The inherent difference between pure-science and "medicine"

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Feb 23, 2005.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Friends,

    Subject: The difference between "engineering-science" and

    Re: Learning to be brutally honest with objective, scientifc
    facts concerning the proven behavior of the fundamental eye.

    Re: Supporting ODs who SUPPORT the second-opinion, and
    will help YOU with prevention on the threshold.

    If you read my post under "Engineering" (below) you will
    understand how and why engieering-scientific truth must be
    separated from "medical-truth".

    While there is no exact analogy between a child at 20/50
    (-3/4 diopter) and a young child who is 20 percent over-weight,
    there are striking similarities when:

    1. The issue is considered from a physical-science point-of-view.

    2. The issue is considered from a "medical" point-of-view.

    This analysis speaks to the nature of scientific (not
    medical) proof.

    People in medicine must deal with the CONSEQUENCES of obese
    children -- and our "bad habits".

    In engineering-science there is no question about children
    "getting fat", nor is there any question about the solution -- in
    engineerng. Excess calories "in" result in obese-kid "out". Very
    clear, very clean -- in engineering-science.

    But "medical science" can't seem to figure this out.

    Is this a failure of the law of conversation of energy, or is
    the fault of the child's "excessive eating habits". Or is it this
    habit of "medicine" where you are "polite" with the person and
    parent -- by not stating the "engineering" truth.

    In "engineering" you simply state the scientifc truth -- and
    the parents and child will HATE YOU for being technically honest.

    As an engineer -- I do not deal with a person's "bad habits".
    I will tell him what will happen to him if he persists in that
    "bad habit" of reading or writing at -11 diopters for long periods
    of time -- months and years. And when the "kid" keeps on doing
    it -- and becomes nearsighted at 20/70 (-1 diopter) what am I
    supposed to do about it?

    At that point the situation could be "reversed" but it would
    take a strong "will" with the plus lens to do it. I have no power
    to do this -- and very few ODs have any desire to get into even a
    "discussion" with the parents at that point. Tragic!

    In effect engineering, as I state it is "pro-active", while
    medicine is necessarily "re-active". That issue must be
    understood. No "fault" or "blame" should be attached either to
    engieering-science statements (that tend to be a matter of "brutal
    truth" about our "bad habits"), versus the "polite medical"
    approach under these circumstances.

    But these issues must be resolved by the person himself.
    Truly an honest but difficult situation. It is probabaly true
    that I will be "hated" because I am engineer-enough to tell the
    "brutal truth" about this tragic situation.




    Post: "Engineering"

    Dear Carl,

    Subject: Part II: Human Nature is separated from "engineering

    I have good friends in optometry. They respect me -- and I
    respect them -- despite the effort by SOME ODs on
    to destroy the "second-opnion" concept. (See below)

    I separate engineering-science from "medicine" in the
    following manner.

    The "medical" person must have an "immediate solution", which
    largly consists of a minus-lens. The public (with rare
    exceptions) expects EXCLUSIVLY that quick-fix with the minus lens.
    I describe that as a "medical process", that can not be "broken"
    by reason, logic, common-sense or engineering-science.

    When you realize this -- you understand the need to separate
    pure-science from "medicine".

    The USA has a major problem with obese children. In terms of
    engineering-science (objective, factual truth) this issue is

    1. Respect the conversiation of energy law.

    2. If the calories into child less are less than child "burns",
    the following will result:

    3. The child WILL LOSE WEIGHT

    The enginering-scientific solution is absolutly clear.

    Why then, does "medicine" struggle with the obese children.

    Because the "MD" can not be brutally honest about the above
    scientific truth -- and because the great mass of people love to

    The "engineer" knows the correct answer -- but can never
    "implement" it.

    The "medical" person must deal with the CONSEQUENCES of this
    "over-eating". Very few in medicine will explain the
    engineering-scientific solution -- because they know the "public"
    will not listen.

    That is the difference between an "engineering" approach to
    understanding and representing the true-facts concerning the
    dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- and the means that
    "medicine" uses to deal with the great mass of the public that
    walks in off the street -- when the child is slightly nearsighed.

    The problem for me develops when I make "clean" statements
    about the behavior of a population of natural eyes (in terms of
    measured refractive-state.)

    My analysis is an engineering test to determine if the natural
    eye is dynamic -- and has NOTHING to do with "defect" at all. The
    natural eye can and does have postive and negative refractive
    states -- depending on its average visual-environment.

    Part of this effort is to get you (and others) to think in
    that abstract way about the natural eyes behavior. Truly an
    "intellectual" enterprise -- dispite the "slams" posted by the ODs
    on who does not "like" or even understand the

    This is an "open" forum, and I alway hope to have a pleasant
    coversation -- where we "grow up" in wisdom and knowledge.

    Perhaps in presenting scientific knowlege I have hit a
    "nerve" for the ODs on Final scientifc truth does
    seem to hurt them -- for some reason. That is NEVER my intention.


    Otis Engineer

    PS: What follows are the usual "slams" about this abstract
    approach to understanding the natural eye's proven behavior.

