Science Based Opinion on the Dynamic Eye

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Jul 26, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention Minded Friends,


    Subject: Claims by OD to their "Science" versus pure science and the
    proven behavior of the primate eye -- and the human eye's
    behavior by implication.

    Re: Who decides what is science as it concerns the dynamic
    behavior of the fundamental eye. OD Boards -- or
    scientists?

    These ODs have powerful reasons to de-rail preception of the
    natural eye as "dynamic". That is obvious.

    Thus they sweep all OBJECTIVE, repeatable experiments off the
    table, and insist that their own flawed "bi-focal" studies
    "count".

    I guess they can get away with the sham of science for a long
    time into the future.

    [We should discuss an ODs responsibility to us (i.e.,
    prevention) and our responsibility to respond to true-prevention
    with the plus if we can.]

    We are here on i-see to LEARN -- even if that means re-organizing
    our terminology to describe the proven behavior of the fundamental
    eye.

    Best,

    Otis

    _________________________

    Date: Monday, July 25, 2005 3:03 AM

    TOPIC: The opinion of ODs on on sci.med.vision to Prevent Myopia by
    use of the plus on the theshold.

    [OSB Subtitle: Science (not medical-OD bias) based studys of the
    dynamic behavior of the eye by direct testing. OSB]

    ________________________

    == 1 of 8 ==

    From: ""

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: The second-opinion (for true-prevention with plus)

    If you are interested, advocacy for the preventive "second
    opinion" is stated on:

    www.chinamyopia.org

    I believe that accurate science defines the natural eye as
    "dynamic", and tests of the fundamental primate eye prove this
    point beyond any reasonable doubt.

    Best,

    Otis

    == 2 of 8 ==

    From: "Mike Tyner" (OD)


    Otis> But then, you decide.

    MikeOD> We've decided that you have a selective reading disability.

    -MT

    [Comment: No wonder the public gets stair-case myopia from
    this type of "attitude. The facts provide the proof.
    Mike provides an obvious quick-fix which the superfical
    public loves. Who is responsible for the obvious
    consequences?

    [Comment: This is clearly a matter of selective intellectual
    blindness. Who has the "selective" scientific
    disability? OSB]

    == 3 of 8 ==

    From: (OD -- but of course)
    Clark> here are three scientific studies ON HUMANS (not animals)
    demonstrating that Otis' theories are full of crap. he has
    been presented with these studies before but refuses to
    comment. he counters by presenting studies performed on
    chickens and monkeys, and then dropping the names of old
    optometrists whom he doesn't even know.

    [Comment: I did comment -- Clark obviously ignored the
    commentary. What I said was that there was no proof
    that these kids actually looked THROUGH the low-placed
    small-segment "plus". As a result, there was not
    "control" and the publication can not be trusted.
    That means that to get the "true" behavior of the
    fundamental or natural primate eye it is necessary to
    run OBJECTIVE experiments of the FUNDAMENAL eye -- to
    establish this characteristic. OSB]

    -------------

    Clark> first, this study concludes that Otis stairstep theory of
    myopia progression is wrong:

    [Comment: I do not see my name mentioned in these studies that I
    am "wrong" about the dynamic behavior of the primate
    eye. Secondly, the "control group" clearly indicate
    that the "single-minus" lens group goes "down" at an
    AVERAGE rate of -1/2 diopter per year. This is
    average, and some go down at -1 diopter/year. It is
    the FACTS that demonstrate the reality of "stair-case"
    myopia -- not my statements about it. OSB]

    Goss, D. (1984) Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic
    progression. Am J Optom Physiol Opt., Feb;61(2):85-93.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=
    Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=6703013&query_hl=3

    Thirty-six subjects (18 males and 18 females) ranging in ages
    from 7.38 to 15.82 years received an overcorrection of 0.75 D over
    the power required to correct their myopia exactly. These 36
    experimental subjects were matched by control subjects selected at
    random from the files of the Indiana University Optometry Clinics.
    The criteria used in matching were sex, beginning age, beginning
    refractive error, and duration of time covered by the record.


    [Comment: The kids were not looking through the "small-segment"
    plus. Therefore the "test" and "control" group were BOTH
    using the same-strength minus lens. No one "controlled"
    to make certain the plus was ACTUALLY USED. But no one
    cared to check. No validity. Run the study on primates
    where you can actually CONTROL the input -- and measure
    the output. Makes perfect sense -- in SCIENCE. OSB]


    -------

    ClarkOD> secondly, these two studies show that Otis theory of plus
    lens prevention is wrong:

    [Comment: How easy it is to love the box-camera "theory" of the
    last 140 years -- with no SCIENTIFIC proof for it. OSB]

    1.Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia
    enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression.
    Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.

