 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2004Ronald I. -- No Answer?
Dear Roland, Yes, dig out you scientific calculator and get the correct answers. Or provide a discussion about why ODs can not solve engineering problems, or answer these questions. Best, Otis ______________ Dear Dr Ronald, Re: Questions for Otis. It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday, is the hope of today, and the reality of tomorrow. Robert H. Goddard I suggest that the NATURAL eye is dynamic as suggested by engineering analysis, and the direct experimental data. I see no reason by the natural human primate eye should behave any differently. Engineering Terminology The word "time-constant" refers to the dynamic response of a control system. The time-constant of the primate eye (when tested) is between 100 to 200 days. The "offset" is a design value. The value, from the best experimental data is between 1.0 and 1.5 diopters. Better designed experiments could determine a more precise value. I would agree that this value is a function of the individual's heredity, and would explain why some individuals develop a negative refractive state sooner than others. Best, Otis ************ Subject; A test of the focal control characteristics of the primate eye. In the following problems use a time constant of 100 days for monkeys, and 200 days for humans. The offset value is 1.5 diopters unless otherwise specified in the problem. The eye is sophisticated in design and operation. To certify your knowledge of the eye's focal servoing action, please review and answer the following questions. Problem 1 One hundred children ( 14 years of age ) have been maintained in a distant visual environment for one year. The average value of their visual environment is -.8 diopters. Using the equation you can calculate the refractive status of the entire group: Focus = offset + accommodation - perturbation * exp(-t/tau) Focus = ( +1.5 ) + ( -0.8 ) - ( 0.0 ) * exp(-t/tau) Focus = +0.7 diopters We find their average focal status is +0.7 diopters. At this point, half the children begin wearing a -1.0 diopter lens. The other half wear no lens. Both groups continue to live in the same visual environment, but the "environment" is -1.0 diopters "closer" for the test group. Use the following equation to answer the following questions. Long- Physiological Accommodation -t/Tau Term = (Hereditary) + (Average + (Delta) (1-e ) Focus Offset Value) Physiological offset = 1.5 diopters Eye's time-constant (Tau) = 200 days The "Delta" in this case equals the applied lens; which is -1.0 diopters. 1. What is the status of the test group after 1 day? (a) .695 Diopters 2. What is the focal status of the test group after 30 days? (a) -.325 Diopters (b) +.561 Diopters (c) +.700 Diopters 3. What is the focal status of the test group after 200 days? (a) .307 Diopters (b) .172 Diopters (c) .700 Diopters 4. What is the focal status of the test group after 360 days? (a) -.135 Diopters (b) -3.000 Diopters (c) .700 Diopters (d) Since heredity controls the focal setting of the eye, both groups will continue to have the same focal status. Problem 2 The human eye is in the process of growing. As it grows the optical components of the eye continually change in value. Let us assume that there is a sudden optical shift of +0.5 diopters. (This would constitute noise in the system.) The original focal status was +.7 diopters. immediately after the focal perturbation the focal status is +.2 diopters. [This situation could be induced by the application of a +0.5 diopter contact lens. OSB] Focus = Offset + Accommodation - Perturbation * Exp(-t/Tau) 1. What is the focal status of this eye after 1 day? (a) .202 Diopters 2. What is the focal status of this eye 30 days after the optical change has occurred? (a) .270 Diopters (b) .495 Diopters (c) .200 Diopters (d) .700 Diopters 3. What is the focal status after 100 days? (a) +.200 Diopters (b) +.397 Diopters (c) +1.200 Diopters 4. What is the focal status after 360 days? (a) +.617 Diopters (b) +.200 Diopters (c) +1.200 Diopters (d) Since genetic information controls the optical components, the eye will not recover from focal perturbations. the focal status will remain at +.200 diopters. Problem 3 Eighteen monkeys are living in a caged environment. they have an average visual environment of -1.8 diopters. at the start of the test half of the monkeys are placed in a hooded (-2.6 diopter) visual environment. The heredity offset of these monkeys is +1.5 diopters and their time constant is 100 days. Using the following equation, calculate the refractive status of the test group. Focus = Offset + Accommodation + Delta * (1-Exp(-t/Tau)) 1. What is the focal status of the test monkeys after 1 day? (a) -.308 Diopters 2. What is the focal status of the test monkeys after 30 days? (a) -.445 Diopters (b) -.300 Diopters (c) +.200 Diopters 3. What is their focal status after 60 days. (a) -1.433 Diopters (b) -0.661 Diopters (c) +0.231 Diopters 4. What is their focal status after 360 days. (a) -1.078 Diopters (b) -0.782 Diopters (c) -0.330 Diopters (d) Since the eye's focal status is genetically determined, the focal status of the test group will be identical to the focal status of the control group. Problem 4 Three hundred Naval Cadets (accepted on wavier) have been maintaining their eyes in a near (reading) environment. in addition they have a smaller value ( +1.0 Diopters ) for their hereditary offset. their estimated visual environment is -1.5 diopters. their resultant focal status is -.5 diopters. (20/40 to 20/50) Their eyes have an estimated time constant of 200 days. After entering the academy, they wear a positive lens of +1.5 diopters while reading. this lens changes their average visual environment from -1.5 diopters to -.5 diopters. (a delta of +1.0 diopters.) Using the following equation, calculate their refractive status. Focus = Offset + Accommodation + Delta * (1-Exp(-t/Tau)) 1. What is their focal status after 1 day? (a) -.495 Diopters 2. What is their focal status after 100 days? (a) -0.560 Diopters (b) -0.107 Diopters (c) +0.201 Diopters 3 What is their focal status after 200 days? (a) -0.728 Diopters (b) -1.333 Diopters (c) 0.132 Diopters 4. What is their focal status after 360 days? (a) -0.255 Diopters (b) +0.335 Diopters (c) -0.966 Diopters (d) Since the cause of nearsightedness is heredity, the movement towards myopia cannot be stopped by a positive lens. The focal status of these cadets will continue to worsen -- as the past history of the Academy has indicated. Problem 5 The 300 cadets entering the academy on waivers all choose to use the negative lens procedure. They all receive a lens that "matches" their "focal error". (Typically, a lens between -.5 to -1.0 diopters.) Assuming the average lens used is -.75 diopters, and that the lens is worn continuously, what is their focal status? Use the following equation to complete the calculation; Focus = Offset + Accommodation + Delta * ( 1 - Exp( -t/Tau) ) 1. After 1 day? (a) -.504 Diopters 2. After 100 days (a) -0.265 Diopters (b) -0.795 Diopters (c) +0.536 Diopters 3. After 200 days? (a) -1.122 Diopters (b) -0.947 Diopters (c) +0.536 Diopters 3. After 200 days? (a) -1.122 Diopters (b) -0.947 Diopters (c) -0.120 Diopters 4. After 360 days? (a) +0.211 Diopters (b) -2.110 Diopters (c) -1.126 Diopters (d) The focal status of these cadets will worsen -- however this is not due to either the reading environment or the wearing of a negative lens. (The focal status of the eye is genetically determined.) _________________ Ronald, From you past statement, I believe you will select the answer 4. (d) as the answer to all these engineering questions. Is that correct? Since you do not have an engineering background, you probably can not do the calculations. But that is OK by me -- after all I do not "practice optometry". Perhaps some other engineers on this site would like to provide the correct answers. Best, Otis Engineer > Or provide a discussion about why ODs > can not solve engineering problems, > or answer these questions. I've had enough electronics to understand time constants. Now you want us to accept your assumptions in order to test us on math. You cannot control anatomical myopia with math. So far, the only thing that actually works is a muscarinic antagonist. I've seen Dr. Leung's publications and I hope he does prevail about the utility of bifocals. But other good studies contradict him so he has some work to do before convincing everybody. If you like math, you'll love Kenneth Cuiffreda. -MT "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote in news:UIPoc.8447$KE6.8202 @newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net: > If you like math, you'll love Kenneth Cuiffreda. You mean Ciuffreda. I think he picked up his quantitative background working w/ Larry Stark. Us ocular motor guys lean toward engineering--I think it's because some of the big guys who started up the field were military pilots. Scott "Scott Seidman" <namdiesttocs@mindspring.com> wrote in message > You mean Ciuffreda. I think he picked up his quantitative background > working w/ Larry Stark. Us ocular motor guys lean toward engineering--I > think it's because some of the big guys who started up the field were > military pilots. I read a lot of Ken's work when I was in grad school. More recently he threw me for a loop with this article in Eye Res 2002: CONCLUSIONS: The model can be used to specify the precise ADD needed for an individual to retard or eliminate retinal defocus-induced myopic progression. If future experiments show that using the "optimal" ADD results in the greatest benefit (i.e., least myopia progression), there will be considerable worldwide public health benefit. I think he's saying - *if* it works, here's how to calculate the best way to use it. -MT > "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote in news:UIPoc.8447$KE6.8202 > @newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Scott > Dear Roland, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Otis Major snip of a bunch of fog. Are you out there Otis, blow the fog-horn please. Otis, is it not necessary to measure exact before you calculate to get precise answers.? At this very moment it looks you beat a retreat covered by I must say an impressing fog based on a mix off assumptions and ideas of others. Do you not agree when we ask to provide recent accurate and proven data done on HUMANS instead of done on chickens and monkeys and some very old stuff about sailors from a hundred years ago. Are measurements not done by engineers? Who's turn is it anyway to convince the people here your(?) ideas are right and the eyecareprofessionals are totally wrong.? Proooooooooooof Otis, forget your useless, not proven to be right, arguments. Remember it is you who says a well thinking and motivated person shall succeed and we are the ones who are wanted desperately to be convinced by you with real proof. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Otis, is it not necessary to measure exact before you calculate to get > precise answers.? This reminds me of a rather anal retentive college chemistry student that my wife would work with back when she was a college chemistry student. This was back before the days of calculators. Pretty much every science and engineering student wouldn't go anywhere without a slide rule. However, this student didn't like to use a slide rule because they don't give accurate answers. He would calculate everything by hand with a pencil and paper to four decimal places. Maybe this made sense sometimes, but other times it was ridiculous. If you measure out 50ml of reagent, there is no way that your measurement is accurate to four decimal places. Thus, any calculation based of that 50ml was only as accurate as the measurement.