Some ODs tell YOU what YOU should think.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Otis Brown, Oct 23, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Subject: What SOME ODs want us to think -- about the scientific proof
    concerning the natural eye's behavior.

    "Insanity is doing the same thing over-and-over again -- but
    expecting different results."

    Rita Mae Brown

    "There are few hopeless situations. There are only men who
    have grown hopeless about them."


    Otis> How do you prove this statement about the behavior of the
    natural eye -- on a scientific (not medical) level.

    DrL > Simple. You measure the rate of change in myopia in three
    groups of real humans:

    Otis2> You have jumped to a conclusion and used words that are not
    appropriate to describe the behavior of that natural eye
    that is dynamic. You test the natural eye and seek to
    determine if that population of NATURAL eyes are dynamic
    with respect to their accommodation system. You measure their
    refractive status (by using basic measurement method)
    determine their behavior. Nothing concerning "defect" is
    either postulated or determined by this type of testing.
    Attempts to "read into" the term "refractive state" is not
    accepted. If you intentionally change the meaning of my
    words, then you must be defending a "professional position"
    rather that seeking to determine if the box-camera paradigm
    is accurate relative to a dynamic-eye paradigm. I regret that
    you so badly misconstrued the goal of determining
    fundamental scientific truth, versus protecting the method
    of the last 400 years.

    DrL > ...Group one are those who elect not to correct their

    Otis> My words are intended to assist us in making the first steps
    to prevent the development of a negative refractive state
    for the eye. Since this requires that the pilot personally
    do his own checking -- the subject is an engineering
    scientific effort and NOT a medical effort. Where the pilot
    starts the effort (before wearing a minus lens) he is
    generally successful. We just need to translate this
    individual success into a larger group (population of
    intelligent, motivated pilots. The scientific facts support
    what a few pilots have already determined for themselves by
    their own efforts and DIRECT measurements.

    DrL > ...Group two are those who wear correction only part-time.

    Otis> I have said NOTHING about ANY correction. Please use the
    word I am using to describe the behavior of the natural eye.
    An educated engineer can understand the need for clear and
    accurate language to describe the behavior of an accurate

    DrL > ...In group three you put all those who wear minus lenses

    Otis> I would expect the engineer to evaluate the behavior of the
    PRIMATE MONKEY EYE, and translate this proof for the behavior
    of the natural eye as it applies to HIS natural eyes. His
    ability to make this translation.

    DrL > If all three groups get nearsighted at the same rate, we
    know that neutralizing correction doesn't influence the rate
    of myopia.

    Otis> That type of work is not necessary, once the engineer
    realizes the nature of proof for the monkey primate eye. If
    he can not make that connection, then obviously he will
    choose to NOT use the plus for prevention. The decision,
    the choice rests with the quality of his mind and judgment.
    It will NEVER rest with you.

    DrL > We KNOW human myopia relates to working distance.

    Otis> The refractive state of the natural eye (whether plus or
    minus) is directly related to the average value of
    accommodation. The refractive state of the natural PRIMATE
    eye is correlated to its average value of accommodation, and
    the calculated correlation coefficient is 0.97

    DrL > We also know that it DOESN'T relate to wearing or not
    wearing correction.

    Otis> I have no idea how you "know" this, since you offer NO PROOF
    at all. Only by your own personal judgement, and by your
    own "cooked" facts. Further, Judy states that all
    experimental data concerning the dynamic nature of the
    natural eye will be TOTALLY IGNORED. It would be hard to
    see how your statement of the "safety" of the minus lens has
    any proof at all. I suggest that you are defending your
    "professional position" with out any experimental data to
    support it.

    Otis> (Previous) If not, the traditional method of "quick fixing"
    the eye with a minus lens is "safe".

    DrL > Why? Your experiment doesn't evaluate lenses on humans.

    Otis> No, because you prohibit it. How could I.

    DrL > It doesn't even evaluate them on monkeys.