    The Chung study is a small (n=94), 2 year randomized and
    masked prospective study comparing the effects of full-time
    undercorrection (UC, by approx 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 FC group showed a
    progression of -0.77 D compared to the UC group that exhibited a
    progression of -1.00 D. Rates of eye growth also differed between
    the two groups, as expected, being slower for the FC group. This
    study suggests that leaving myopes partially uncorrected (i.e.
    with a net plus prescription) may in fact promote myopia
    development rather than reduce it.

    2. COMET multicenter study on use of bifocal glasses to slow
    myopia progression.

    http://www.nei.nih.gov/neitrials/viewStudyWeb.aspx?id=9

    In summary, results of COMET suggest that PALs should not be
    prescribed routinely for slowing myopia progression in children.
    However, they still may be prescribed for other ocular conditions.
    Findings from this study will influence ongoing and future studies
    of myopia interventions and mechanisms of eye growth.

    [Comment: It is doubtful if these kids had any idea of what they
    were doing. Further, the "best" bifocal study
    conducted by Francis Young where a "high" plus was used
    demonstrated that the "single minus" when down at -1/2
    diopter per year, where the "plus" group stopped
    further negative movement. Even here the kids received
    no instruction in the proper use of the "plus". At the
    very minimum, this study supports the concecpt of
    prevention-with-plus as the second-opinion. OSB]


    == 4 of 8 ==

    From: ""

    Dear Friends,

    If I am working to determine if the natural eye is a
    sophisticated system, then I am going to depend on objective
    scientific tests to accurately determine the natural eye's
    behavior.

    This analysis RESPECTS the eye as a competent design.

    The proof is in this respect. Since you (with your closed
    mind) sweep all SCIENTIFIC data off the table (i.e., the primate
    data) -- before there is any anlysis, then yes, you can maintain
    your myth the a minus-lens "quick fix" is based on "your science".

    But the issue is a matter of who controlls the preception of
    the natural eye as a dynamic system.

    Best,

    Otis

    == 5 of 8 ==
    Date: Sun 24 Jul 2005 21:28
    From: Repeating Rifle (Bill, Ph.D.)


    Clark> Dear prevention minded friends,

    Clark> here are three scientific studies ON HUMANS (not animals)
    demonstrating that Otis' theories are full of crap. he
    has been presented with these studies before but refuses
    to comment. he counters by presenting studies performed
    on chickens and monkeys, and then dropping the names of
    old optometrists whom he doesn't even know.

    Clark> first, this study concludes that Otis stairstep theory of
    myopia progression is wrong:

    BillPhD> As I read these summaries, my eyes glaze over. The
    writing has all the earmarks of crap! Giving ages in
    years of participants to two decimal places--give me a
    break. Even the amount of correction is ambiguous.
    Does over correction mean too positive or too negative.
    Give me another break.

    BillPhD> The little I remember from my childhood is that as I and
    my cousin became more myopic, we took our glasses off
    and held comic books closer.

    Bill

    == 6 of 8 == Date: Sun 24 Jul 2005 20:13

    From: "RM" (a "hard-over" OD indeed)

    RM > I'm sorry, but your reply makes no sense.

    RM > You (Otis) were presented with scientific data. No one swept
    it off the table. Why do you avoid the issues. Why do
    you keep trying to redefine the valid postings that
    argue against your unfounded theories.

    [Comment: He means un-founded scientific "facts" -- where he
    hates the correct preception of the natural eye as
    dynamic, and all its consequences for him if honestly
    stated. I understand his "position" however. OSB]


    IN HUMANS, THERE IS NO VALID SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT PLUS
    LENSES PREVENT MYOPIA PROGRESSION, JUST AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE
    THAT MINUS LENSES CAUSE THEM. Plain and simple!


    [Comment: He states his desired belief as a "fact". Sorry.
    Francis Young science shows that preveniton is POSSIBLE,
    but must be implemented before the minus lens is applied
    -- as the second-opinion. NO ONE has the right to deny
    a person information concerning the possibility of
    prevention with the plus. OSB]

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

    From: Otis

    Dear Friends,

    When I am working to determine if the natural eye is a
    sophisticated system, then I am going to depend on objective
    scientific tests to accurately determine the natural eye's
    behavior.

