Pure scientific facts concerining the behavior of the natural eye

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Otis Brown, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    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
     
    Otis Brown, Nov 15, 2004
    #1
    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.