Scientific Fact versus OD Myth about Natural Eyes Behavior

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by otisbrown, Dec 6, 2004.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends,

    Subject: Scientist work to determine the exact behavior of the
    fundamental eye. An OD makes a "single-point" measurement
    and insists all the scientific truth is "in error" and you
    should "trust him".


    1. Frank Schaeffel, Adrian Glasser and Howard C. Howland,
    "Accommodation, Refractive Error and Eye Growth in
    Chickens", VISION RES., Vol 28, No. 5 pp 639-657, 1988.
    Pergamon Press.


    o All eyes treated with positive lenses became consistently more
    positive (hyperopic).

    o Negative lenses produced more negative (myopic) refractions
    (focal states) in all eyes.

    o In a test of plus/minus lenses on left/right eyes, the eye with
    the plus lens moved in a positive direction. The eye with a
    minus lens moved in a minus direction. The control group
    did not change significantly in any direction.

    More recent experiments with primates demonstrated exactly
    the same results.

    These are SCIENTIFIC (not medical) experiments. The results
    are consistent and accurate. They conclusively demonstrate that
    the fundamental eye is dynamic.

    This is pure science -- and the ODs of the 400 year tradition
    figure out some way (or excuse) to totally ignore, not only the
    scientific facts, but invent "fibs" that they tell themselves as a
    "justification" for quick-fixing the public with a strong minus

    These tests MUST be done with a "population" of eyes. You
    can not do this test with ONE individual and have any meaningful
    scientific result AT ALL.

    This does not stop Mike Tyner OD from making the following
    statement -- and he expects you will BELIEVE him and IGNORE all
    the explicit experimental facts.

    Here is his statement:

    "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

    Subject: A question of the effect of a minus lens on the
    refractive status of the two eyes.

    Mike> I'm embarrassed to admit I found out about one today. A
    fourteen year old needed +3.25 in the right eye and +2.75 in
    the left. For some reason, six months ago his RIGHT
    contacts were ordered in error... -3.25 instead of +3.25.
    The left eye has been wearing the correct lens. Strangely
    enough, he's been wearing both lenses without complaint, for
    six months.

    Mike> According to Otis, the right eye should now be somewhere
    around +1.00.


    - Mike Tyner OD


    Dear Friends,

    Subject: Who do you believe? What do you believe?

    Re: This is a true "anecdotal" statement -- and Mike knows it.

    1. I don't know the situation. Maybe Mike made other additional
    mistakes -- that have yet to be discovered.

    2. I can not "repeat" the experimental situation -- at all.

    3. Mike has TOTAL control of this situation. He and others have
    told me that the concept of the dynamic eye MUST BE
    DESTROYED. Now why should I trust or believe the above
    statement -- in any way at all -- when objective facts tell us
    the truth of this situation?

    What Mike fervently wishes to believe it this:

    1. The environment (in diopters) has NO EFFECT on the refractive
    status of the natural eye.

    2. A minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of the
    fundamental eye.

    To enforce his "belief system" he must report his experiment
    proving (his fib) that a lens has no effect on the eye. His
    statement is loaded with incredible bias.

    You will have to make up your own mind what constitutes and
    engineering-scientific assessment of the eye's behavior, versus
    Mike Tyner's "interpretations" of objective, scientific facts
    concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    Some additional commentary:


    Dear Mike,

    Subject: Telling us what you wish to believe.

    Re: So Mike tells us anecdotal tales also -- while we report
    accurate scientific results -- and he tells us that
    scientific facts are anecdotal!

    Thanks for admitting a mistake, i.e., prescribing a -3.25
    when in your judgment a +3.25 should have been used.

    But that suggests an additional point -- for the educated
    pilot. He should do his OWN CHECKING, using his own eye-chart and
    a low-cost trial-lens kit (if he has one).

    Any competent parent using this simple device would have
    found out about your -6.5 diopter in a prescription.

    (I have a report of a child who was over-prescribed by -4
    diopters by they type of casual error! The parent finally checked
    and identified the over-prescription error.)

    Further, the only person who really BELIEVES the results --
    is the person who makes the measurements, ergo, the pilot should
    read his own eye chart, and confirm 20/40, and with the plus.
    i.e., he must confirm his "clearing" to 20/20 as Shawn did it.

    Further, if a low cost trial-lens kit, were available the
    parent would have identified the error himself.

    I dispute Mike's statement on scientific grounds -- that a
    minus lens has no effect on the refractive state of the eye.
    Scientist simply do not make a "single point" measurement and
    then claim that a minus lens has no effect on the refractive
    status of the eye -- but you do!


    otisbrown, Dec 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    *All* eyes?

    *All* eyes?

