 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / December 2004Scientific Fact versus OD Myth about Natural Eyes Behavior
Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: Scientist work to determine the exact behavior of the fundamental eye. An OD makes a "single-point" measurement and insists all the scientific truth is "in error" and you should "trust him". _________________________________________________ 1. Frank Schaeffel, Adrian Glasser and Howard C. Howland, "Accommodation, Refractive Error and Eye Growth in Chickens", VISION RES., Vol 28, No. 5 pp 639-657, 1988. Pergamon Press. RESULTS: o All eyes treated with positive lenses became consistently more positive (hyperopic). o Negative lenses produced more negative (myopic) refractions (focal states) in all eyes. o In a test of plus/minus lenses on left/right eyes, the eye with the plus lens moved in a positive direction. The eye with a minus lens moved in a minus direction. The control group did not change significantly in any direction. More recent experiments with primates demonstrated exactly the same results. These are SCIENTIFIC (not medical) experiments. The results are consistent and accurate. They conclusively demonstrate that the fundamental eye is dynamic. This is pure science -- and the ODs of the 400 year tradition figure out some way (or excuse) to totally ignore, not only the scientific facts, but invent "fibs" that they tell themselves as a "justification" for quick-fixing the public with a strong minus lens. These tests MUST be done with a "population" of eyes. You can not do this test with ONE individual and have any meaningful scientific result AT ALL. This does not stop Mike Tyner OD from making the following statement -- and he expects you will BELIEVE him and IGNORE all the explicit experimental facts. Here is his statement: _________________________________________________ "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 "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@m...> wrote in a message Subject: A question of the effect of a minus lens on the refractive status of the two eyes. Mike> I'm embarrassed to admit I found out about one today. A fourteen year old needed +3.25 in the right eye and +2.75 in the left. For some reason, six months ago his RIGHT contacts were ordered in error... -3.25 instead of +3.25. The left eye has been wearing the correct lens. Strangely enough, he's been wearing both lenses without complaint, for six months. Mike> According to Otis, the right eye should now be somewhere around +1.00. Mike> WHY IS THE RIGHT EYE STILL +3.25? - Mike Tyner OD ______________________________________________ Dear Friends, Subject: Who do you believe? What do you believe? Re: This is a true "anecdotal" statement -- and Mike knows it. 1. I don't know the situation. Maybe Mike made other additional mistakes -- that have yet to be discovered. 2. I can not "repeat" the experimental situation -- at all. 3. Mike has TOTAL control of this situation. He and others have told me that the concept of the dynamic eye MUST BE DESTROYED. Now why should I trust or believe the above statement -- in any way at all -- when objective facts tell us the truth of this situation? What Mike fervently wishes to believe it this: 1. The environment (in diopters) has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of the natural eye. 2. A minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of the fundamental eye. To enforce his "belief system" he must report his experiment proving (his fib) that a lens has no effect on the eye. His statement is loaded with incredible bias. You will have to make up your own mind what constitutes and engineering-scientific assessment of the eye's behavior, versus Mike Tyner's "interpretations" of objective, scientific facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. Some additional commentary: _______________________________________________ Dear Mike, Subject: Telling us what you wish to believe. Re: So Mike tells us anecdotal tales also -- while we report accurate scientific results -- and he tells us that scientific facts are anecdotal! Thanks for admitting a mistake, i.e., prescribing a -3.25 when in your judgment a +3.25 should have been used. But that suggests an additional point -- for the educated pilot. He should do his OWN CHECKING, using his own eye-chart and a low-cost trial-lens kit (if he has one). Any competent parent using this simple device would have found out about your -6.5 diopter in a prescription. (I have a report of a child who was over-prescribed by -4 diopters by they type of casual error! The parent finally checked and identified the over-prescription error.) Further, the only person who really BELIEVES the results -- is the person who makes the measurements, ergo, the pilot should read his own eye chart, and confirm 20/40, and with the plus. i.e., he must confirm his "clearing" to 20/20 as Shawn did it. Further, if a low cost trial-lens kit, were available the parent would have identified the error himself. I dispute Mike's statement on scientific grounds -- that a minus lens has no effect on the refractive state of the eye. Scientist simply do not make a "single point" measurement and then claim that a minus lens has no effect on the refractive status of the eye -- but you do! Best, Otis > Subject: Scientist work