Pure scientific facts concerining the behavior of the natural eye

Subject: Nipidoc, Jesus, and Pure Scientific Facts.

Fundamental Eye:

From: Nipidoc

Jesus H., Otis. No one is disagreeing with you on this. But
eye doctors do not run around putting -3 diopters on "fundamental
eyed" people. We put -3 diopters on 3 diopter myops, and -6
diopters on 6 dioptor myopes, and virtually all scientific
research suggests that by doing this, you do not cause myopia to
develop any faster than if you did NOT do it.

This is where we are disagreeing with you.

nipidoc

_________________

Dear Nipidoc,


Jesus H., Nipidoc. You argue about what you do in your
"office". I know you have no choice (in most cases) but to
continue to do what you are doing. But that issues is a MEDICAL
issue (dealing with people who walk in off the street) and not a
SCIENTIFIC issue.

Prevention with the plus is not easy, and -- if done
correctly, It is up to the person himself to "control" the
situation by clearing his distant vision with a plus. I consider
that effort to be SCIENTIFIC in nature -- and NOT MEDICAL. The
difference is the preception of objective facts as they concern
the dynamic behavior of the FUNDAMENTAL eye.

You say:

"We put -3 diopters on 3 diopter myops, and -6 diopters on 6
dioptor myopes, and virtually all scientific research suggests
that by doing this, you do not cause myopia to develop any faster
than if you did NOT do it." Nipidoc.

I am certain you are stating what you truly believe. I
certainaly have seen a great deal of SCIENTIFIC data to cause me
to doubt your belief.

If you said "all MEDICAL research", then I would not and
COULD NOT disagree with you -- because the ultimate "controling
authority" is pure-medical. I pose no MEDICAL arguments.

But when you say SCIENTIFIC research the issue is profoundly
different, and then the PREDICTIVE ACCURACY of the
Donders-Helmholtz theory becomes critical.

In fact the SCIENTIFIC data (rejected completely by you and
Judy on MEDICAL grounds) demonstartes that whenever the
fundamental eye is tested (on and "input" versus "output" basis),
the facts show that the refractive status of the eye will change
in the direction of the applied minus lens. This is by pure
DIRECT measurements. The data can not be clearer. There is NO
interpertaton of this data. You change the visual environment and
verify that the refractive status changes accordingly.

I separate your dealings with the public as "medical", and
sharp preception of the eye as dynamic in the above context -- as
the line that separates scientifc analysis and preception of
objective data, from the operations you conduct in your office.

I deeply regret this "combat" -- but when you insist that the
natural eye does not change it refractive status as described
above (on a SCIENTIFIC LEVEL) -- and I find out otherwise, then I
am not going to believe as you believe.

I check the facts myself -- and make engineering-scientific
recommendations based on those facts -- to other engineers
interested in keeping their distant vision clear through four year
of college.

That is the way I see it. Prevention is indeed difficult,
and I would would make no one attempt it unless he was fully
appriased of these profoundly different assessment of the behavior
of the natural eye -- based on SCIENTIFIC FACTS.

Obviously a decision as serious as using a plus for
prevention (clearing from 20/50) is not something you could
prescribe.

It is an issue that only a highly motivated engineer could
make -- AFTER he understands these issues to his own satisfaction.

Issues of this nature can NEVER be reduced to a magic
"instant" solution to be delivered in 15 minutes. You keep
insisting that that be done -- and only YOU control it.

I keep suggesting that the person himself should go through a
"tutorial" on ALL these issues -- as a scientific effort. This
would develop where the person himself will work on a scientific
level as part of a team where he personally vefifies he "vision
clearing" work.

By this very definition this work could not be done as a
"blind" study, and that would be the FIRST requirement for a study
of the PREVENTION of nearsightedness.

I have written up a scientific proposal of this nature -- to
be conducted with and BY the engineers who will have had this kind
of tutorial.

I believe that, like Shawn, they could achieve the same
result that he did -- PROVIDED they start this process at the
20/50 level.

