Scientific Proof for the Behavior of the Primate Eye.

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Otis Brown, Oct 5, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Judy again asked for proof that the natural eye is dynamic.

    Here is the response.

    Please enjoy these heuristic arguements, analysis
    and discussions.




    Subject: Hard Scientific Truth concerning the dynamic behavior of
    the natural eye.

    Re: Supplying the scientific publication requested by Judy.

    Re: Judy's methods of denial of scientific truth concerning the
    dynamic behavior of the natural eye.

    Re: Judy's response to my statement that the natural eye goes
    "down" in terms of measured refractive status when placed
    in a more-confined visual environment.

    Judy> Is this another one of your "thought experiments" i.e., what
    you think might happen if you actually did the experiment?

    Otis> The experiment has already been completed. The facts, the
    science of the eye's behavior is absolutly clear.

    Judy> If so, please refrain from stating your speculations is4 a
    form that sounds like you actually did something and got

    Otis> Scientific facts are not "speculation". Your total denial of
    objective facts from repeatable scientific experiments is
    speculation, or wishful thinking -- or total denial of
    scientific truth.

    Re: "Any hypothesis for prevention of myopia that is based on the
    evidence from animal studies is based on evidence that is
    irrelevant to humans." Dr Judy

    Judy> If you actually did the study, please post the publication
    date and journal, so we can read the details.

    Otis> I did not do this study. Dr. Francis Young did the study
    that determines the fact that the natural eye's refractive
    status "follows" the accommodation signal.

    PRIMATE EYE, American Journal of Ophthalmology, Vol. 52,
    No. 5, Part II, November 1961

    Otis> Oh, but I forgot. You reserve the absolute right to deny
    ALL scientific truth that you do not like. Your "review"
    will consist of stating that monkey-primate data has
    no relavance to the behavior of the human-primate eye,
    followed by the statement that all others should
    "trust" your "scientific judgment". Q.E.D.

    Dr Judy


    Dear Dr. Judy,

    In engineering-science you put your statement concerning
    the behavior of the natural eye to the test.

    I take a population of natural eyes and measure the
    refractive status of all of them.

    That forms a gaussian distribution of refractive states for
    the natural eye.

    Now I test your null-hypothesis that the natural eye does
    not "change" from a forced change in the average visual

    The forced change is -0.8 diopters. (Accomplished
    with a "hood" that made the average environment about
    13 inches). The control group was maintained in cages.

    If you thesis is correct, then no refractive change will
    develop for the test group, relative to the control group,


    Refractive status = Heredity or genetics.

    In fact I agree to a genetic COMPONET in the equation for
    the eye's refractive status, thus "genetics" explains little.

    Refraction = Offset + Accommodation + Step * [1 - e^ (-t/TAU)]

    When this test is conducted, the refractive status of the
    test group change by the approximate value of the imposed
    step-change in the accommodation system.

    For the e ^ (t/TAU) function, the correlation coefficient is 0.97.

    By your insistance, your PREDICTED correlation coefficient
    is zero.

    I think we have a serious scientific (not medical)
    conceptual problem here, in that you never allow your concept:

    Focus = Genetics ever be tested -- because you don't like the
    consequences of understanding the scientific fact that the natural
    eye CONTROLS its refractive state to its average visual


    Otis Brown, Oct 5, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Dr Judy Guest

    No one denies that emmetropization takes place or that extreme visual
    deprivation during early development will lead to high refractive error in
    young animals.

    This is not evidence that the normal visual environments of school age or
    collage age humans (including several hours daily of near point work) will
    cause myopia, nor is it evidence that humans who use a plus lens to read
    will prevent their myopia from developing. It is not evidence that your
    formula applies to humans.

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Oct 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    For Otis to wrap himself in the cloak of scientific proof is funny. He has
    no proof, only opinion.

    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 6, 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.