to determine the exact behavior of the > fundamental eye. An OD makes a "single-point" measurement > and insists all the scientific truth is "in error" and you > should "trust him". > o All eyes treated with positive lenses became consistently more > positive (hyperopic). *All* eyes? > o Negative lenses produced more negative (myopic) refractions > (focal states) in all eyes. *All* eyes? > These are SCIENTIFIC (not medical) experiments. The results > are consistent and accurate. They conclusively demonstrate that > the fundamental eye is dynamic. > These tests MUST be done with a "population" of eyes. You > can not do this test with ONE individual and have any meaningful > scientific result AT ALL. > This does not stop Mike Tyner OD from making the following > statement -- and he expects you will BELIEVE him and IGNORE all > the explicit experimental facts. > "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@m...> wrote in a message > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Mike> WHY IS THE RIGHT EYE STILL +3.25? > Re: This is a true "anecdotal" statement -- and Mike knows it. When one makes a statistical argument, then one anecdote does not disprove it. When one states that *all* eyes behave the same, then one anecdote *does* disprove the statement. In fact, *all* eyes *don't* behave as you say. > What Mike fervently wishes to believe it this: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 2. A minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of the > fundamental eye. This of course is an outright lie. The truth is much more complicated, and statistical rather than absolute. Obviously there are effects, but that doesn't mean that your assertions as to what the effects are become true. > Re: So Mike tells us anecdotal tales also -- while we report > accurate scientific results -- and he tells us that > scientific facts are anecdotal! No, anecdotal facts are anecdotal, and scientific results are scientific. Anecdotal facts are still facts, but it is difficult to use those facts to predict the outcome for other cases. Scientific results can reasonably be used to predict the outcome for other cases, but only for *similar* other cases. As Mike keeps repeating (and it makes sense to me), the results for chickens and primates whose articial lenses are wildly at variance from the actual correction needed, do not accurate predict for humans who are wearing lenses that exactly correct to what they need. > Further, the only person who really BELIEVES the results -- > is the person who makes the measurements, ergo, the pilot should > read his own eye chart, and confirm 20/40, and with the plus. > i.e., he must confirm his "clearing" to 20/20 as Shawn did it. In other words, when it comes to human beings, you wish to use anecdotal evidence.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net A major snip in an ever repeating story told by Otis. Otis over and over you are trying to start an one way discussion in new treads, each time everything is carefully explained to you but you still are hearing deaf and seeing blind. Besides an Italian freak there is NO ONE here who ever supported your idea in preventing myopia in humans. Otis the man who NEVER EVER showed SCIENTIFIC PROOF and NEVER EVER came up with a follower of his ideas to whom we may address some direct questions in this newsgroup. Otis you are without any doubt a nice old grandpa and a nice storyteller, keep it that way and beat the retreat Otis, your stories about ''Shawn" or your famous pilots became very very boring. BTW, if you quote, quote correct. (see below) Otis said : "He and others have told me that the concept of the dynamic eye MUST BE DESTROYED" It is YOUR IDEA about how to prevent myopia in human eyes that must be destroyed Otis. SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" I declare that Otis idea about preventing myopia in humans must be destroyed. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Otis said : "He and others have told me that the concept of the dynamic eye > MUST BE DESTROYED" > > It is YOUR IDEA about how to prevent myopia in human eyes that must be > destroyed Otis. The Fascism is still within us. > These tests MUST be done with a "population" of eyes. You > can not do this test with ONE individual and have any meaningful [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 2. I can not "repeat" the experimental situation -- at all. I find it absolutely incredible that you tout your own anectodal case ("poster boy" Shawn/Jon whomever) without ANY pre-post refractive evidence as "proof" that your so-called theory is correct yet refuse to recognize a very credible example (with actual baseline results) from MT that blows your assertions out the door. You remind me of a deaf person who only hears what he wants to hear. frank drfrank21@hotmail.com wrote in news:1102432654.220907.68830 @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com: > You remind me of a deaf person who only hears what he wants > to hear. > > frank ... a common disorder among married men. Scott Dear Scott, Yes, you are right -- I am married. But also, it is a "difficulty" when scientific pardigms are argued. Each side wishes to "make its case", and that requires that certain "words" be defined and accurately used. It matters greatly whe you argue about the natural eye as "dynamic", in which case it has "refractive states" and not "defects". Anyone who develops a deeper understanding -- will understand the nature of these two paradigm-based arguements. It is also a matter of which argement preceedes the other. It has always been assumed that you could define the eye as "defective" because it has refractive states that are positive or negative. I argue that you can't do that, or make that assumption. As Thomas Kuhn stated, the proponents of a paradigm often talk THROUGH each other, because neither side will accept the definitions of word that make the pardigm-based arguement effective. Best, Otis Engineer > Each side wishes to "make its case", > and that requires that certain > "words" be defined and accurately > used. Please point to some published source that defines the "natural eye going down". > It matters greatly whe you argue > about the natural eye as "dynamic", > in which case it has "refractive states" > and not "defects". Who calls them "defects"? Who calls myopia a "negative refractive state?" > Anyone who develops a deeper > understanding -- will understand > the nature of these two > paradigm-based arguements. That's right. Ohm's law would be proven false if "voltage" were called something else. > It is also a matter of which > argement preceedes the > other. That's right. Whoever has the last word must be right. > It has always been assumed > that you could define the > eye as "defective" because > it has refractive states > that are positive or negative. Who assumes that? > I argue that you can't do that, > or make that assumption. We don't assume your feet "should" be the same size as everyone else's. > As Thomas Kuhn stated, the > proponents of a paradigm often [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that make the pardigm-based > arguement effective. And as we know, if you repeat a fallacy long enough and loud enough, *somebody* will believe you. -MT He just says that "the pilot" has to judge by himself. Why you are against people judging by themselves? > You remind me of a deaf person who only hears what he wants > to hear. I'm not sure I understand, but I guess I've known partially deaf people who pretend that they didn't hear when it's something they don't want to hear, but hear pretty well when it's something they want to hear. Otis reminds me of lots of people I've know, with good hearing and good vision, who hear only what they want to hear and see only what they want to see. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > > You remind me of a deaf person who only hears what he wants > > to hear. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > vision, who hear only what they want to hear and see only what they want > to see. I meant "playing deaf"- error caused by multitasking and frustration of Otis's evasive answers. But it's true, Otis does not care to actually hear what are clear contradictions to his convictions, no matter how substantial they are. frank Dear Dan, The statement, "that they have eyes, and can not see, and ears, but can not hear ... cuts both eyes." You should examine your own belief that the natural eye does not change its refractive state under testable conditions. Pay attention to objective facts -- themselves. Do not "interpert" the fact as you are so prone to do. The native eye controls it refractive state (output) to its visual environment (input) -- in diopters. Why can't you accept what the objective, scientific facts tell us about the behavior of all natural eyes? Best, Otis Engineer Best, Otis > Why can't > you accept what the objective, > scientific facts tell us about > the behavior of all natural eyes? Because it isn't objective or scientific to say "all" eyes get nearsighted with close work. -MT > The native eye controls it refractive > state (output) to its visual environment > (input) -- in diopters. Why can't > you accept what the objective, > scientific facts tell us about > the behavior of all natural eyes? Yes-- this is called accommodation. We know this well. Excessive accommodation is called accommodative myopia and that's the only type of myopia that your plus lens treatment has a chance to cure. If you think I'm wrong, then tell me what structure in the eye changes when you use plus lenses-- it has to either be the corneal curvature, the axial length of the eye, the index of refraction of the ocular media, or the curvature of the lens (which does occur because that's the only structure that is dynamic in the adult eye due to the action of the ciliary muscle). But I realize this type of discussion just goes right over your head Otis-- what's in the eye and how it works isn't important to you. Your black box "theory" which seems so simple and so elegant to you and other good intentioned people throughout history JUST ISN'T THE WAY IT WORKS! I guess the good Lord had a different plan than your's Otis. I'm not sure exactly what the plan is, but it's not what you want it to be! > Dear Dan, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > change its refractive state > under testable conditions. OK > Pay attention to objective facts -- themselves. No. You must examine the context also. > Do not "interpert" the fact as you > are so prone to do. I have a brain, and I will use it to interpret as necessary. You have a brain, and have done an interpretation that the ODs claim is incorrect. Why should I follow *your* interpretation and not make my own? > The native eye controls it refractive > state (output) to its visual environment > (input) -- in diopters. Why can't > you accept what the objective, > scientific facts tell us about > the behavior of all natural eyes? Because there are other factors involved here. