Pure Engineering Issues, versus OD issues.

Dear Friends,

Subject: The difference between pure-science and a medical profession.
Solving problems.

Men live by their routines; and when these are called into
question, they lose all power of normal judgment. They will
listen to nothing save the echo of their own voices; all else
becomes dangerous thoughts.

Harold Laski

There are no hopeless situations. There are only men who
have grown hopeless about them.

Anonymous

I have good friends in medicine, engineering science, flying
and optometry. The arguments I make here advocate the
"empowerment" of the individual -- if he has the insight amd
modivation to do the work with considerable force-of-will. The
arguments below point to a "limitation" in medicine, But that
"limitation" reflects on all of us. In fact, the issue is not so
much what an optometrist can do for us, but rather what we must
learn to do for ourselves.



DISCUSSION

Dear Mike,

As you know, medicine in never a "finished business". New
concepts must be developed, and new methods learned. While this
process is "painful" at times, it does mean healthy growth for all
of us eventually.

There is always a second opinion. The matter becomes a
judgment of the person himself -- about the relative importance of
his distant vision FOR HIM.

If you make the argument that the public would reject the
plus if you offered it -- I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU.

It takes the person himself to understand these issues.

I prepared a detailed technical analysis in my book, "How to
Avoid Nearsightedness".

If you understand that nature designed a "dynamic eye", you
MIGHT be able to understand the context of the book.

I prepared the book for my blood-relatives, because they are
the ONLY important people in my life.

The book demonstrates that the refractive status of a
population of "natural" eyes is correlated to the average visual
environment, and the correlation coefficient is 0.97.

Of course you have no interest in this type of technical
analysis -- nor do I see how you could offer "prevention" to
people who walk in off the street.

They expect and "instant solution", and will not tolerate any
long-term solution.

I do not hold you responsible for this situation -- because
you can ONLY REACT to it.

To get a person to understand the need to keep his distant
vision clear BY HIS OWN EFFORTS with a plus is a thankless job --
with NO REWARD for your efforts.

My "advocacy" is for the person himself -- if he has both the
motivation and "smarts" to make it work.

The wide-spread development of obesity is a good example of
what is going on. Any physicist knows that people become obese
because of "too may calories" -- but did you ever attempt to stop
a kid from over eating?

Twenty years from now, the medical profession will have to
deal with all the physical disasters produced by these kid's "bad
habits". Does this mean that medical people do not understand the
law of conversation of energy. Of course it does not. But the MD
has on choice but to deal with people AS THEY ARE, AFTER THEY
GET INTO IT. The responsibility for getting into it must
rest completely with the parents and their kids. As one
medical doctor said, there are no obese people in concentration
camps.

My conversations with my nephew Keith run in that manner.

Keith ran the "Iron Man", which suggest great physical
determination.

He also understood the concept of "taking responsibility", or
a "fighting chance". He cleared his vision (when in college) when
ever it became necessary to do so.

But that is a personal decision. No one in optometry could
inspire that kind of long-term effort.

Keith's eye's belong to him. He had a right to understand
the "second opinion" and, with his own efforts -- worked to keep
his distant vision clear.

That, in my mind is the difference between medicine -- or
dealing with us (the general public), and engineering-science,
which must instruct the individual in technical analysis of the
eye as a "dynamic, auto-focused camera".

The two professions are profoundly different.

I promote the intelligence and understanding of the person.

And medicine, can only react to the "bad habits" of the
general public.

I could no more deal with these "bad habits", than you could
design and auto-focused camera.

If we maintained and understood that difference between us we
might be able to "do better", but you seem to want to dominate
everything -- in subject matter where you have NO EXPERTISE.

And that I why I object to your statement that the minus lens
HAS NO EFFECT ON THE REFRACTIVE STATUS OF THE NATURAL EYE.

And that, my friend, is a matter for pure-science, and not a
matter for optometry.

Best,

Otis

cc Keith Benson and all others who support the concept of
informed consent, and responsible self-control.


__________________________________



From: "Mike Tyner" <>

Subject: Re: Dr L and his Scientific Experiment

From: "Otis Brown" <>

Otis> While DrL may have good academic credentials, he
completely ignores other scientists with even more
impressive credentials than he has -- who in no sense
believe that his assertions are accurate and correct -- or
even scientific.


It isn't about the scientists or their credetials. It's
about their data.

You continue to post opinions and personal references and no
supporting data, no reference to studies where anyone actually
measured anything.

Post your data or quit making claims with no data to back
them up.

Nearsighted people get more nearsighted until their genes
tell them to quit. That's mostly what the data says.

-MT


Otis> Yes, the pure genetic theory. Blame the patient's bad
heredity -- and never the applied minus lens.

 

Unfortunately, less-true believers have a very pressing need
to supress contradictory evidence and dissenting views.

They need to convince themselves.

-- Robert

 

Dear Robert,


Robert> Is the above properly attributed to Otis?