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > Dear Roland, > Yes, dig out you scientific calculator > and get the correct answers. > > Or provide a discussion about why ODs > can not solve engineering problems, > or answer these questions. What is the purpose of this "test"? If you want to discuss the solving of engineering equations, please post on an engineering forum. What are "focal status", and "average value of visual enviroment"-- these are terms only used by you and not by other vision researchers. Before we waste time on this test, please provide the information that Mike and others asked for: published evidence that your equations accurately describe the development of refractive error in humans published evidence that the values you have chosen for your various off sets, time constants etc have validity Dr Judy "Dr Judy" <mpace99nospam@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<LFQoc.937 Dear Dr. Judy, I asked R. I. to ANSWER THE QURESTIONS POSED TO HIM. Answer the questions FIRST -- then we can discuss them. Instead you give a mass of OD BS. You ask me questions. Now answer my questions. Obviously, like objective scientific fact concerning the dynamic behavior of all primate eyes -- you are going to totally ignore them. In your second breath you will say " ... their is no proof that the refractive state of the eye "tracks" or "follows" the average visual enviroment." Yes, I know the difference between ODs and Engineering-Science. Scientists are objective about facts. You are not. Best, Otis Engineer **** $oXI1.807@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>... > > Dear Roland, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dr Judy > "Dr Judy" <mpace99nospam@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<LFQoc.937 > > Dear Dr. Judy, > > I asked R. I. to ANSWER THE QURESTIONS POSED TO HIM. Has to be done personally by email if no one might interfere with. > Answer the questions FIRST -- then we can discuss them. You are offering a method to prevent myopia so proof that it works and then we have to agree with your statements and should keep our mouths shut after making apologises for our stupid and unprofessional behaviour. > Instead you give a mass of OD BS. It is obvious my English is not perfect but means BS bullshit? > You ask me questions. Which you never have answered and never are capable to do direct and correct. > Now answer my questions. Escaping manouvre > Obviously, like objective scientific > fact concerning the dynamic behavior of > all primate eyes -- you are going to totally > ignore them. Who says the monkey eyes behave in the same manner as humans? You take it for granted, where have you seen proof that what you take for granted is correct in ALL primates? Are you saying there is in general no difference in humans and other primates? Feel free to explain. > In your second breath you will say " ... their > is no proof that the refractive state of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Engineering-Science. Scientists are objective > about facts. You are not. Pardon......... Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Best, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > Dr Judy Dear Jan, Otis> ... fact concerning the dynamic behavior of all primate eyes -- you are going to totally ignore them. Jan> Who says the monkey eyes behave in the same manner as humans? You take it for granted, where have you seen proof that what you take for granted is correct in ALL primates? Are you saying there is in general no difference in humans and other primates? Feel free to explain. Otis> In a review with intelligent engineers, I would say that the fact that all primate eyes "move negative" is essential proof that the natural eye is a sophisticated system and MUST do this. Otis> In a review with engineers who understand the nature of control-systems, that type of proof is crucial. I understand that you "... do not see it that way". That indeed is were we part company. The type of judgment an INFORMED engineer might make at the 20/30 level -- would have to be UP TO HIM. Best, Otis Engineer cc: Second-opinion group. It is up to you to form a judgment here. ****** > In your second breath you will say " ... their > is no proof that the refractive state of the > eye "tracks" or "follows" the average visual enviroment." > > "Dr Judy" <mpace99nospam@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<LFQoc.937 > > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > > > > > Dr Judy > Dear Jan, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is essential proof that the natural eye is a sophisticated > system and MUST do this. Please feel free to show the "essential proof" instead of saying it is a fact. And further more leave the habbit to mention something as a fact and then go further and use this fact as a "proof" Do not think it MUST do this. You Otis MUST proof it. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Dear Dr. Judy, cc: Dr. Steve Leung I asked engineering questions about the FUNDAMENTAL behavior characteristic of all natural PRIMATE eyes. Because of the nature of these experiments -- they CAN NOT BE PERFORMED ON HUMAN PRIMATES. I expect that the wise engineering-scientist can draw the correct conclusion about the behavior of the NATURAL eye that is dynamic. I would suggest you FIRST answer the questions. After that -- you can complain about them. It it true that these are engineering-scientific questions that have NOTHING to do with your "refractive errors". But I think you make a mistake to refer to the behavior of the NATURAL eye (that can have positive or negative refractive states) as "organic defects" or "ametropia" or these misconceptions. In any event -- it is obvious you are not going to answer the questions. If you did -- it would reveal a tragic misconception about the behavior of the eye as a sophisticated control-system. Why evade the questions? You scientific calculator (or slide rule) broken. Are you afraid of the correct answers -- or the implication of the correct answers? Best, Otis Engineer > > Dear Roland, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Dr Judy > Dear Dr. Judy, > > cc: Dr. Steve Leung > > I asked engineering questions about the FUNDAMENTAL > behavior characteristic of all natural PRIMATE eyes. It's OK to ask, but quite another to presume as you do. > Because of the nature of these experiments -- they > CAN NOT BE PERFORMED ON HUMAN PRIMATES. Yet, you seem to imply that ODs do experiment on human primates whenever we prescribe minus lenses. > I expect that the wise engineering-scientist > can draw the correct conclusion about the > behavior of the NATURAL eye that is dynamic. > > I would suggest you FIRST answer the questions. > After that -- you can complain about them. Is this like Paul's Natural Man in 1 Corinthians 2:14, or like Rousseau's "Noble Savage"? What is a NATURAL eye as oppossed to an UNNATURAL eye? > It it true that these are engineering-scientific > questions that have NOTHING to do with your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "organic defects" or "ametropia" or these > misconceptions. This is accepted terminology. Why try to invent new (and imprecise) terms? > In any event -- it is obvious you are not > going to answer the questions. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > afraid of the correct answers -- or the > implication of the correct answers? If the "natural" eye responded to the "average visual environment," then all creatures would be nearsighted. DrG Or at the very least, there would be no such thing as hyperopia. nipidoc > If the "natural" eye responded to the "average visual environment," then > all creatures would be nearsighted. > > DrG Dear Nipidoc, Due to your poor clasification scheme, you call eyes with natural positive refractive states "defective" or "refractive errors". In fact a population of normal-eye primates (in an open-pen enviroment) have refracitve states between zero and +2 diopters (gaussian distribution). But since you have the box-camera theory, you classify these noraml eyes as "defective" or "hyperopic" when these are simply refrative states of the natural eye. Bad practice leads to a intellectually blind theory -- but of couse. Best, Otis Engineer > Or at the very least, there would be no such thing as hyperopia. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > DrG > Bad practice leads to a intellectually > blind theory -- but of couse. And the cart pushes the horse. -MT > Dear Nipidoc, > > Due to your poor clasification scheme, > you call eyes with natural positive refractive > states "defective" or "refractive errors". Otis is the only person I have ever come across who thinks that the term "refractive error" implies a defect. Q: What is the average refractive "state" of a human primate at age 5 years? > In fact a population of normal-eye primates > (in an open-pen enviroment) have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > are simply refrative states of the > natural eye. Hyperopic does not imply defective, except in the universe of Otis. However, hyperopia is more often associated with amblyopia, strabismus, and reading disabilities in children. Hyperopia in adults is more likely to cause asthenopic symptoms at nearpoint than myopia or emmetropia. > Bad practice leads to a intellectually > blind theory -- but of couse. An intellectually blind theory could also lead to MAL-practice, unless you are an engineer, in which case it could lead to practicing without a license. DrG >> Or at the very least, there would be no such thing as hyperopia. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > >> > DrG > Dear Nipidoc, > > Due to your poor clasification scheme, > you call eyes with natural positive refractive > states "defective" or "refractive errors". It is the generally accepted classification. The term "error" in refractive error does not imply defect, it merely states that the individual unaccommodated eye does not refract light to a perfect focus on the retina; the light focus behind (hyperopic error) or in front of (myopic error) the retina. No one except you calls refractive error a defect. > In fact a population of normal-eye primates > (in an open-pen enviroment) have > refracitve states between zero and +2 diopters > (gaussian distribution). Yes, those eyes have either no error (zero) or hyperopic error up to +2. > But since you have the box-camera theory, > you classify these noraml eyes as > "defective" or "hyperopic" when these > are simply refrative states of the > natural eye. No one calls refractive error a defect except you. They may be within the normal variation, but, in fact, for the eyes with hyperopic error, light does not focus on the retina unless the animal uses accommodation to bring it into focus. I am only 5"1", this is within normal variation for N.A women but it is shorter than average and I call myself a short person, though I do not think I am defective. Dr Judy > Bad practice leads to a intellectually > blind theory -- but of couse. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > > > DrG Ok Otis. Despite your equation which has not been published in ANY journal (scientific, engineering, or medical) to show that it accurately describes the development of "refractive status" of ANYTHING primate, fish, bird, etc. etc you continue to make the claim that the "dynamic natural eye responds to the average visual environment." Please explain then why there should be ANY "positive refractive status" at all. Why should there even be people who have a "positive refractive status" of +0.50. After all, the "dynamic natural eye responds to the average visual environment" doesn't it? And if you could, please tell everyone in the group what you would tell the mother of the 8 year old girl I saw yesterday with a "positive refractive status" of +5.50 in each eye who couldn't read for more than 10 minutes without getting a splitting headache, and whos grades were starting to go down because she was refusing to read because of the headache. nipidoc > Dear Nipidoc, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > > > > > DrG Dear Nipi Doc, I will forward your reply and provide some brief answers. > Ok Otis. > > Despite your equation which has not been published in ANY journal > (scientific, engineering, or medical) to show that it accurately describes > the development of "refractive status" of ANYTHING primate, fish, bird, etc. Otis> Wrong! The papers have been published as part of the EMBS/IEEE, and enginering (not optometry) symposium. > etc you continue to make the claim that the "dynamic natural eye responds to > the average visual environment." Otis> The papers were published with established scientific researchers. It is true however, that they only concern pure-scientific questions concerning the behavior of the natural eye as as sophisticated control system. Clearly that part of the concept is not part of optometry, nor can the concept be used in the "sense" of optometry. > Please explain then why there should be ANY "positive refractive status" at > all. Otis> It exists as a measured fact. There is not requirement that I "explain" it -- any more than there is a requirment that yhou explain it. Why should there even be people who have a "positive refractive > status" of +0.50. Otis> If you examine the refractive status of primates kept in an "open pen" (accommodation average estimated at -0.8 diopters) you will find their refractive states for a gaussian distribution of from zero to 2.0 diopters. The mean is about +0.6 diopters. Yes, the natural primate eye in an "open" enviroment does not have a refractive status of EXACTLY 0.0, but rather a distribution of refractive states. Otis> At the Navel Academy a refractive status of plus 0.5 diotper will be much more valuable that a refractive state of 0.0 diotpers. After all, the "dynamic natural eye responds to the > average visual environment" doesn't it? Otis> Yes, AFTER you apply the fixed "hereditary" offset of about +1.5 dipters. > And if you could, please tell everyone in the group what you would tell the > mother of the 8 year old girl I saw yesterday with a "positive refractive > status" of +5.50 in each eye ... Please tell me when this child began wearing a plus lens -- and why. who couldn't read for more than 10 minutes > without getting a splitting headache, and whos grades were starting to go > down because she was refusing to read because of the headache. Otis> As you well know, I only concern myself with pilots on the threshold of nearsighedness -- at an age of reason. Otis> I believe they are old enough to look at the scientif data themselves, and make a fundamental choice about a honest but difficult alternative -- after an thorough personal review of about one year. This would place decision-making work in them, and make them responsible for preventing the -1/3 dipoter per year movement seen in the refractive status of both midshipmen and cadets at West Point. That is the way I understand the issues. Best, Otis Engineer cc: Optometists who will help pilots understand this specific issue -- and support his choice. **** > nipidoc > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > > > > > > > DrG > Otis> Wrong! The papers have been published as part > of the EMBS/IEEE, and enginering (not optometry) symposium. Let's have the references, then. FWIW, anyone can publish anything as an abstract, and say anything at a symposium. Got anything to offer that's been through rigorous peer review? >> etc you continue to make the claim that the "dynamic natural eye >> responds to the average visual environment." [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > of optometry, nor can the concept be used > in the "sense" of optometry. Again, let's see the references. I'd rather see the equations in context, than from out of nowhere. Scott > Otis> The papers were published with established scientific > researchers. It is true however, that they only [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of optometry, nor can the concept be used > in the "sense" of optometry. What the heck are saying, man? I have a degree in chemistry, worked as a biomedical engineer for a fortune 500 company, and studied all the requisite "scientific" disciplines on my to becoming an O.D. As an accomplished "scientist," I find your attitudes and ideas rather "unscientific." DrG Dear Dr. L, And equally, I have heard highly qualified ODs and MDs express doubt about your judgment on a number of these issues. The fact that some ODs are finally using a plus lens on their own children suggest the nature of the change that is possible -- in the future. A practice (minus lens use) that was established 400 years ago was based on science -- as it existed at that time. Certainly a quick-fix works -- and impresses most. But to insist that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of the natural eye is rediculous. Scientiest