    Otis> You have just stated that you are going to ignore all animal
    experimental data. The natural PRIMATE eye most certainly
    moves in an negative direction when you place a minus lens
    on it. I suggest, then, that your thesis about this point
    be clearly stated -- as I stated my thesis. Stated this way
    we can always REPEAT the experiment. I have little doubt
    about the outcome as it concerns the dynamic behavior of the
    natural eye. You find it IMPOSSIBLE to accept the outcome
    of that type of scientific testing.

    Otis> (Previous) An accurate scientific judgment if you ask me.

    DrL > That's why we aren't asking you.

    Otis> That does not bother me. The real issue is whether a pilot
    wishes to learn enough to protect his distant vision through
    four year of college -- when otherwise is refractive status
    will move negative at a rate of -1/3 diopter per year. As you
    know "Chet" chose to clear his vision with a plus, and PASS
    the required JAA visual exam. That is why Chet ask Steve
    Leung and myself for help that you can not provide. This is
    also why I acted to protect my sister's kids from your
    non-scientific approach, and habit of perpetuating the 400
    year-old use of the minus lens, without serious check or

    DrL > Your experiment doesn't evaluate lenses on humans.

    Otis> No, you must run the test on primate-monkey eyes, and NOT on the
    human eye. You obviously can prevent any meaningful
    PREVENTIVE study from ever taking place. Although I am
    prepared to conduct that type of SCIENTIFIC effort.

    DrL > It doesn't even evaluate them on monkeys.

    Otis> The concept that the natural eye IS EVALUATED ON
    PRIMATE-MONKIES. You prefer to make this off-the-wall
    statement so that people on will BELIEVE you.
    Sorry, that does not work in experimental science.

    Otis> (Previous) The problem? The ODs state that they will
    intentionally ignore all proven facts concerning the primate

    DrL > More Otis bullshit.

    Otis> Any competent engineering evaluating your prediction about
    the behavior of the natural eye is going to recognize that
    the Donder-Helmholtz predictions an a "failed" paradigm. I
    I truly regret it if you keep on insisting an perpetuating
    this myth. The theory is an out-growth of "standard
    practice", and will "fail" for that reason. Its predictions
    can an must be tested -- relative to the behavior of the
    natural eye. Jan insists on destroying the preventive
    concept -- because he knows that if he does not -- the
    concept will destroy his "professional position". I know
    this also.

    DrL > (The) ODs (and PhDs and MDs) all agree that myopia increases
    with closer working distance.

    Otis> A truly false statement indeed. I have yet to meet a
    collection of people (even professionals) where ALL agreed
    on much of anything. But why not state that the natural
    eye goes "down" when you:

    1. Place the eye in a more confined visual environment.

    2. Place a minus lens on the natural eye.

    Then we ALL can agree with the above statements.

    Otis> I am pleased that you agree that when you place a natural
    eye in a confined environment that is will go "down" based
    on that simple test. We should then agree to do everything
    in our power to completely "PREVENT" that near environment
    -- RIGHT?

    DrL > Why do you ignore this?

    Otis> This? Your box-camera theory of the eye? I test the
    (quantitative) predictive accuracy of your theory and find
    it a total failure. You theory fails on the most basic of
    scientific test.

    Otis> Why do you so totally ignore the fact that the natural eye
    controls its refractive state to the average value of
    accommodation -- as PROVEN by primate-scientific studies.
    This is NOT a medical issue. It is, however, a scientific
    CONCEPT issue. **




    ** The struggle for the ascendancy of a scientific paradigm is
    described in detail in Thomas Kuhn's excellent, "The
    Structure of Scientific Revolutions". You should read the
    book to establish the truth that the definition of words is
    crucial for this type of paradigm struggle.

    cc: Pilots and students-of-science who have already cleared their
    distant vision by intense use of the plus.
    Otis Brown, Oct 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    I think you need to look into the mirror.


    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 23, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Dr. L,

    Thanks for your commentary. I prefer to look at
    the objective scientific data itself -- as per:

    IMAGINATION: "What we can see is only a small percentage of
    what is possible. Imagination is having the vision
    to see what is just below the surface; to picture
    that which is essential, but invisible to the eye."

