L. Gottlieb, Journal of Optometry and
Visual Development, 13(1):3-27, 1982.

"The emphasis on compensatory lenses has posed a problem for
many years in our examinations. These lenses do not correct
anything and may not serve the patient in his best interests over
a period of time." CJ. Forkiortis, OEP Curriculum, 53:1, 1980

"There are frequently ignored patterns of addiction to minus
lenses. The typical prescription tends to overpower and fatigue
the visual system and what is often a transitory condition becomes
a lifelong situation which is likely to deteriorate with time." S.
Gallop, Journal of Behavioral Optometry, 5(5):115-120, 1994

"Single-vision minus lenses for full-time use produce
accommodative insufficiency associated with additional symptoms
until the patient gets used to the lens. This is usually
accompanied by a further increase in myopia and the cycle begins
anew." M.H. Birnbaum, Review of Optometry, 110(21): 23-29, 1973.

"Minus lenses are the most common approach, yet the least
likely to prevent further myopic progression. Unfortunately, they
increase the near-point stress that is associated with
progression." B. May, OEP Publications, A- 112, 1984.

Jan -- please explain with this judgment of your fellow-ODs
"should be destroyed". I believe they are correct in their belief
about the proven effect the minus lens always has on the refractive
status of the natural eye. Why do you believe otherwise. At least
acknowledge that you express only the "majority opinion", and that
we all should respect the "second' scientific opinion.


Let us just be candid about this. The minus lens is "easy",
and prevention with the plus is difficult. But prevention is not
impossible as you want us to believe.


POINT #5

Since I agree strongly with the second opinion, as expressed
above, I fail to understand why the concept of the dynamic natural
eye "must be destroyed".

The method of the minus-lens was put in place 400 year ago
for one good reason. It worked instantly. I agree that is a good
"selling point" for the minus lens, but I doubt that you could say
the "works instantly" constitutes "scientific proof".

Pleas submit SCIENTIFIC proof that the minus lens has NO
EFFECT on the refractive status of the fundamental primate
(adolescent eye).

That is how you resolve scientific questions concerning the
dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- not by insisting that the
concept "must be destroyed" with no further articulation.


Best,

Otis

Engineer


cc Scientists, optometrists, engineers, and students interested
in promoting effective prevention with a plus lens at the
threshold of nearsightedness.
(Listed on www.myopiafree.com)

 

Simple, you can't provide ANY scientifically proof your idea works in humans
The only text you provide once in a while is a bunch of repeating
blabla.......nothing new.
And please Otis don't try to explain again the same old boring stuff you
already have.

A major snip in a bunch of repeating stuff by
Otis...............................

--
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
destroyed.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

 

No statement is made concerning the safety of minus lenses. There is good

The real charlatans are you doctors who ARE NOT ABLE to cure anything,
neither a very simple incepting refractive error nor a deep troubled
macular problem.

You haven't got any clue whatever.

You just go on playing with harmful things, like spectacles, drugs and
laser butchery.

No patient feels good after has visited one of your offices.

The theories on which you base your so called "work" are
contradictory.

In year 2004 you still believe in the lens as being a factor in
accomodation, and still you believe in the iris having something to do
with "depth of focus" effect.

Now these two things are very easily decided by the own efforts of the
intelligent patient, that learns, on will, to watch himself and his
own feelings about the eyes, and see very clearly that these two
"scientific" beliefs are just "made up" to go on and on in selling
your false services.

If somebody of the intelligent readers here want to enter into the
truth of perfect sight and how to achieve it, please visit
http://TheCentralFixation.com

 

The method of the minus-lens was put in place 400 year ago

How can you say that it works?

It does not.

Your own case is the proof that it works not.

Detachment of the retina and other things: how can you say the minus is safe?


The true fact is that IN YOUR CASE it was not.


Same is for the other gullible people like you.


The minus --- or the plus --- is a disease-creating machine.

It should be discarded as soon as ever.

 

Dear Jan,


Subject: Putting all the scientific cards on the table.


IMAGINATION: "What we can see is only a small percentage of
what is possible. Imagination is having the vision
to see what is just below the surface; to picture
that which is essential, but invisible to the eye."