    When one makes a statistical argument, then one anecdote does not disprove
    it. When one states that *all* eyes behave the same, then one anecdote
    *does* disprove the statement. In fact, *all* eyes *don't* behave as you

    This of course is an outright lie. The truth is much more complicated,
    and statistical rather than absolute. Obviously there are effects, but
    that doesn't mean that your assertions as to what the effects are become

    No, anecdotal facts are anecdotal, and scientific results are scientific.
    Anecdotal facts are still facts, but it is difficult to use those facts to
    predict the outcome for other cases. Scientific results can reasonably be
    used to predict the outcome for other cases, but only for *similar* other
    cases. As Mike keeps repeating (and it makes sense to me), the results
    for chickens and primates whose articial lenses are wildly at variance
    from the actual correction needed, do not accurate predict for humans who
    are wearing lenses that exactly correct to what they need.
    In other words, when it comes to human beings, you wish to use anecdotal
    Dan Abel, Dec 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    Guest Guest

    <> schreef in bericht

    A major snip in an ever repeating story told by Otis.

    Otis over and over you are trying to start an one way discussion in new
    treads, each time everything is carefully explained to you but you still are
    hearing deaf and seeing blind.
    Besides an Italian freak there is NO ONE here who ever supported your idea
    in preventing myopia in humans.

    Otis the man who NEVER EVER showed SCIENTIFIC PROOF and NEVER EVER came up
    with a
    follower of his ideas to whom we may address some direct questions in this
    Otis you are without any doubt a nice old grandpa and a nice storyteller,
    keep it that way and beat the retreat Otis, your stories about ''Shawn" or
    your famous pilots became very very boring.

    BTW, if you quote, quote correct. (see below)

    Otis said : "He and others have told me that the concept of the dynamic eye

    It is YOUR IDEA about how to prevent myopia in human eyes that must be
    destroyed Otis.

    Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"

    I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
    Guest, Dec 6, 2004
  4. otisbrown

    drfrank21 Guest

    I find it absolutely incredible that you tout your own
    anectodal case ("poster boy" Shawn/Jon whomever) without
    ANY pre-post refractive evidence as "proof" that your
    so-called theory is correct yet refuse to recognize
    a very credible example (with actual baseline results)
    from MT that blows your assertions out the door.

    You remind me of a deaf person who only hears what he wants
    to hear.

    drfrank21, Dec 7, 2004
  5. wrote in
    .... a common disorder among married men.

    Scott Seidman, Dec 7, 2004
  6. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    Jan wrote:

    The Fascism is still within us.
    g.gatti, Dec 7, 2004
  7. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    He just says that "the pilot" has to judge by himself.
    Why you are against people judging by themselves?
    g.gatti, Dec 7, 2004
  8. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    Yes, these experiments, which used high power lenses worn full time to
    simulate congenital refractive error in young animals, demostrate that an
    "emmetropization" mechanism exists. No one disagrees that young animals,
    (including chickens, monkeys and humans) if born with refractive error, will
    modify the growth rate of their eyes so that, once babyhood is over, the
    eyes are almost emmetropic.

    However, these experiments have no relevance to the treatment of refractive
    error that develops after babyhood. These experiments did not use minus or
    plus lenses to correct existing refractive error and they do not tell us how
    the human eye reacts to the correction of existing error. These experiments
    did not use low plus lenses used only for near tasks, so they have no
    relevance to your ideas about using low plus to reverse myopia.

    We hhave asked you to cite published human studies about developmental
    refractive error that support your ideas about myopia treatment and all you
    ever provide are studies about emmetropization in neonates.

    Dr Judy

    snip rest of message
    Dr Judy, Dec 7, 2004
  9. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Judy,

    You have proceeded to misrepresent what
    I stated about the behavior of
    tested as a sophisticated system.
    The word "emmetropia" is an
    invented word -- and means
    almost nothing. Likewise,
    the word "emmetropization" is worse.

    What I stated was that natural eye
    is dyanamic. As such we are
    going to take a population
    of eyes that we judge are
    natural. You can exclude the
    eyes you wish to before this
    test starts.

    Not the natural eye (as defined) is
    either dynamic or not.
    (Tested on a basic "input" versus
    "output" basis.)

    We are not looking for a "defect" of
    any sort. Only looking for the
    basic dynamic characteristic of
    these natural eyes.

    As a result we will deal with
    statistics, and population
    averages of these natural eyes.
    (You apperently do not understand
    the concept.)

    In this manner we will establish
    whether the natural eye changes
    its refractive state (in a negagive direction)
    when a minus lens is placed on it.


    otisbrown, Dec 7, 2004
  10. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Scott,
    Yes, you are right -- I am married.
    But also, it is a "difficulty" when
    scientific pardigms are argued.

