Your request, Jan -- Prove it? Prove that the natural eye is dynamic?

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Otis Brown, Jul 29, 2004.

  1. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    A HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE BOX-CAMERA THEORY OF THE EYE

    A QUESTION CONCERNING THE NATURE OF PROOF

    Reference: "Introduction to Physiological Optics", by James Southall

    I have often hear the words, "prove it".

    Since the "it" is never described, it follows that
    no one can ever "prove it" in a "medical sense".
    But in a pure scientific sense, you can prove
    that the natural eye is a control system that
    follows the e ^ (t/Tau) curve proving that the
    natural eye long-term behavior is that of a
    control-system.

    I therefore assume that the requirement is to prove that the eye is an
    auto-focused camera versus the box-camera concept.
    Therefore -- in a scientific sense -- proof is
    possible and has been supplied. Please note that
    this is not "medical proof", and no medical proof will
    be attempted by me -- since there "opinion" dominates
    over preception of objective facts.

    I wrote my book so that you could help your own daughter avoid
    nearsightedness. I know you want to help others but -- regardless
    of proof -- I do not think the general public will understand what
    must be done.

    Dr. Jacob Raphaelson went through this 100 years ago, as
    described in, "The Printer's Son". The public wants their distant
    vision sharpened instantly, and expects this of you. Anything
    beyond that point they will reject -- unless they are very
    motivated and intelligent about this difficult situation.
    It is very clear that the person who desires prevention must
    have strong motivation and support from you if the person plans to use
    the plus lens effectively.

    In my opinion, your work with the public is very difficult
    becuase the public is not logical, and not consistent in what they
    expect. Unless they have the motivation, they will not push hard
    in the proper use of a plus lens. A professional pilot, who looks at
    his own eye chart and sees the results as they develop will be your best
    candidate for effective prevention.

    The public demands immediate results and does not listen to
    explanations. They will quit an effort if their is the slightest
    problem, or if some other ophthalmologist or optometrist uses "scare"
    tactics against them. If this happens, they will quit the effort and
    blame you for anything that might happen with their eyes.
    There is no incentive to attempt to help most people -- and
    both you and I understand that truth.

    The health profession has no choice except to apply a minus
    lens and (with a few exceptions) suggests that anyone who asks
    deeper questions about these issues must be "not-scientific".

    I can accept this as the reality of medicine. They should
    say "non-medical", rather than "not-scientific".

    In science, you pay attention to direct objective measurements.
    This is not quite true in optometry -- as I described above.

    Tragically, this unfortunate situation has continued since
    its inception 400 years ago. The theory of the eye began this
    way:

    1. The lens-developers dealing with the public found a plus lens that
    would sharpen near vision -- when you reached old-age.

    2. In addition, they found that young people with slightly blurry
    distant vision, could clear their distant vision with a minus
    lens.

    The theory of using a lens on the public is based on
    the above understanding of responsibility and resulting direct
    action. There has been very little improvement in this concept of
    the eye.

    Around 1600 Johan Kepler (Astronomer) began developing a
    pure-refractive theory of the eye. This was good work, but
    assumed that you could "freeze" the eye and make all your
    measurements based on the box-camera concept. This idea never
    attempted to analyze the eye's dynamic behavior at all -- only the
    refractive properties of an intellectually frozen eye.

    This analysis this approach was good, so the fact
    that the eye is not frozen was forgotten. Kepler's analysis
    could be used to support Items 1 and 2. For this reason the "frozen eye"
    theory was accepted as a medical theory -- and anyone who
    challenged the concept concerning the bad results of item 2 were
    told that Kepler's theory was "proven" and that the natural eye is
    a rigid box cameras.

    Kepler's theory was further refined and re-published in 1858
    by two ophthalmologists, Dr. Donders and Dr. Helmholtz.

    They accepted Kepler's frozen-eye concept, and added further
    assumptions.

    1. They assumed that a focal state of exactly zero could be
    considered normal. Donders invented the word emmetropia to
    describe this idealization of the "frozen" eye.

    2. They assumed that any focal state other than exactly zero must
    be a defect, or "refractive error". They invented the word
    "ametropia" to describe both positive and negative focal
    states of all normal eyes.