After discussion with Dr. Jacob Raphaelson, it was clear to
me that the confines of an optometrist's office prevented
scientific work towards a long-term solution for the prevention of
nearsightedness. This was not due Raphaelson's technical failure
or lack of desire to prevent a negative refractive state of the
eye, but rather to the "attitude" to the patient, who completely
lacked both motivation and understanding of the necessity of
true-prevention (with the plus) at the critical "threshold" level
of -1/2 to -1.0 diopter (20/50 to 20/70 level) of myopia. Missing
from this discussion was the knowledge that if nothing is done,
the child's vision will move "downward" at a rate of -1/2 diopter
per year.

My interest then turned to establish EXACTLY what the
experimental data tells us about the behavior of the fundamental
-- or natural eye.

This the REQUIRES a simpler form of testing. That means we
stop making assumptions about the eye, and use simple words like the
"refractive status" of the natural eye (that can be plus or
minus), and we talk about our ability to control (with precision)
the "input" visual-environment.

The result of this type of intellectual and physical testing
can not reveal the "cause" of any defect, but only the built-in
behavior of ALL natural eyes.

[Since this point is totally ignored I must state it
explicitly. When you wish to establish a characteristic of all
eye you must test ALL EYES, or a sub-set of ALL NATURAL EYES. If
you don't do this you can never reach a conclusion about the eye's
behavior.]

[Further, you must assume that the proven behavior of all
natural eyes, must also be the behavior of each eye in this
"population" of natural eyes.]

[To subvert or deny, or change-the-subject means no more
effective SCIENTIFIC discussion. Once someone REJECTS this
analytic evaluation -- the possibility of any further intelligent
discussion is ended.]

When someone "in authority" can sweep 50 percent of these
cards "off the table" -- then she controls the perception of the
eye's behavior. This is the effect of "Dr Judy's" statement about
what "scientific" data is "on the table", and what scientific
facts are to be TOTALLY IGNORED. To wit:


Re: "Any hypothesis for prevention of myopia that is based on the
evidence from animal studies is based on evidence that is
irrelevant to humans." Dr Judy


From the discussions with Dr. Judy and others it was clear
that ALL the ODs on sci.med.vision agreed with the above
statement.

I would suggest that this "belief" separates a pure
engineering-scientific approach to understanding
direct-measurements, versus the conjecture that all refractive
states are "errors" both plus and minus, which constitutes
"OD-Science".

If Dr. Judy stated that prevention is almost impossible -- I
would agree with her. If she insisted that she can not deal with
the great mass of people who want ONLY a instant quick-fix, I
would agree with her on that point also. It is not HER job to
supply the motivation and support for prevention.

But when she insists that the natural eye does not go down
from:

1. A forced negative change in the visual environment and

2. The forced wearing of a minus lens.

The I must emphatically DISAGREE with her thesis, and her
habit of excluding all SCIENTIFIC data she chooses to ignore. The
truth is in that type of scientific data.

A massive amount of DIRECT experimental data collected over
that last 40 years confirms absolutely that the natural eye does
the above action -- always when correctly tested. It is the
"signature" of a control system that is important in a scientific
sense at this point.

The "engineering" approach simply asks to test "input" versus
"output" questions concerning the natural eye's behavior.

There is no mystery here at all. Either all fundamental
ANIMAL PRIMATE eyes do this -- or they do not. Either a
population of natural eyes is dynamic, or they are not dynamic.
If not dynamic, the prevention with a plus would be impossible,
and a "fraud", to put is bluntly. But the question can be
resolved not in terms of "medical judgment", but in terms of
repeatable objective scientific facts, where any intelligent
engineer could understand both the nature and purpose of this type
of testing.

Since we can measure the refractive states of all natural
eyes, (the output) and we can control the "input" (a delta in the
visual environment) we simply can not fail but to draw the correct
conclusion. On a "scientific" level this is a certainty. On "Dr.
Judy's" level, this type of perception can not exist, and is
prohibited because she can sweep all these scientific cards off
the table.

If these truths separate "medicine" from "science", then so
be it.

But that is my understanding of the "bias" of optometry, and
why there is necessarily a separation between these two fields of
intellectual interest.

So when I "argue" the behavior of the fundamental eye and
proof, I would take the above perceptions into consideration.

This is why I use the term "refractive-state" to describe the
eye. If someone reacts with "anger" from that statement, or
wishes to "twist" my statement, then I must consider that he has
been taught an incorrect perception, and he can not escape it.
But using her position as an OD to deny all factual data, is not
they way to do scientific research.