    If you said you have no choice but to use the minus
    lens on the general public (who has no interest in prevention)
    they we would have no argument.

    But when you inist that a minus lens has no effect
    on the refractive status of the natrual-primate eye,
    and know what the experimental data actually
    does demonstrate -- then we have an arguement
    about the natural eye's behavior.

    As long as you state that you ignore all
    scientific data of this nature -- we
    have no arguement. It is only this type
    of scientific truth that concerns me.



    Otis Brown, Oct 24, 2004
  4. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    What kind of a pathetic argument is this, when you put words in someone
    else's mouth? We've been over these arguments in this NG ad nauseum. You
    keep ingnoring the scientific data.


    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 24, 2004
  5. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Subject: Scientific testing of the natural eye, versus
    DrL "medical" testing.

    DrL > What kind of a pathetic argument is this, when you put words in
    someone else's mouth?

    Otis> Please be more specific. This is MY statement.
    All that I stated
    was that if you take a population of eye, and
    put a minus lens on 1/2, the ones wearing
    a minus lens will go down relative to the
    group not wearing the minus lens. That
    is a simple scientific experiment.
    Why do you "choke" on that basic scientifc
    truth about the eye's behavior?

    We've been over these arguments in this ad nauseum.

    Otis> And you have been using the same method for
    the last 400 years with out checking the basic
    safety of the minus lens. In will induce a
    negative refractive status in the natural eye -- and
    the test and results are obvious -- except to you.

    Or as Dr. Bates stated:

    "You cannot by reasoning correct a man of an ill opinion
    which by reasoning he never acquired. We can also say that
    neither by reasoning, nor by actual demonstration of the facts,
    can you convince some people that an opinion which they have
    accepted on authority is wrong."

    William Bates

    DrL >You keep ingnoring the scientific data.

    Otis> No, you TOTALLY ignore all the DIRECT, EXPERIMENTAL
    data by stating that "all animal data will be ignored".

    Otis> And hou have the Hutzpaz to call the medieval
    tradition "science"?



    "I know that most men ... can seldom accept even the
    simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them
    to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in
    explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
    others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the very
    fabric of their lives."

    Leo Tolstoy

    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
    Otis Brown, Oct 24, 2004
  6. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Perhaps you need to get some counseling.


    (Otis Brown) wrote in
    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 24, 2004
  7. Otis Brown

    Dr Judy Guest

    Please cite a study that did this with humans and found this result. I have
    already cited one using chickens where, when corrected for myopia that
    actually existed, the chickens did not increase in myopia and some actually

    Dr Judy

    Dr Judy, Oct 25, 2004
  8. Otis Brown

    RM Guest

    "Perhaps" is not the correct word. This guy is compulsive, manic, and
    This guy has his own theories about how he believes the eye works and he
    INSISTS that everyone else is wrong when they sight evidence that he is

    Otis-- are you married? I pity your poor wife!

    Killfile Otis, right along with that fool Rishi.

    RM, Oct 25, 2004
  9. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Well, RM, it would appear that we are indeed strange bedfellows.

    Dr. Leukoma, Oct 25, 2004
  10. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    My statement about the dynamic nature of the
    fundamental eye is clear.

    If you choose to believe Dr. L., who states
    that the natural eye DOES NOT GO DOWN
    when you place a minus lens on it, then that
    if fine with me also.

    But when he says "trust me" and submits
    no evidence to counter the above statements -- then
    I check with OTHER ODs who do not have
    DrL. opinion.

    I would suggest others think and analyize "independently",
    and reach their own conclusion.

    Certainly prevention with the plus is difficult, but
    has been accomplished by Dr. Stirling Colgate
    and other pilots who have the motivation that
    true prevention requires.

    In the sense that science is an effort to
    explore the "unknown" the perhaps we
    can "learn together" about understanding
    the natural eye as a dynamic system.



    Otis Brown, Oct 25, 2004
  11. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    Otis, indeed YOUR idea in preventing myopia is hopeless.

    And no, I am not grown hopeless about the

    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, Oct 25, 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.