Otis> The above is my statement -- why do you doubt it?
Have you written a book on the dynamic behavior of
the natural eye? You claim to be an engineer.
Have you answered the questions I posed to you?


He quotes a couple of others by the time he gets this far.

Otis> What is your point?

Otis> I have not made up my mind about your "engineering"
since you don't seem to be able to solve basic engineering
questions concerning the design and behavior of a control system.
But you, like many, have no obligation to think more
deeply about a very difficult subject.

I lean to the belief that he is

Otis> The range of accommodation travel (stop-to-stop) is
at least six diopters for young men in college.


Robert> can avoid becoming myopic through school work by using a plus
lens
while reading.

Otis> Well said! Add the word "self-motivated pilots" and
I think you got the idea! Bravo!


Robert > Now I ask you, among his living blood relatives, how many
would be in this category?

Otis> There are three. Since the "downward" rate for
high-school students is -1/2 diopter per year (Young and Oakley)
and -1/3 diopte per years, (the military academies), then
they beat the odds. But of couse only THEY KNOW THAT.

Otis> More to the point, they could see the "blur" and
realized that it was very important that the begin
wearing a strong plus, and keep their vision clear -- or else.

Otis> They had the option of neglect -- but realized
that the "easy" path was not necessarily the right path.
But on a friendly basis, I will send them this email.

Otis> Again I prepared a highly technical book,
to explain later why I was such an "itch" about
pushing them to:

1. Keep that nose off the book.

2. Wear a plus and read at the "just blur" point.

3. Confirm you refractive state by checking
the Snellen, and checking your refractive status
with a trial lens kit. (When available.)

And yes, I strongly suggested that their
eyes be examined for pure MEDICAL problems -- which
are rare, but an MD should check them.

Best,

Otis

cc: Sister's Kids

Dear Kids,

I have used your experience here on sci.med.vision.

Prevention is indeed very difficult -- but it beats
the alternative.

You have you own lives to live. I did my best by you.

What man among us, when his son asks for bread -- would
give him a stone?

Otie

 

You are right !

Although Otis "model" is not based on experiments
(and I think it has some serious flaws) -- I think that
using + shift lenses for nearwork is
_a reasonable precaution act_ until reliable experiments
on their value is done.

Nobody can blame Otis for lack of reliable experiments.
He doesn't have the budgets to sponsore these
experiments, he is not in academic position
to force such experiments.

The only responsible for lack of experiments
(using + shift lenses for nearwork)
is the orthodox medical community (which think that
such experiments are "nonsense" but didn't show
any reliable evidence why they think this is "nonsense").

By + shift lenses I mean:
(1)
+ diopter lenses for
none myopes who are at myopia risk (risk = bad genetic + nearwork),
(2)
Under correction prescription glasses for nearwork
(in addition to full correction glasses for non-nearwork enviroment).

amni


======================================================================

 

(amni) wrote in

Have you ever done a Medline search for articles involving the use of
reading glasses and/or bifocals? No? I thought so.

DrG

 

(amni) wrote in @posting.google.com:

Arguable, but you can certainly blame him for posting the same thing over
and over and over and over and over.

Scott

 

Dear Amni,

Thanks for your commentary.

This issue is not so much "the experimental data",
but rather HOW it is interperted.

Medicine constitutes a "mind-set". They are organized
almost exclusively to "service" the great mass
of the public that walks into their office.

I can not do that type of work -- but I sit and listen
to their complaints.

The issue modeling the behavir of all NATUAL eyes is,
and will remain of prime concern. The issue of
protecting my blood-relatives, and, now, their
own children, is of great importance to me -- and
to them.

But prevention indeed takes a wise and motivated
person. Most people simply do not have the
motivation for it -- and I do respect THAT TRUTH.

The minus lens works -- why bother with anything
else. But then, Galileo, had the same problem
with the Scholastic Physics of his day -- and
was forced to "recant" his beliefs.

Any alteration in thinking about the natural
eye's behavior will alway evoke this kind
of "explosion".

Only an open and wise mind will be able
to sort through these profoundly contradictory
concepts.

And yes, if I were funting as an optometrist, I also
would just put a minus lens on a "refractive error",
and send the person on his why -- happy as a clam.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

How many did you speak with Amni?
You giving the idea you know the majorty.
Show some articles please.

Yes and why not use a wheelchair instead of walking at the same time for
children in tall families to avoid growing-risks ?
Nice experiment don't you think so?


Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

 

Dear Mike,

I am aware that a profession can have a "blind spot".

You totally ignore explicit experimental data
demonstrating that the natural eye "goes down",
when you place a -3 diopter lens on it.

This is a REPEATABLE SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT.

You totally ignore this explicit data.

Having no clue about the behavior of the
natural eye really makes me wonder about
you mind-set.

This issue is on WHAT we mean by
explict measured results concerning
the behavior of the natural eye.

That is our only disagreement.

Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

You seem to be able to ignore the dozens of citations Dr. Tyner has
presented to you. You also appear not to be a researcher. Stop spouting
meaningless phrases.

DrG

(Otis Brown) wrote in