Best,

Otis


___________________________________


P.S. Here is some more of the discussion for your interest:


Thanks for your commentary on your decision to exclude all
DIRECT experimental-scientific data proving the dynamic behavior
of both the monkey-primate and human-primate adolescent eye.

With this enforced total exclusion of ALL SCIENTIFIC data
(primate eye testing) it is hardly surprising that you have no
idea or concept of the behavior of the natural eye -- let alone
any concept of preventing the development of a negative refractive
state for the fundamental eye.

Equally I am certain you are sincere in your "office" or
mind-set. An actual solution can only occur when the person
concerned with the issue of true-prevention actually pays
attention to this objective-scientific data, and realizes how
totally you exclude this critical scientific data from your mind.

That indeed does define the separation between a pure-medical
approach and a pure-scientific approach to defining and testing
the eye's natural behavior.


Best,

Otis

_______________________________________________


Subject: Judy's attitude excludes almost all scientific
research -- except for her own (passive-eye) opinion.


More recent animal studies suggest that accommodation in not
a factor in eye growth stimulated by minus lenses.

There is no confusion here for me; neo-natal animal eyes do
not provide a model for non neo-natal human eyes. Animal eyes
that are not naturally myopic and do not naturally develop myopia
may provide a model for human eyes that naturally do not become
myopic, but do not provide a model for human eye that do become
myopic.

Any hypothesis for prevention of myopia that is based on the
evidence from animal studies is based on evidence that is
irrelevant to humans.


Dr Judy

_____________________________________


Subject: The O'Leary Bifocal Study -- and discussion by Judy

The Wildsoet Lab Controlling Myopia Progression - A Confusing
Story

The dilemma of managing young progressing myopes.

The O'Leary study and The Comet Study


Two recently published clinical trials involving
under-correction and PALs as alternative myopia control strategies
add more rather than less confusion.

A paper published in the journal, Vision Research (2002, 42:
2555-9), describing a 2-year Malaysian-based study comparing the
effects of undercorrecting myopia with full correction on myopia
progression in children. The message from the principal
investigator on this study, Dr O'Leary, to doctors, patients and
parents, as reported in the New Scientist article is "No glasses
is the worst option of all, But don't undercorrect. GO for full
correction."

The Chung, O'Leary et al study is a small (n=94), 2 year
randomized and masked prospective study comparing the effects of
full-time undercorrection (UC, by approximately 0.75 D) with full-time
fully correction (FC) in young myopes (mean: -2.86 D). The study
group comprised approximately 1.4 time the numbers of girls as
boys with Chinese and Malay ethnic groups being approximately
equally represented. Over the 2 years of the study, the
full-correction group showed a progression of 0.77 D compared to
the UC group that exhibited a progression of 1.00 D.

-- minor snip by Judy --

It is interesting to compare progression rates for the two
groups in the Chung et al study with values from the more recently
published COMET study, converted in both cases to a D per year
rate.

The progression rate for the Under-Corrected group (-0.50 D
per year) corresponds closely to the mean rate reported for
participants allocated single vision lenses in the COMET study
(-0.49 D per year). A conclusion based on this comparison alone
would be that undercorrection neither exacerbates or slows the
progression of myopia, when applied unselectively. This outcome
is predicted if we assume that the benefit of undercorrection is
limited to those with poor accommodation.

[What this analysis does not recognize is that if you are
going to do ANYTHING for true-prevention, then the plus-lens
method MUST start before that -1/2 diopter per year kicks in.
Indeed, anyone working on prevention who manages to clear his
distant vision from -1.0 diopter (20/80) to 0.0 diopters (20/20),
must recognize that, while he is in a "high-school" environment he
must continue with this "preventive" method if he again sees his
vision becomes less than 20/40. It would seem very important that
this discussion be raised with a person at the threshold of
nearsightedness. OSB]

Animal model studies predict increased (myopic) eye growth
with sustained poor accommodation in fully corrected eyes (see
Wildsoet, 1997, for a more extensive discussion of animal-based
emmetropization studies and their clinical implications). However
undercorrection should improve the state of focus at near as less
accommodation is required. A potential parallel with animal
studies involves the imposition of binocular low powered positive
lenses on young monkeys; their eye growth slows, presumably
because their eyes now have almost perfect focus at near
distances, the limit of the visual world of these young animals
(Smith & Hung, 1999).