    Each side wishes to "make its case",
    and that requires that certain
    "words" be defined and accurately

    It matters greatly whe you argue
    about the natural eye as "dynamic",
    in which case it has "refractive states"
    and not "defects".

    Anyone who develops a deeper
    understanding -- will understand
    the nature of these two
    paradigm-based arguements.

    It is also a matter of which
    argement preceedes the

    It has always been assumed
    that you could define the
    eye as "defective" because
    it has refractive states
    that are positive or negative.

    I argue that you can't do that,
    or make that assumption.

    As Thomas Kuhn stated, the
    proponents of a paradigm often
    talk THROUGH each other,
    because neither side will
    accept the definitions of word
    that make the pardigm-based
    arguement effective.


    otisbrown, Dec 7, 2004
  11. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    I'm not sure I understand, but I guess I've known partially deaf people
    who pretend that they didn't hear when it's something they don't want to
    hear, but hear pretty well when it's something they want to hear.

    Otis reminds me of lots of people I've know, with good hearing and good
    vision, who hear only what they want to hear and see only what they want
    to see.
    Dan Abel, Dec 7, 2004
  12. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    Once again, life just isn't that simple. What is being argued on this
    group, is that the eye changes size and shape while the animal or human is
    growing, but not when growing has stopped. This is consistent with other
    parts of the body. A child's foot is small, but grows along with the rest
    of the body. Once a person is all grown, the foot no longer grows shorter
    or longer. In some societies, small feet are considered desirable for
    adult women. The feet of young girls are bound, and cannot grow adult
    size. Once reaching adulthood, the bindings can be removed and the feet
    will not grow to full size and will remain small like a child.

    ObFeet: My OMD has incredibly small feet, and comes from a society that
    once bound the feet of young girls. However, the rest of her body is also
    incredibly small, so I think her feet are in proportion to the rest of her
    Dan Abel, Dec 7, 2004
  13. otisbrown

    drfrank21 Guest

    I meant "playing deaf"- error caused by multitasking and frustration
    of Otis's evasive answers. But it's true, Otis does not care to
    hear what are clear contradictions to his convictions, no matter how
    substantial they are.

    drfrank21, Dec 7, 2004
  14. otisbrown

    LarryDoc Guest

    Blah, blah, blah.

    So what, are you people (I'm making an assumption here) trying to drag
    this bullshit on 'till February so it will be two full years of this

    Otis can't prove a damn thing and only quotes himself, ad naseum. The
    vision scientists can prove everything they say and can quote published
    data. Does that not end the discussion?
    LarryDoc, Dec 8, 2004
  15. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    THE END.

    Dr. Leukoma, Dec 8, 2004
  16. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    Unless they drop the glasses the vision won't become normal.

    Even if they use glasses and recover their normal vision, the glasses
    have to go.

    You cannot have normal sight AND wear glasses.
    g.gatti, Dec 8, 2004
  17. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dan,

    The statement, "that they have eyes,
    and can not see, and ears, but can not
    hear ... cuts both eyes."

    You should examine your own belief
    that the natural eye does not
    change its refractive state
    under testable conditions.

    Pay attention to objective facts -- themselves.

    Do not "interpert" the fact as you
    are so prone to do.

    The native eye controls it refractive
    state (output) to its visual environment
    (input) -- in diopters. Why can't
    you accept what the objective,
    scientific facts tell us about
    the behavior of all natural eyes?




    otisbrown, Dec 8, 2004
  18. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Yes-- this is called accommodation. We know this well. Excessive
    accommodation is called accommodative myopia and that's the only type of
    myopia that your plus lens treatment has a chance to cure.

    If you think I'm wrong, then tell me what structure in the eye changes when
    you use plus lenses-- it has to either be the corneal curvature, the axial
    length of the eye, the index of refraction of the ocular media, or the
    curvature of the lens (which does occur because that's the only structure
    that is dynamic in the adult eye due to the action of the ciliary muscle).

    But I realize this type of discussion just goes right over your head Otis--
    what's in the eye and how it works isn't important to you. Your black box
    "theory" which seems so simple and so elegant to you and other good
    intentioned people throughout history JUST ISN'T THE WAY IT WORKS! I guess
    the good Lord had a different plan than your's Otis. I'm not sure exactly
    what the plan is, but it's not what you want it to be!
    RM, Dec 9, 2004
  19. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest

    Dear Prevention minded friends.

    Ignore Otis. He makes up stories, and won't have his subjects come to the
    newsgroups and share their experiences.

    A Lieberman, Dec 9, 2004
  20. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    No. You must examine the context also.

    I have a brain, and I will use it to interpret as necessary. You have a
    brain, and have done an interpretation that the ODs claim is incorrect.
    Why should I follow *your* interpretation and not make my own?

    Because there are other factors involved here.
    Dan Abel, Dec 9, 2004
    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.