    Don't get me wrong at this point. These were great men in
    medicine at that time. But they continued the academic assumption of
    Kepler, that you could "freeze" the eye and do a pure refractive
    analysis. They also assumed that you could translate a relative
    focal state into an absolute dimensions. (i.e., they assumed
    that if the eye had a focal state of zero, it must have
    an exact length of 24.38 mm. In fact no relationship has
    ever been extablished.)

    By doing this, they thought that they made the Kepler's theory
    into proof that the eye was "too long", when the natural eye simply
    had a normal but undesired negative focal state.

    This box-camera theory made the use of a plus or minus lens
    seem more systematic, although it requires a belief that the eye
    is defective if it has a negative or positive focal state.
    (i.e., if your eyes have a focal state that is not zero, you are
    suffering from "stress and strain" because the eye is too long
    or too short. The reasoning here is circular, because it is not
    proven that a focal state of zero corresponds to a exact
    length. It is only an assumption that you can convert relative
    measurements into absolute dimensions.)

    In any event, this theory makes all eyes defective by
    definition -- a thesis of doubtful validity.

    Why should we object to Kepler's theory, which became the
    a theory of practice? As a theory that allows refractive
    analysis of an idealized eye it is excellent. As a theory of the
    eye that reproduces the actual motion and change of focal state of
    the natural eye -- it is not accurate.

    Kepler's pure-refractive theory was correct, but the
    assumptions of the follow-on (Donders-Helmholtz) theory are not accurate
    or correct.

    In the light of experimental data developed
    in the last 50 years we should begin developing a better
    conceptual model of the eye's dynamic behavior.

    The experimental facts demonstrate that all eyes change their
    focal state as the visual environment is changed. By reference to
    the facts, the eye is established to be a well designed
    auto-focused camera. (i.e., you can make ALL eyes nearsighted
    by forced wearing of a minus lens.)

    The type of data needed to demonstrate this truth was not
    available in 1860. So the original conception should undergo
    evolution to account for these recently developed facts. But in
    fact, the operative reasons for using a plus or minus lens have
    not change since their original inception -- 400 years ago.
    Thus the "theory of the eye" is driven by expediency, and not
    by objective scientific facts -- in my humble opinion.

    Science is based on objective facts. We should be able to
    recognize that there is a problem with expanding Kepler's theory,
    beyond its original intended scope. He did an excellent
    refractive analysis. He did not intend that we believe that all
    eyes are rigid box cameras that are defective because they have
    focal states other than zero.

    We suggest that the natural eye is an
    auto-focused camera, and that, for this reason, the natural eyes
    must change its focal state (which you measure) as you change the
    visual environment (which you control). Since we are using
    neutral language to describe this situation, it follows that
    experimental conformation (that all eyes are auto-focused cameras)
    will be straight forward. The nature of this type of experiment can
    hardly be argued.

    This means that the evolution-designed eye can have both
    negative and positive focal states, and not be defective.

    In fact, the measured focal state of your eyes is directly dependent
    on your accommodation level -- in diopters.

    Obviously, if you work for long hours, your normal eyes are
    going to develop a negative focal state. This is perfectly normal
    and an expected for an auto-focus camera.

    The Helmholtz-Donders theory, and its required assumption has
    never been objectively tested -- as stated by Dr. William H.
    Bates. This means, that the box-camera picture of the eye is
    misleading at best. At worst, it blinds us to a potentional
    method of preventing the development of nearsightedness by
    agressive use of a plus lens.

    Sincerely,

    Otis Brown
     
    Otis Brown, Jul 29, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (Otis Brown) wrote in
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 29, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    Many times several people here asked to proof your ideas work in using a
    plus lens to prevent youngsters from becoming myopic.
    You even pretend that only intelligent and highly motivated pilots can
    ''clear'' there vision that way.

    It is not about "it''

    Data, Otis not a bunch of blabla please.

    You never did provide such proof Otis.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Jul 29, 2004
    #3
  4. Otis Brown

    Guest Guest

    Light at the horizon ?