____________________


WHAT FORCES THE USE OF A MINUS LENS?


We should all thoughtfully evaluate the unfortunate effect of
using an immediate and easy fix for the problem of
nearsightedness. This situation of a self-perpetuating mistake
(produced by public need and attitude) is sometimes recognized by
the students of medicine. Dr. Perri Klass said it this way in
VITAL SIGNS:

"...Sometimes the awesome weight of medical knowledge is
totally off the beam. You have to practice medicine with that in
mind, with the knowledge that a hundred years or so along the
road, they'll be telling stories about the medical theories of
today to get a laugh of the medical students of 2085..."

And about medicines' confidence in its routines:

"...Or something so basic, so taken for granted, that no
one has gotten around to questioning it. Whatever it is, probably
the medical profession is collectively doing something really dumb
and really damaging, and doing it with complete good will and
typical medical self-confidence."

This applies to vision. The demand for negative lens use
comes partly from the public's demand for an instant solution,
(and corresponding reluctance to properly use a plus lens) and not
from a scientific assessment of the behavior characteristic of the
normal eye.

_____________________

 

Remark:

Depth-of-focus (or optical dead-band) has an estimated
value of +/- 0.3 diopters in room illumination
and about +/- 0.6 diopters in sunlight.

Yes Rishi, depth-of-field, is part of the concept
of the optics of the natural eye.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

You are walking around in circles Otis, boring.......

And again a major snip in the same old boring stuff which is already
discussed and explained.

--
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be
destroyed.

Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

 

Dear Jan,

Subject: Thanks for your thoughtful review.

I know of optometrists who are working for nearsightedness
PREVENTION with the plus.

The fact that you are using a technique established
400 years ago, and that you perpetuate says a lot
about the "science" behind that use of the minus.

The fact that you consider detailed analysis
of the natural eye's behavior so much "bla...bla"
tells me you are not really functioning on a
scientific level at all.

The fact that Judy tells me that all analysis
of the natural eye's behavior (adolescent-primate)
eyes, tells me much the same thing.

Yes, I understand the "line in the sand" you draw
that separates you "medical" approach from a
engineering-scientific approach.

But there are no "hard feelings". In fact,
I could do no better that you in your situation.
There is no pretense in me about that fact.

I did convey your opinion to others, so
that they could undertand that the has
almost no choice but to "clear" their
vision under their own control -- since
you are so blind to analysis and
the direct-experimental data.

Maybe that is the only hope for the future.

I know you are never going to be part
of any preventive work -- but a total opponent
to anyone who wishes to protect their
distant vision, with a plus for near.


Best,

Otis
Enineer

 

The obvious answer is that the concept of prevention is not under attack,
and will not be destroyed. As a case in point, at least on international
drug conglomerate has a vested interest in drugs like pirenzepine that
specifically target prevention. If proven safe and effective, no
optometrist or group of optometrists will be able to prevent the use of
these drugs.

You and the "host" of optometrists who claim do be doing "prevention," are
doing the world a disservice by not publishing your successes in the peer-
reviewed literature. If found effective, then patients will be demanding
this service from their optometrists, and you won't need to be wasting your
time trying to drum up business on the internet.

DrG


(Otis Brown) wrote in

 

You all think that the camera and the eyes are alike.
To what extents are they alike ? Very very small.

Why you all use the photgraphy analogy only about
depth of field and neglect the analogy about eye
muscles changing the lenght of the eye ?

The eye and the camera have only small things in
common, they are two completely different things.

Imperfect sight is MUCH more than out of focus
images, because it is a mental thing.

 

You're just going to get the standard excuses ranging from the
providers being "too busy" to try to get published to not having the
financial
resources to fund a legitimate study to the conspiracy theory ("no
journal would publish the findings" due to being controlled by the
medical cartel).

frank

 

(drfrank21) wrote in

I would think that the patients themselves would fund such a study.

DrG

 

Dear Dr. Leukoma,

Re: > Subject: Putting all the scientific cards on the table.

Re: > And again a major snip in the same old boring stuff which is already
discussed and explained. Jan


I would have no problem reviewing the objective facts
concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural
eye with engineers entering a four year college.

This would be an Engineering-Scientific effort
and NOT a medical study. I would hope you
could understand the difference.

A person understanding the true-fact taken
from ANIMAL studies (which you reject) could better-understand
the nature of his choice. I believe that such
a person (with previous 20/20) could work his
way out of it (from 20/40).