who run this type of experiment know better. Best, Otis > > Otis> The papers were published with established scientific > > researchers. It is true however, that they only [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > DrG > A practice (minus lens use) that was established > 400 years ago was based on science -- as > it existed at that time. > > Certainly a quick-fix works -- and impresses > most. There is no "quick-fix" and it does not work either. Otherwise, why so many people have so many troubles here on this list? SignatureIf you are interested in learning more about vision and the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses, contacts or surgery, please visit http://TheCentralFixation.com or write to me privately. > Dear Dr. L, > > And equally, I have heard highly qualified > ODs and MDs express doubt about your > judgment on a number of these issues. Not in this forum. But, they are welcome to join the conversation. > The fact that some ODs are finally using > a plus lens on their own children suggest > the nature of the change that is possible -- in > the future. Some ODs have always used plus lenses on their children as well as on their patients. That doesn't make it right, nor does it say anything about efficacy, cause, or effect. > A practice (minus lens use) that was established > 400 years ago was based on science -- as > it existed at that time. You've sort of condemned your own practice, then. > Certainly a quick-fix works -- and impresses > most. A "quick fix" works. I'm not sure if or whom it impresses. > But to insist that a minus lens has NO EFFECT > on the refractive status of the natural > eye is rediculous. Scientiest who > run this type of experiment know better. I do insist that a minus lens has no negative effect on the refractive status of a myopic individual when properly prescribed and properly used. Scientists who run this type of experiment would not disagree. DrG >> > Otis> The papers were published with established scientific >> > researchers. It is true however, that they only [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> DrG > I do insist that a minus lens has no negative effect on the refractive > status of a myopic individual when properly prescribed and properly used. > Scientists who run this type of experiment would not disagree. That is difficult. EVERY human being has had the experience to have the glasses changed at least ONCE after the first prescription. Please is somebody has had a different experience, please tell me since that I am interested to know. I won't accept doctor testimoniances because there is no guarantee that the patient did not go to another physician. SignatureIf you are interested in learning more about vision and the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses, contacts or surgery, please visit http://TheCentralFixation.com or write to me privately. You can also subscribe to http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/PerfectSight/ where you can download for free the VOLUME ONE of the greatest BETTER EYESIGHT MAGAZINE, published in 1919 by THE CENTRAL FIXATION PUBLISHING COMPANY. My prescription has stayed exactly the same as my first pair of glasses that I got over 10 years ago. I'm still 20/20 in each eye with it at distance and near. nipidoc > > I do insist that a minus lens has no negative effect on the refractive > > status of a myopic individual when properly prescribed and properly used. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I won't accept doctor testimoniances because there is no guarantee that > the patient did not go to another physician. > EVERY human being has had the experience to have the glasses changed at > least ONCE after the first prescription. EVERY human has had to buy new shoes at least once after their first pair. -MT snip > But to insist that a minus lens has NO EFFECT > on the refractive status of the natural > eye is rediculous. Scientiest who > run this type of experiment know better. Really? Could you cite a published paper by a scientist that shows the use of minus lens to correct myopia affects refraction? Dr Judy > eye is rediculous. Scientiest who > run this type of experiment know better. The puzzle is why nobody's published the results of putting minus lenses on humans. Oh, you mean they have? Where? -MT otisbrown@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote in news:6dbddb9.0405202027.b739940 @posting.google.com: > Why evade the questions? You scientific > calculator (or slide rule) broken. Are you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Otis > Engineer No, it's because the questions are based on an underlying hypothesis that many here clearly don't believe, so they choose not to validate it by answering the questions. Scott > I would suggest you FIRST answer the questions. > After that -- you can complain about them. Otis... ...if I told you that 2+2=5 so work out a few questions and then we'll talk would you think I was talking nonsense? Until you can show that your equation has anything to do with eyes you might as well be stating 2+2=5 so why do you expect anyone to waste their time? Children are taught this before they leave junior school. Why don't you understand it? You're making yourself look silly. Otis, you have a habit of not answering questions directly. Firstly, it is quite obvious that you do not unerstand optics. I also feel that you do not want to do the calculations I asked you to do because it will prove your theory wrong. You still insist on experiments that put minus lenses on emetropic eyes to prove your point. You still can't grasp the fact that this is not done in practice and that the eyes responce to this situation is very different to placing a -2.00 