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Guest, Jul 29, 2004
    #4
  5. Otis Brown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    (XMotorXRacer) wrote in
    I posted it by mistake. No point.

    Not every child of a nearsighted parent becomes nearsighted. Excessive
    near work seems to be a factor in the development of myopia in children,
    but is it really accommodation, or lack thereof, or something else? And
    besides, genetics is a bigger factor.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Jul 29, 2004
    #5
  6. I propose a new formula:
    It depends on what you consent to your mind to think.

    First of all, Otis cannot be right because he wears glasses and is not
    able to cure himself. In fact, he does not even THINK he can cure
    himself. We may appreciate his efforts, but those efforts are futile
    in the very beginning.

    Second, positive lens therapy is a strain. You do not need such kind
    of strain: just ask your children to stare at any letter on the
    Snellen chart, at any distance, for enough time to let it desappera,
    and you have had in a few seconds what a plus lens can give you in
    month's practice.

    Once your children learn how to make letters desappera by staring at
    them, they are cured, because if they are intelligent, will practice
    the direct contrary of that, which is shifting continuously the gaze
    around.

    "Relaxation" is a difficult word and does not mean much. "rest
    methods" is better, so you are intrigued by what "methods" can mean in
    this context.

    "Accomodative exercises" are totally wrong and should not be practiced
    at all.

    I hope you good luck with your children, but given the premises above,
    I don't see much space for them to grow well, unless you change your
    point of view.

    If you are further interest, please visit
    http://thecentralfixation.com
     
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Jul 29, 2004
    #6
  7. Otis Brown

    Otis Brown Guest

    Dear Rishi,



    It is better to light one candle -- than
    to curse the darkness.



    We all have our own "goals" in our life -- and
    interests.

    From conversations with Dr. Jacob Raphaelson, and
    Dr. Francis Young, it became clear that
    a negative refractive state of the natural
    eye could be prevented -- but it was
    very difficult to "convince" anyone to
    use the plus at that "threshold" level.

    Even so, I felt that I had an obligation
    to assist my "sister's kids" with the issue.

    Since Dr. Young's experiments showed that
    the "downward" rate for the minus lens was
    -1/2 diopter per year, and the plus lens
    group was 0.0 diopers per year -- it became
    obvious that is PREVENTION was desired, the
    plus would have to start -- before
    the eye "failed" the Snellen-DMV test.

    Since no OD will tell you any of this
    (except for Dr. Raphelson of course) it
    became my responsibility to "push" these
    "kids" in their use of the plus.

    These "kids" are now over 35 years old -- by
    the way. I think they made the better, and
    more intelligent decision. After all
    it is their life, and their long-term vision
    that matters.

    So, if I transferred my efforts to their
    personal welfare -- and they always "got busy"
    with the plus, and PASSED the required
    Snellen-DMV test (with no OD involvement)
    then they got the "better" part of the
    bargin. When it comes to you
    "blood relatives", the long-term concern
    and support DOES make a difference.

    Further, since they knew my motive was
    "personal" i.e., no money involved, they
    could truly judge my motives.

    In addition, they did not have to
    wear the plus in an "agressive" manner,
    but then by neglect, their
    refractive status would have
    gone "down" at a rate of -1/2 to -1/3
    diopter per year -- and there
    would have been no "recovery" from
    that. Neglect at the threshold does
    not "solve" this problem.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer


    Some commentary:





    Otis> Some times the "kids" wake up to the necessity
    of using the plus -- and reading their own eye chart,
    and sometimes they do not. The above should
    explain the possibility if you spend some
    time "arm twisting" your kids in the use of
    the plus. Good Luck!


    Otis> The ODs, the MD, you, Rishi, tell me I am "wrong".
    So be it.

    Otis> Again, each of us can read these statements and make
    his own choice.



    Otis> As always, this is an "open" forum, and each
    of us will have to review the various "advocacies"
    presented.

    Otis> It is certainly much easier to use the minus (because
    of its obvious effect) than the plus, which requires
    a deeper understanding of the issues. But, that
    becomes part of a "learning process".

    Best,

    Otis
     
    Otis Brown, Jul 30, 2004
    #7
    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.