You say that is IMPOSSIBLE. I suggest that, if
the individual CONTROLS both the effort and judgement
that he would be successful. But you should be
excluded since you state that the
concept of prevention SHOULD BE DESTROYED.

That removes you from involvement -- based
on the intense bias of that statement.

Engineers have an open mind and examine
the facts THAT YOU REJECT. An that
is indeed a problem.

To further respond:

Please read Jan's statement on the subject. Are you
contradicting Jan?


As a case in point, at least on international

Otis> I do not support drugs for prevention.


If proven safe and effective, no

Otis> That is a "medical" issue. I do not make "medical"
arguments.

Otis> Prevention is indeed difficult, and for obvious
reasons (which Dr. Raphaelson spelled out) it can never
be prescribed. This issue is scientific preception
of facts -- not your interpertation of those facts.

Otis> The person who preceives those facts correctly,
has a good chance to clear his distant vision -- under
his own control.


DrL> ...who claim do be doing "prevention," are

Otis> My "peers" are on optometrists. They are other
engineers and scientists who evaluate the eye as
a sophisticated system that controls its refractive
state to its average visual environment.



If found effective, then patients will be demanding

Otis> You get it wrong again. This is not a "patient"
issue and you are prescribing nothing. It will
be the individual himself who works to clear
his vision -- and verifies he is successful
by working with his own eye-chart and trial
lens kit. The fact (which you ignore) will
be taught to him on an objective-scientific
basis. Further the conecpt of a scientific paradigm
(Thomas Kuhn) will be reviewed.


DrL> from their optometrists, and you won't need to be wasting your
time trying to drum up business on the internet.

Otis> Again, you make assumptions about me that are false.
I do not "do" any "business". My site is free.
If a person learns enough about these issues,
and proceeds in the forceful use of a plus,
and clears his vision from 20/60 to 20/25, the
his goal is achieved.

Otis> That is my exclusive goal at this point.
Accurate preception of scientific facts concerning
the dynamic behavior of the natural eye are
necessarily part of that effort. But conplete
control and judgment is held by the person
doing this work. If successful, they simply do
not need anything you must have to offer.
(With all due respect.)

Otis> Also, you might answer the five points
I asked Dr. Jan to answer -- and he chose
to ignore all the points -- while declaring
that a person's right to an informed
choice, "must be destroyed".

Otis> I certainly agree that prevetion is
difficult, and depends on the person's
ability to make a commitment to heavy
use of that lens. At the point they
do is successfully, the realize that
it is the only why you can truly
prevent nearsighedness.

Otis> It is also true that if YOU recommend
it -- the public will most likely reaject it.

Otis> But that is a major issue to consider.

Otis> I have suggested a more rational
study to be conducted at a Flight College,
where these concepts could be taught.

Otis> With Jan stating that the prevention
concept "must be destroyed", it is rather
obvious why that is not going to happen.


Best,

Otis

 

I started using cameras at age 12.
Perhaps my sight was ruined when I tried, in the dark room, to develop
pictures and see the black of black as less black, such an idiotic
act, I understand.

Perhaps there I lost the correct imagination of black, pretending to
clarify it...

If +/- 0.6 dioptres in sunlight is the maximum contribution to
focussing given by the diaphragm of the eye, I wonder how I can see
15/10 at 200 meters on the church's clock letters with 5 dioptres of
myopia...

Some scientist should explain this to me.

Otis, please explain this to me and also to Mr. Tyrner.


By the way, if I stare at the clock, the numbers go numb quickly,
despite the depth of focus given by the sun.

Also, there are moments when the sun is difficult, expecially when you
come from indoors, and you need few minutes (or seconds) to get
accustomed. Before that, I cannot resolve any number on the church's
clock at 200 meters.

Where is the depth of focus?

Then there are other peculiar experiment any intelligent people can
do: for example with license drivers plate on the back of cars. One
who is trained in the cure of imperfect sight by means of rest
methods, can verify that if he starts from FAR away, let's say, more
than 20/10 distance, he can see the plate but the numbers are black.
Then he comes closer step by step... Then, it is amazing, ALL OF A
SUDDEN, the plate comes out plain and clear, and you read it. There
were only few cm between unfocus and focus.

Now you please explain.


People interested in this stuff, please visit
http://TheCentralFixation.com.

