Mike T. Question

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Sep 9, 2003.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Please tell me again that the minus lens
    has no effect on the focal status of
    the natural eye.

    Also please tell me that the use of the
    plus (as advocated and prescribed by Dr. Bowan) is NOT
    the second opinion.


    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer



    The Second Opinion (and objective, scientific facts)
    concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    [The basis of a scientific paradigm.]

    New Speculations on Refractive Error

    Merrill D. Bowan, O.D.

    Published in the Journal of Behavioral Optometry; Vol. 7,
    1996 Number 5


    Bowan> "Indeed, all current research in chicks, tree shrews, and
    monkeys in which myopia (negative focal state) and
    hyperopia (positive focal state) has been created all do
    so by manipulation of the animals' visual environment."
    [Scientific references 1-5 supplied below.]

    Otis> I would simplify Dr. Bowan's statement to just state the
    obvious. That the natural eye, when properly test, will
    evince its fundamental (focal control) characteristic.

    Otis> The natural eye controls its focal state (in diopters) to
    its average visual environment (in diopters).

    Otis> The only "contrary" statement to this scientific study
    would be to insist that the natural eye DOES NOT CHANGE as
    the direct-factual SCIENTIFIC data CLEARLY SAYS IT DOES.

    Otis> Granted, "majority" optometric opinion, totally denies the
    basic scientific facts. But the "second" opinion bases
    its judgements and actions on these scientific facts.

    Otis> Dr. Bowan has arrived at the correct conclusion based on
    objective scientific fact. Specifically, he will use a
    +0.75 diopter on a kid with a focal status of zero, as
    stated below.

    Bowan> 3) Preventive lenses - "Plus 50" or "Plus 75" reading
    lenses are powerful tools against myopia for most
    students, beginning as early as second grade for most,
    though some students are showing signs of this
    developmental nearsightedness by the middle of first
    grade.

    Otis> I personally have NO PROBLEM with a person who reviews the
    OBJECTIVE FACTS and makes a decision to reject the use of
    the 0.75 diopter lens at he zero-diopter level.

    Otis> If he chooses that course of action, and later gets
    seriously in to a substantial negative status, the
    responsibility is his -- for rejecting scientific fact,
    and the "second opinion".

    Otis> But when he gets down to -6, -7, -9, and even -11 diopters
    he must say to himself. My optometrist discussed
    alternatives with me at the threshold. When my vision was
    20/20 I was offered the use of a +0.75 diopters (as the
    second opinion). Now that I am -11 diopters, the fault is
    mine -- and only mine. I made a bad choice -- not based
    on scientific fact.

    Best,



    Otis

    ____________________________________________________


    SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES FOR DR. BOWAN'S SECOND OPINION

    1. Smith, E.; Hung, L-F.; Harwerth, R; Effects of Optically
    Induced Blur on the Refractive Status of Young Monkeys,
    Vision Res. 34(3):(293-301), 1994.

    2. Hung, L; Crawford, M; Smith, E; Spectacle Lenses Alter Eye
    Growth and the Refractive Status of Young Monkeys, Nature
    Medicine Vol 1 No. 8(761-765), Aug 95.

    3. Young, F.; The Effect of Restricted Visual Space on the
    Refractive Error of the Young Monkey Eye, Invest. Ophthal.
    2(6):(571-577), 1963.

    4. Wallman, J.; Gottleib, M.; Rajaran, V.; Fugate-Wentzek, L.;
    Local Retinal Regions Control Local Eye Growth and Myopia,
    Science, 237(4810):(73-77), 3 Jul 1987.

    5. Greene, M.; Submarine Myopia in the Minuteman Launch
    Control Facility, J. Am. Optom. Assn. 41(12):(1012-1014),
    1970.
     
    Otis Brown, Sep 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Mike,

    I posted a DIRECT QUESTION about the behavior of the
    natural eye -- and you evaded the quesiton.

    You answer my question about the effect of the
    minus lens on the natural or normal eye
    (entire population of eyes), and I will
    be pleased to answer your quesiton.

    You have seen my references. They support the
    second opinion. By you have posted nothing
    to refute them in a pure-scientific
    (i.e., direct, objective, factual sense.)

    In fact both the plus and minus lens were
    put into use for the obvious reason that
    they worked instantly -- and they are
    the only thing the general public will
    ever understand.

    Beyond that point, if you ask more
    sophisticated questions about the
    dynamic eye (not an optical bench)
    you get a better (but more difficult)
    answer.

    This is indeed a struggle for a
    "paradigm" as to what scientific concept
    will accurately represent the behavior
    of ALL natural eyes.

    If the people on this site have
    a "scientific" interest, then
    I will post a short stament
    by Dr. Kuhn, about this
    sturggle for the "preventive"
    concept.



    Best,

    Otis





     
    Otis Brown, Sep 9, 2003
    #2
    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.