diopter lens on a 2 diopter myope. We give you equations that have been proved,(you can find them in any good book of optics or work it out easily from first principles) you give us equations that I have not seen any proof of. If you agree with the letters of your guest, then you must also feel that the minus lens correctly prescribed for a myope, induces accomodation at distance viewing. We tell you this is nonscence, instead of directly addressing this, you bring up the box camera. You tell us the plus lens works to reduce and prevent myopia. we tell you if this is the case Why do I still get kids that come in for their first pair of glasses and guess what I got a kid in here who insisted she could see, her refraction -3.00 she cried when she was told that she had to wear spectacles. How did this happen OTIS, shouldn't myopia be self limiting when a patient has never worn spectacles. You talk about the visual environment and the average accomodative state. shouldn't this always cause myopia. Why do we have hyperopic patients? Why don't you go one step further and give hyperopes minus lenses till they become emetropic. according to your chickens it should work. Why don't all hyperopes progress to myopia, after all isn't the situation the same as placing a minus lens on an emetrope? Why do we get reduction in myopia(sometimes) when a person ages? At some point before the current refraction, the prescription would have been too strong. What, too strong? Well if your chicken experiment applies to human eyes, and they must be because an engineer has said so, why does this happen? Your equations seem to be able to predict the visual status of the human eye. I am an astigmat 0f about -2.5 diopters with a sphere of plano. I am also very exophoric and have added a -0.50 sphere to each lens to make me more comfortable. I use the computer for about 2 hours a day, spend most of my day in the refracting room and spend very litle time outdoors. Since I am not an engineer and therefore do not know how to solve simple equations, please calculate for me the next pair of spectacles which I will be planning to get in about 2 years time. Thank you. -- Roland J. Izaac D. Optom. L.C.O.(Lond.) > Dear Roland, > [quoted text clipped - 284 lines] > Otis > Engineer Here is another quiz. Which of the of the following terms best describes the hypothese of Otis? 1. science fiction: a literary fantasy including a scientific factor as an essential orienting component. 2. dogma: a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. 3. engineering: the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to man in structures, machines, products, systems, and processes. 4. scientific method: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypothesis. 5. 1 and 2 DrG > Otis, you have a habit of not answering questions directly. Firstly, > it is quite obvious that you do not unerstand optics. I also feel that [quoted text clipped - 333 lines] >> Otis >> Engineer As a corollary to this quiz, it must be said that some optometrists were somewhat dogmatic when they believed that prescribing bifocals could halt the progression of myopia. It was only after the application of the scientific method, i.e. "collected data after observation and experiment," that optometrists learned that this was by and large an ineffective practice. There were indeed a few anecdotal cases where the bifocal seemed to work, but was this an effect of treatment, random variation, or something other than true axial myopia. Additionally, and to further obfuscate matters, a few researchers found that bifocals demonstrated a treatment effect only when applied to a small subset of myopic individuals, i.e. those whose myopia was accompanied by nearpoint esophoria and abnormal ACA ratios, whose myopia likely has a significant accommodative component. Of course, certain individuals insist on ignoring the key differences as this would seriously undermine their long-held positions about cause and effect, prevention and treatment. After all, one cannot continue to preach self-diagnosis and treatment with plus lenses over the internet if this meant being tested first by an optometrist to determine the ACA and phoric posture, and well as performing a cycloplegic refraction. DrG > Here is another quiz. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > DrG Dear Roland, Re: Otis, you have a habit of not answering questions directly. That is an interesting staement you make. I asked YOU direct questions -- and you have this "habit of not answering questions directly". This is the case of the pot calling the kettle black. If I asked these questions in physics, or the hisgory of science, 101, you would receive an "Incomplete". Best, Otis Engineer **** > Otis, you have a habit of not answering questions directly. Firstly, it is > quite obvious that you do not unerstand optics. I also feel that you do not [quoted text clipped - 332 lines] > > Otis > > Engineer Dear Friend, And some additional details, FYI. In all these discussions -- I want to show respect! Particularly, I want to show respect to those ODs brave enough to fight "the system". I specifically talk about the natural eye as "dynamic", and use the term refractive status because that terminology should not insult them. If it does -- then THEY have a problem of professional frailty. The goal of science is (often) to find a defining equation that "predicts" the data. But that is very difficult indeed. It also depends on IF you judge the natural eye as dynamic -- in the sense that you can OVERTLY test for it. That was the purpose of my "problems". When a person evades question like I posed -- then I know the nature of that person. But equally -- I could not possibly handle a great mass of people