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net Dear Dan, As both of us understand the question is one of perspective. I believe that a population of natural eye must be "dynamic". I am only am interested in this property of the natural eye which I consider to be "base-line" and essential of normal operation. I therefore do no accept the traditional words from the people who call refractive states "defects" in any form. This is the "input" versus "output" form of testing, where you are only interested in fundamental science. This is similar to the "perspective" put on the "facts" by Copernicus when he put the Sun at the center of the universe -- in his day. I would suggest to anyone who is developing an education on this subject (i.e., college students) consider objective scientific facts from these two perspectives. They might come to a different conclusion about the refractive states of the eye -- other than the box-camera "paradigm" that you have been taught -- and believe is right. Best, Otis > Dear Dan, At least you are friendly about this. I appreciate that. > I therefore do no accept the > traditional words from the people > who call refractive states "defects" > in any form. It's not the words that are important, it's the concepts behind them. For most of my life, I was unable to focus farther away than about an inch. This made my uncorrected vision useless both for near and far, where "near" is defined as reading distance. I could only read extremely fine print, and then only with one eye. You wouldn't call this a "defect"? > This is similar to the "perspective" > put on the "facts" by Copernicus > when he put the Sun at the > center of the universe -- in his > day. Except that any theory other than putting the sun in the middle, caused the "facts" to be contradictory. Simple observation shows that the sun revolves around the earth. A more complicated observation of the facts shows that it couldn't. > I would suggest to anyone who > is developing an education on this > subject (i.e., college students) > consider objective scientific > facts from these two perspectives. Of course, they need to consider age and match power of the lens with the correction needed. > They might come to a different > conclusion about the refractive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > been taught -- and believe > is right. I've never been taught that the eye is like a box camera. The only person on this group who claims that is you, and you claim that it is false, which it obviously is. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > Dear Prevention minded friends, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > are consistent and accurate. They conclusively demonstrate that > the fundamental eye is dynamic. Yes, these experiments, which used high power lenses worn full time to simulate congenital refractive error in young animals, demostrate that an "emmetropization" mechanism exists. No one disagrees that young animals, (including chickens, monkeys and humans) if born with refractive error, will modify the growth rate of their eyes so that, once babyhood is over, the eyes are almost emmetropic. However, these experiments have no relevance to the treatment of refractive error that develops after babyhood. These experiments did not use minus or plus lenses to correct existing refractive error and they do not tell us how the human eye reacts to the correction of existing error. These experiments did not use low plus lenses used only for near tasks, so they have no relevance to your ideas about using low plus to reverse myopia. We hhave asked you to cite published human studies about developmental refractive error that support your ideas about myopia treatment and all you ever provide are studies about emmetropization in neonates. Dr Judy snip rest of message Dear Judy, You have proceeded to misrepresent what I stated about the behavior of THE NATURAL EYE, when tested as a sophisticated system. The word "emmetropia" is an invented word -- and means almost nothing. Likewise, the word "emmetropization" is worse. What I stated was that natural eye is dyanamic. As such we are going to take a population of eyes that we judge are natural. You can exclude the eyes you wish to before this test starts. Not the natural eye (as defined) is either dynamic or not. (Tested on a basic "input" versus "output" basis.) We are not looking for a "defect" of any sort. Only looking for the basic dynamic characteristic of these natural eyes. As a result we will deal with statistics, and population averages of these natural eyes. (You apperently do not understand the concept.) In this manner we will establish whether the natural eye changes its refractive state (in a negagive direction) when a minus lens is placed on it. Best, Otis > The word "emmetropia" is an > invented word -- and means > almost nothing. Then you better notify Webster's, Steadman's, and American Heritage. Tell them to take out that word because