 

As usual, you go off on a tangent and do not directly address the issue.

DrG


(Otis Brown) wrote in

 

So . . . as a favor to a visually impaired person who has /absolutely no/
interest in these Otis-esque threads (except as compared to the
Rishi/Evaristo posts) . . . . and as a favor to any others who may feel
similarly . . .

Would it be too much to ask to include some sort of keyword pairing--may I
suggest "Natural Eye--" in any thread that either originates on this topic,
or any thread that migrates toward this topic (necessitating the insertion
of the keyword into the subject line mid-stream)?

In fact, Otis: it seems reasonable to ask that you take responsibility for
this, if you will. I would never suggest that you should not be heard. I
would just appreciate a convention for the threads that facilitates
eschewing them for those so inclined.

The new s.m.v. people need--and I appreciate--the services of those
valiantly debunking much posted nonsense . . . but some old-timers would
rather be free of it.

Thoughts??

Thanks.

 

Dear Neil,

Subject: Using correct words to describe the true behavior
of the natural eye.

As you know I put in an exhaustive effort to run-down
the various concepts that exist about "nearsightedness".

This included interviewing ODs to understand the
"issues" as THEY understood them.

Dr. Jacob Raphaelson used a plus on a young child -- and
cleared his vision to 20/20. What happened? The parents
rejected the method -- with violence.

Under that circumstance, it was clear that NO OD could
do anything about prevention -- and responsibility had
to be transferred to the person concerned with keeping
his vision clear -- for life. Not an easy task.

I also thought, Oh my God -- Raphaelson is RIGHT!

The issue is then to under neutral language to describe
what is ACTUALLY MEASURED (i.e., refractive state)
that can be plus or minus in the natural eye.

No OD should object to this neutral language, and
we can proceed to our analysis with out "disturbing"
them.

After all, they declared that all primate (except human)
experimatal data is of no interest or consequence for
them. Fine, then I accept that.

You can never reduce scientific preception into
a "quick fix" in 15 minutes with a person.
The ODs on this site insist that you can
AND MUST! And then the proceed to deny all
direct factual data -- which they have declared
to be OFF LIMITS. That attitude does
exceed their professional authority and
competence.

So yes, the thread has to do with fundamental
SCIENTIFIC preception of the behavior of the
natural eye as a system that controls
its refractive status to CHANGES in its
visual environemt.

But my only goal was to assist my sister's
chilcren (now 40 years old) in avoiding
"stair case" myopia produced by that
minus lens. The only way to do this
was to make them aware of the consequences
of NOT wearing the plus for all close-work.

Since they took the responsibility to
verify that they ALWAYS PASS the
Snellen-DMV test -- they never had
a "problem" with an over-prescribed minus.

Since I have seen people clear their
distant vision with a plus, I have
no doubt that a highly motivated pilots
(at 20/40) could do EXACTLY the same
thing -- given that he has the
personal resolve to do so.

But beyond this point there is
little to be done -- until I have
an opportunity to discuss these
issues with students entering
a four year aeronautical college.

I think we have a good case for
true-prevention at this point -- if
the ODs would be more open about
this preventive issue.

Best,

Otis

 

major snip

I have repeatedly asked you to stop quoting this out of context. I'm not
going to copy the entire message this statement came from, but if you are
going to quote it, please include the paragaphs describing human research
that contradicts the animal research and this paragraph that preceded the
quote.

"Neo natal animal eyes do not provide a model for non neo natal human eyes.
Animal eyes that are not naturally myopic and do not naturally develop
myopia may provide a model for human eyes that naturally do not become
myopic, but do not provide a model for human eyes that naturally do become
myopic."

In other words, I was stating that evidence from animal studies using non
myopic neo natal animals is evidence that is irrelevant to myopic, non neo
natal humans and that evidence from animal studeis that has been found to be
not true when replicated with human subjects is irrelevant to humans. I did
not reject all animal evidence.

Dr Judy

 

Dear Mike,

I think both of you are correct.

For large apertures, simple gemetric analysis provides
the better answer.

When the aperture gets down to 1 mm, difraction effects
are used for analysis.

It is my understanding that the human eye goes down
to 2 mm -- unless drugs are used.

A smaller aperture also limits the effect of
abberation, coma, and other imperfections.

The eye is operating at the limit of what is
possible for a 1 inch (optical) camera.

Best,

Otis
Engineer