The inherent difference between pure-science and "medicine"

Dear Friends,

Subject: The difference between "engineering-science" and
"medicine".

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.

Best,

Otis

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Post: "Engineering"

Dear Carl,

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

I have good friends in optometry. They respect me -- and I
respect them -- despite the effort by SOME ODs on sci.med.vision
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
simple:

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
over-eat.

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 sci.med.vision who does not "like" or even understand the
concept.

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 sci.med.vision. Final scientifc truth does
seem to hurt them -- for some reason. That is NEVER my intention.

Best,

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 sci.med.vision)

Enjoy! Thoughtful analysis and intelligent
understanding is how we solve very difficult
problems.

 

Your profession doesn't even make the *list* of reasons why you might
be unpopular on this forum, Best, Otis, Engineer.

 

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


This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision 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
unproven.

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
links: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf
http://www.revoptom.com/index.asp?ArticleType=SiteSpec&page=osc/apr01/lesson_0401.htm
http://dels.nas.edu/ilar/jour_online/40_2/V40_2NortonAnimalModels.asp
http://www.optometrists.asn.au/gui/files/ceo865276.pdf

If you are truly interested in Otis' theories of myopia prevention then
visit his favorite websites www.i-see.org and www.chinamyopia.com.

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 sci.med.vision", 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.
news:...

 

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
issues.

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

 

Trouble is: what is your understanding of the eye.

Neither static nor dynamic, just null.

A great Zen-quality, indeed---

 

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
discarded.

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.


Best,

Otis
Engineer

 

Otis,

Please provide OBJECTIVE SCIENTIFIC FACTS OUTSIDE YOUR WEBSITE. I don't
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.

Allen

 

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.

 

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