entering my office and expecting to have their vision "sharpened" in 15 minutes. That DEFINES optometry. Any optometrist who even ATTEMPTED a discussion along the lines that I propose -- would be called a "quack" instantly. It takes time and effort to develop the concepts so that the "expert" can take over complete control and keep his distant vision clear for life. If he lacks this sense of "empowerment" the argument, science and effort are indeed lost. The two concepts, shop-practice paradigm (box-camera) and dynamic eye (21 century) paradigm, simply can not be used by an optometrist. People who learn to use exact language to explain the behavior will eventually get it "right". That is were we stand -- in my opinion. Best, Otis > Dear Friend, > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Otis You are kind of standing in a precarious place, don't you think? DrG > I specifically talk about the natural eye as "dynamic", You specifically refuse to use the scientific vocabulary adopted by virtually all vision scientists. > use the term refractive status because that terminology > should not insult them. If it does -- then THEY have a problem > of professional frailty. You obfuscate so you won't hurt our feelings. > The goal of science is (often) to find a defining equation that "predicts" > the data. But that is very difficult indeed. No, software can make it easy to find patterns in data. What's hard is collecting the data accurately. When you've collected some, get back to us. When you find someone who has controlled anatomical myopia with plus, let us know. > It also depends on IF you judge the natural eye as dynamic -- in the > sense that you can OVERTLY test for it. It depends on how many eyes you've actually measured, in controlled circumstances. What do your records show? > That was the purpose of my "problems". When a person > evades question like I posed -- then I know the nature of > that person. And when a person evades common vocabulary and accepted science, then we know that person is sloppy and illogical by nature, no matter how good his math. > But equally -- I could not possibly handle a great mass > of people entering my office and expecting to have their > vision "sharpened" in 15 minutes. > That DEFINES optometry. We all sigh with relief that you aren't sitting on any of the State Boards. > Any optometrist who > even ATTEMPTED a discussion along the lines > that I propose -- would be called a "quack" instantly. No, he'd be asked to present evidence, just as you have been. We're always hoping to see evidence that plus lenses can be used to control refractive error in human adults. Have you found any yet? > It takes time and effort to develop the concepts > so that the "expert" can take over complete control > and keep his distant vision clear for life. Yeah, like Rishi says, it's all in the mind. Mind-over-cartilage. > If he lacks this sense of "empowerment" the > argument, science and effort are indeed > lost. I'm lost.. are you cross-posting to a psychology newsgroup? > The two concepts, shop-practice paradigm (box-camera) > and dynamic eye (21 century) paradigm, simply > can not be used by an optometrist. People > who learn to use exact language to explain the > behavior will eventually get it "right". I see. To get it right we must throw out imprecise terms like "myopia" and "diopter" and instead use "the natural eye" and "the 20/40 level" and "empowerment". > That is were we stand -- in my opinion. Then we stand somewhere left of looney-tunes. -MT Hi otis, Although I think that there is a grain of truth in the "plus lens hypothesis" it seems that your habit to use your "privat terminology" to describe it is destructive. Unless it is absolutely neccessary, I think you can describe most of your hypothesis in plain words. Also, the details of your hypothesis are not very important. The only thing which really matters is wether your technique works or doesn't work. amni > Dear Friend, > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Otis > Although I think that there is a grain of truth in the "plus lens hypothesis" > it seems that your habit to use your "privat terminology" > to describe it is destructive. I like Jan's description: "homemade rubber definitions". -MT > Also, the details of your hypothesis are not very important. > The only thing which really matters is wether your technique works or > doesn't work. I don't agree. A certain number of people are cured of myopia spontaneously. If you find some of these people and give them sugar pills, then you have "proved" that sugar pills cure myopia. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net -- Roland J. Izaac D. Optom. L.C.O.(Lond.) > Dear Roland, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > This is the case of the pot calling the kettle black. If I am the pot, you are the kettle. It takes a big man to own up. There is a big difference to the questions you ask and the questions I ask. The answere to the questions you ask will lead me nowhere. Why? because your equations are not proven. Show us proof first. As an engineer you know that if you study a system, and make observations you did not predict or contrary to your predictions, you must either be able to explain them or go back to the drawing board. So Otis, your job now is to explain our observations, show us that they are still consistent with your theories. > If I asked these questions in physics, or the hisgory > of science, 101, you would receive an > "Incomplete". Asking questions based on unproven equations anf facts isn't physics or science, its an Otisizem. and asking people to solve them is a waste of time. Roland J. Izaac > Best, > > Otis > Engineer > > **** |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.