    (Previous posted discussion on

    Enjoy! Thoughtful analysis and intelligent
    understanding is how we solve very difficult
    otisbrown, Feb 23, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Your profession doesn't even make the *list* of reasons why you might
    be unpopular on this forum, Best, Otis, Engineer.
    Neil Brooks, Feb 23, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    ***** OTIS WARNING *****

    This posting is an automatic reply to any newsgroup thread
    that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
    "" or "Otis, Engineer".

    Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
    training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is

    Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of
    doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in
    out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his
    behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to
    argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument.

    Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not
    reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that
    should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick
    psychological needs.

    No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only
    meant to forewarn newcomers who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare
    expert. Those of us who have been here for awhile know Otis oh too well!

    For anyone who is interested in understanding the true state of
    scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following

    If you are truly interested in Otis' theories of myopia prevention then
    visit his favorite websites and

    If you have other topics you wish to discuss, there are experts here who
    will usually help you. Don't waste your time with Otis.

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to", which usually
    appears on Mondays, for a guide regarding this newsgroup and for information
    on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in
    worthwhile discussions in this forum.
    RM, Feb 23, 2005
  4. otisbrown

    RM Guest

    Poor tragic Otis thinks he is "hated" on this forum because he is an
    engineer. He relishes in the melodrama of being the hated underdog fighting
    the good fight against the evil medical establishment.

    Little does he realize that he is unpopular not because of his previous
    profession (actually he discredits the engineering profession as other
    engineers have already posted here) but because he has a single-minded
    "won't listen to anybody" attitude that puts people off. He argues against
    experienced doctors who have graduate training in vision research rather
    than learning from them and using them to hone his understanding of the

    Poor misguided Otis will never learn. He will just try to outshout and
    outpost everyone. His understanding of the eye will remain "static" instead
    of "dynamic".

    RM, Feb 23, 2005
  5. otisbrown

    g.gatti Guest

    Trouble is: what is your understanding of the eye.

    Neither static nor dynamic, just null.

    A great Zen-quality, indeed---
    g.gatti, Feb 23, 2005
  6. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Rishi,
    In fact, Dr. Bates, recognition of the effect of a minus lens
    on the eye is the first understanding of the natural eye
    as "dynamic".

    He stated that a person at about 20/70, who begins
    to wear a full-strength (-1.5 diopter lens) all the time
    will very rapidly "stair-case" down to 20/200.

    It is RM's love of this box-camera "picture" that is
    static. They examine a "dead eye" and all the
    componenets of this dead eye, and then
    conclud that because a "dead eye" can't
    change its refractive status -- is must be
    a frozen "box camera". Perfectly circular
    reasoninig -- and perfectly wrong -- and
    NOT JUSTIFIED by scientific facts.

    But he holds "all the cards" since only
    a minus lens can "sharpen vision" instantly.

    The other methods "Bates" or others do not
    have that immediate effect, and are threfore

    As my post suggested, the person should
    look at the objective, SCIENTIFIC FACTS
    himself, and made judgments himself -- with
    out this RM hubris.

    But as always, keep an open mind and
    respect the fact that the natural eye
    (in science) is proven to be dynamic.

    But of course this type of basic "input" versus
    "output" testing of the dynamic natural eye
    never "occurrs" to RM as a way to do
    fundamental engineering-science.

    He just does "medicine" for his "people" -- and
    that is OK by me.


    otisbrown, Feb 23, 2005
  7. otisbrown

    A Lieberman Guest


    want references to your website, real medical journal websites that are
    UNBIASE to provide your so called scientific facts. I bet you can't.

    You probably can't because you are making things up as you go.

    A Lieberman, Feb 23, 2005
  8. otisbrown

    Dan Abel Guest

    As others have replied, you won't be hated because you are an engineer,
    you will be hated because you don't understand.

    I'm subscribed to a nudist newsgroup. A guy was advertising his nudist
    website there. When people looked, there were porn pictures, and most of
    them were stolen. People on the group who had personal websites
    complained that their pictures were being posted on his website without
    permission. He was very slow to take them off. People complained to the
    national organization that he was affiliated with. They checked his site,
    and told him that he was no longer affiliated with them, and to take off
    all links to them from his site. He wrote a long rant on his site that he
    was disaffiliated because he was a Christian!

    I guess those doctors are just really stupid not to know the basic
    mathematical and physiological facts. But then people are stupid. They
    always whine about not being rich. Getting rich is trivially simple.
    Just spend less than you take in. How much simpler can it be? Yet people
    would rather whine about not being rich rather than take the extremely
    simple step which would make them rich.

    I guess that Otis has never been overweight, or known anyone overweight.
    I take that last one back. Maybe he knew some but never listened to
    them. Every single conversation I've had with an overweight person about
    visiting the doctor involved the doctor being brutally honest and
    recommending cutting the calories.
    Dan Abel, Feb 23, 2005
  9. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    Bates said this, but have you any evidence that it is true other than Bates
    statement? If this is true, then don't all adult myopes have identical
    prescriptions? Why does myopia stop increasing, in most people, by age 16
    to 20?

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Feb 27, 2005
    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.