If you would support it (but make no attempt to "control"
it,) then, on a scientific level, I believe that the pilots would
become successful -- as Shawn has become successful.

But I would have to talk to each man who was going to lead
the study.

Now you say that return to 20/20 (from 20/50) would occur in
only 1 percent of these young man -- because only a very few have
"accommodation" myopia, or any other "myopia".

I would suggest that we run this study as I suggest. That
way you could be happy. It is clear that successful results could
not be reduced to a "quick-fix" to be applied to everyone that
walks in a office. Even if we were completely successful, the
results would still not apply in a MEDICAL sense.

The number of pilots who clear their vision from 20/50 to
20/20 would be established -- and the results would be published
as SCIENTIFIC results consistent with the same results achieved in
scientific-animal studies thus far accomplished.

Why not "relax" and help us -- rahter that fight so hard to
hinder us?

What SPECIFICALLY do you have against that approach?

Best,

Otis


____________________





Dear RM,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

Remember I did not say that a minus lens "hurt" anyone.

I stated that if you take a population of fundamental eyed --
and place a minus lens of -3 diopters or so, the refractive status
of the group wearing the minus lens will go "down" relative to the
control group.

This is basic scientific truth. If you choose not to believe
it -- then that is YOUR PROBLEM, not mine.

Enjoy,

Otis Engineer

cc: Friends with an open mind about objective scientific
testing of the behavior of the natural eye.

__________

understands your opposition to his right to this second opinion.

Get real. No one opposes anyone's "right to a second
opinion". Don't put

Read the rest of this message... (129 more lines)

Post a follow-up to this message

Message 6 in thread

From: RM ()

Subject: Re: 20/20-Shawn Thanks You For Your Advice and
Assistance




Date: 2004-11-10 20:40:13 PST

Otis > Remember I did not say that a minus lens "hurt" anyone.

Otis > I stated that if you take a population of fundamental eyed
-- and place a minus lens of -3 diopters or so, the
refractive status of the group wearing the minus lens will
go "down" relative to the control group.

Otis > This is basic scientific truth. If you choose not to
believe it -- then that is YOUR PROBLEM, not mine.

DrG > Otis, I suppose you mean that if you overminus someone by
3.00 diopters then when you refract them again after a
period of adaptation to the stronger lens power you are
likely to find that they appear more nearsighted. Well
that's right! When you overminus someone you induce their
ciliary muscle to contract even when they are looking in the
distance so as to counteract the effect of the excessive
lens power.

DrG> After a prolonged period, that causes the ciliary resting
muscle tone to be higher (provided that the person is not
presbyopic or nearly so) and induces accommodative myopia.
Got it!!

DrG> Yes, you can induce someone to become more myopic if you give
them more minus than they need BUT WE TRY NOT TO DO THAT!
That's lesson number one when you learn to refract someone
Otis. It's freshman class stuff Otis. We're way ahead of
you pal.

DrG> Now when someone comes in and they are truly a myope due to
anatomic reasons such as an elongated axial length, do you
suggest that we "spare the minus lens" and tell them to wear
plus lenses instead?

DrG> And just what good do you think that will do?

DrG> Explain to me in physiological or medical terms how exactly
that will improve their myopia. Or will you finally admit
that in cases where true myopia exists that it's OK to use
just enough minus lens power to provide a good focus of the
visual image on the retina. When you are finally are ready
to admit that Otis, then we are in total agreement and you
can move your crusade onto some other more important
"problem" in human health care.


DrG> The majority of myopes ARE NOT accommodative myopes Otis.

Otis> And what crystal ball did you obtain that information
from. Since you can produce myopia in the natural
eye (negative refractive state) in a large
population of eyes from forced wearin of
a minus lens -- could that be "normal eye"
nearsightedness -- that could have been prevented.
Or is this negative-lens induced nearsighedness
all "accommodation myopia"?


Best,

Otis
Engineer