you don't believe it should be there. > Likewise, > the word "emmetropization" is worse. So what word do *you* use for that perinatal period when eyes normalize? Oh.. that's right.. you don't believe it stops. Never mind that in all those species you mention, there is an age when eyes stop growing and artificial refractive error no longer influences them. > What I stated was that natural eye > is dyanamic. Adaptation doesn't continue throughout life. Animal researchers tell us it doesn't. You say it does. Who should we believe? >As such we are > going to take a population > of eyes that we judge are > natural. You can exclude the > eyes you wish to before this > test starts. I hope you will do this. > Not the natural eye (as defined) is > either dynamic or not. You lost me. I don't find a definition for "natural eye" in Steadman's or Adler's or even Webster's. Perhaps it is a term you invented? > We are not looking for a "defect" of > any sort. Only looking for the > basic dynamic characteristic of > these natural eyes. I hope you will do this. Until you do, assuming it applies for all species at all ages leads to what we call "unfounded conclusions." Not that you care. > As a result we will deal with > statistics, and population > averages of these natural eyes. > (You apperently do not understand > the concept.) You're absolutely right. When you arrive at population statistics without actually studying a population, nobody understands you. > In this manner we will establish > whether the natural eye changes > its refractive state (in a negagive direction) > when a minus lens is placed on it. I do hope so. When you do, please get back to us. I promise we'll tell all the -2.50 myopes to stop wearing glasses so their vision will become normal again. -MT Unless they drop the glasses the vision won't become normal. Even if they use glasses and recover their normal vision, the glasses have to go. You cannot have normal sight AND wear glasses. > Not the natural eye (as defined) is > either dynamic or not. Once again, life just isn't that simple. What is being argued on this group, is that the eye changes size and shape while the animal or human is growing, but not when growing has stopped. This is consistent with other parts of the body. A child's foot is small, but grows along with the rest of the body. Once a person is all grown, the foot no longer grows shorter or longer. In some societies, small feet are considered desirable for adult women. The feet of young girls are bound, and cannot grow adult size. Once reaching adulthood, the bindings can be removed and the feet will not grow to full size and will remain small like a child. ObFeet: My OMD has incredibly small feet, and comes from a society that once bound the feet of young girls. However, the rest of her body is also incredibly small, so I think her feet are in proportion to the rest of her body. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > Dear Judy, > The word "emmetropia" is an > invented word -- and means > almost nothing. Likewise, > the word "emmetropization" is worse. Gee, that's funny, serious scientific researchers use the word emmetropization all the time. Here, the scientist you quoted in your original post, Frank Schaeffel, uses the term: J Physiol. 1992 Apr;449:363-76 Longitudinal chromatic aberration and emmetropization: results from the chicken eye. Rohrer B, Schaeffel F, Zrenner E. Other scientists use it in the titles of their studies too: Optom Vis Sci. 1999 Jun;76(6):419-27 Optical correction of induced axial myopia in the tree shrew: implications for emmetropization. McBrien NA, Gentle A, Cottriall C. Curr Eye Res. 2003 Dec;27(6):371-85. Neural pathways subserving negative lens-induced emmetropization in chicks--insights from selective lesions of the optic nerve and ciliary nerve. Wildsoet C. and sometimes the study of emmetropization is the purpose of a study: Sharp vision: a prerequisite for compensation to myopic defocus in the chick? Nevin ST, Schmid KL, Wildsoet CF. Center of Eye Research, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. PURPOSE: Compensatory responses to focusing errors imposed by spectacle lenses in chicks, tree shrews and primates leave little doubt that active emmetropization can occur, and debate is now centered on whether this process is uni-directional or bi-directional in nature. Ooops, I forgot, these studies are less than twenty years old, so you won't believe them. Dr Judy Blah, blah, blah. So what, are you people (I'm making an assumption here) trying to drag this bullshit on 'till February so it will be two full years of this crap? Otis can't prove a damn thing and only quotes himself, ad naseum. The vision scientists can prove everything they say and can quote published data. Does that not end the discussion? LarryDoc <larrydoc@nospam.yahoodotcom> wrote in news:larrydoc- 637752.20103907122004@news.verizon.net: > Blah, blah, blah. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > vision scientists can prove everything they say and can quote published > data. Does that not end the discussion? THE END. DrG > Dear Prevention minded friends, Dear Prevention minded friends. Ignore Otis. He makes up stories, and won't have his subjects come to the newsgroups and share their experiences. Allen |
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.