    This analysis RESPECTS the eye as of competent design.

    The proof is in the analysis of a population of primates when
    we have COMPLETE CONTROL of the "input" enviroment, and can
    measure the resultant "output". This scientific research leaves
    no doubt but that the eye is controling its refractive state to
    its average visual-enviroment. OSB]

    Since you (with your closed mind) sweep all SCIENTIFIC (primate)
    data
    off the table -- before there is any anlysis, then yes, you can
    maintain your myth that the a "quick fix" is based on "your science".

    But that is the issue as to who controlls the preception of
    the natural eye as a dynamic system.

    Best,

    Otis

    == 7 of 8 ==

    From: "RM" (Ditto -- OD)

    BillPhD> As I read these summaries, my eyes glaze over. The
    writing has all the earmarks of crap!

    RM > A little dry, but not crap.

    Bill > Giving ages in years of participants to two decimal
    places--give me a break. Even the amount of correction
    is ambiguous. Does over correction mean too positive or
    too negative.

    RM > Over correction means giving a myopic more minus
    (negative) than they need.

    Bill > The little I remember from my
    childhood is that as I and my
    cousin became more myopic, we took our glasses off and
    held comic books closer.

    RM > Well that's nice, but what does
    that have to do with Otis and
    his continuing refusal to accept scientific evidence
    (that evidently causes your eyes to glaze over and
    result in you calling it "crap") that demonstrates that
    minus lenses do not cause myopia and that plus lenses do
    not prevent it?

    [Comment: By DIRECT objective facts I ONLY stated that the
    refractive state of the fundamental eye "moves" in a
    negative direction. (ALL EYES -- average.) That is
    clear. Calling the refractive states of the natural
    eye "defects" is not correct under that circumstance.
    Direct object facts are more important that the
    ingrained (historical) mis-understanding of those
    scientific facts. OSB]
     
    otisbrown, Jul 26, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    No-- the consensus of the scientific community decides what is valid.
    Experiments are then repeated and substantiated. Then the facts become clear
    over time.

    You don't decide what is valid Otis, simply but stating and restating your
    convictions over and over again. The weight of the science on human myopia
    is against you.

    And Otis, the primates we are really talking about are HUMANS. Do not
    present animal studies when human data is available and the results are
    clear. Animals are oftentimes different than humans. Go start another
    group entitled sci.vision.animals and post your arguments there. I would
    support you!
    I am sorry but you do not seem to understand (again!). Probably you didn't
    read the study. NO BIFOCALS WERE EVEN USED IN THIS STUDY. Students were
    either given their BVA minus corrections or their BVA minus correction
    with -0.75D more (i.e. excessive amounts of the "wretched minus"). After
    various periods of time, there was no difference in the progression of their
    myopia. To quote the results--"Rates for the experimental and control
    groups were not significantly different." This means your staircase myopia
    theory didn't hold true. Get it Otis? Do you understand? This is evidence
    AGAINST your staircase myopia theory.
    Otis, in this study using less of the wretched minus and leaving the patient
    with a NET PLUS refractive error did not lessen myopia progression as your
    theory would have predicted. Instead it made it even worse. Why? (by the
    way, bifocals weren't used in this study either).

    Lets think it through. Hmm, using less minus resulted in an even bigger
    increase in myopia. I guess thats even more evidence against your staircase
    theory, right (the weight of scientific evidence is humans is mounting
    against you Otis)? Also, the undercorrected myopes were going around with
    a net +0.75 refraction-- why didn't their myopia decrease, or even progress
    at a lower rate. Thats whay your theory would predict. Why did these
    humans get myopic at an even faster rate? That's not what your theory would
    have predicted-- guess your theory might be invalid, right?

    Comments Otis?

    No, I mean statistically valid scientific studies performed on HUMAN
    subjects. Why do you call them "unfounded"?

    If I hate anything its that a charlatan like yourself posts blatantly wrong
    information that might mislead innocent people who read this newsgroup.

    I am sorry but the weight of scientific evidence supports what I said.
    Please present your valid scientific evidence in humans (hint-- there isn't
    any).

    Yes, I guess you could refer to your theory as a "second-opinion"-- a very
    very distant second!

    The primate we are talking about here is the HUMAN. Please provide your
    evidence that human myopia is prevented with plus lenses, or accelerated
    with minus lenses (hint-- there isn't any. Evidence to the contrary has
    already been presented to you). If data is available in humans use it and
    stay away from chickens, monkeys, and shrews.
     
    RM, Jul 26, 2005
    #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.