> I have not tried publishing. A common reply i am getting at the moment
> from academia is 'a very interesting hypothesis are you an academic
> researcher'. These days if you dont have a PhD you are more less nobody.
> I have a B.Sc. only.
I suggest you go to graduate school and earn a PhD or Masters. This could
be your thesis topic. If you think you are going to do it any other way you
are wasting your time. For better or for worse, the system doesn't work
that way.
>I was overly emotional when i met her and kind of burnt that bridge for now
> anyway.
Based upon how you post in this NG, I can well imagine that this is true.
> even to the point of press conferences etc etc.
OK, so you see your name in lights.
Look-- you need a lot of help from academicians. More than you realize.
Your study needs to be well-constructed by reputable and credible
authorities and conducted in a highly professional manner. E-mail and chat
isn't going to cut it. Talking to the local optical shop isn't going to
convince anyone. Just being passionate about what you believe isn't enough.
Until then the title of your posting should be "Myopia reduction theory
seems very reasonable to me-- but how do I prove it to the rest of the
world?"
Andrew Judd - 28 Mar 2005 21:32 GMT
>>Look-- you need a lot of help from academicians. More than you realize.
Your study needs to be well-constructed by reputable and credible
authorities and conducted in a highly professional manner. E-mail and chat
isn't going to cut it. Talking to the local optical shop isn't going to
convince anyone. Just being passionate about what you believe isn't enough.
Jans reaction towards me is fairly typical of the profession. "Myopia
cannot be improved and therefore those who say it can must be crazy.
Therefore if this guy has evidence that myopia can be improved, **and** I
agree with that, **and** I support him, I run a considerable risk of being
professionally ruined. Meanwhile I have a family to support and a position
in society that it impossible for me to risk."
Jan - 29 Mar 2005 00:10 GMT
> Jans reaction towards me is fairly typical of the profession. "Myopia
> cannot be improved and therefore those who say it can must be crazy.
Quit the contrary, show me wich method works and I should be delighted to
use it and call myself a fool not having noticed the possibility.
> Therefore if this guy has evidence that myopia can be improved, **and** I
> agree with that, **and** I support him, I run a considerable risk of
> being
> professionally ruined. Meanwhile I have a family to support and a
> position
> in society that it impossible for me to risk."
What a nonsense.
Why you are showing your opinion this very moment?
Not affraid a colleague of yours read this stuff?
Charlatanic behaviour just as your look-alike Otis.

Signature
Free to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam"
In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 29 Mar 2005 02:04 GMT
> > Jans reaction towards me is fairly typical of the profession. "Myopia
> > cannot be improved and therefore those who say it can must be crazy.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Jan
Just recently you made an interesting comment on psychoemotional
correlations to pupil size. But generally the logic in your replies is
difficult to understand.
By what method could a person show you a method can reduce myopia?
Andrew
RM - 29 Mar 2005 01:38 GMT
> Jans reaction towards me is fairly typical of the profession. "Myopia
> cannot be improved and therefore those who say it can must be crazy.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> position
> in society that it impossible for me to risk."
Why are you telling me about your problems with Jan?
Getting a little overly emotional?
Andrew Judd - 29 Mar 2005 03:14 GMT
>>Why are you telling me about your problems with Jan?
Getting a little overly emotional?
RM
I think you are getting confused. Jans first post to this thread was
"Until you prove (as you wrote in the subject line) you are a look-alike of
Otis.
Major snip in a lot off stories not proven to be true yet."
Elsewhere he has consistantly attacked any suggestion myopia may be related
to anxiety or emotional causes.
Meanwhile the COMET myopia study shows myopes as having self esteem
problems.
You then wrote a reply to me that was well written and deserved an answer.
I used the example of Jan to illustrate how difficult it is to change
perceptions of the nature of myopia - dispite the widespread studies that
support myopia and behavioural differences as compared to normal sighted
people.
I am aware that does not prove causality. Most OD's here seem blind to the
relationship.
Many studies have shown that myopes are "outwardly calm and discinclined to
exhibitionism". Whereas hypermetropes have been found to be "inclined to
exhibitionism"
In that context it is interesting that you be so quick to want to judge
that I am "Getting a little overly emotional?" As if this was necessarily
some bad thing to be poked fun of or told tales about.
My mother had wonderful eyesight and was highly emotional
My father was inhibited and had myopia.
I am the product of my parents. If its my nature to be 'highly emotional'
then so be it. Regardless of whatever comment you wish to make on that.
Perhaps you need to lighten up a bit yourself?
I am having a great time:-)
Andrew
retinula@hotmail.com - 29 Mar 2005 04:36 GMT
we're hearing a little more than we need to about your mum and your dad
Sorry, Andrew, but some inventors and their theories just never seem to
get the recognistion they deserve. You will probably be recognized
posthumously. ; )
DrG
> Dear Dr Judy
>
> I have not tried publishing.
snip
At the end of the say i don't want to spend
> the next 5 years of my life involved in demonstrating what she and I could
> already notice anyway in order that she fullfills her remit of 'studying
> myopia' comprehensively.
Good research takes time, if you don't spend the time to do it properly,
nobody will believe you.
> What i am saying is "'this works', something is going on here that ought
> to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> results with your refractions. Whats more i can even do this via email and
> internet chat."
You don't need a controlled group, you need a treatment group and a matched,
no treatment /sham treatment control group. You need a researcher to assist
you in determining how large the groups should be, how to test for matching,
to make sure the design is valid, to help design the sham treatment, to
help with obtaining human research/ ethical clearance, to help find the
subjects and so on. You need either a vision researcher or a licensed eye
examiner to do pre and post treatment cycloplegic refractions.
It will take time and it cannot be done by e-mail.
Dr Judy
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 29 Mar 2005 23:30 GMT
> You don't need a controlled group,
Correct.
you need a treatment group and a matched,
> no treatment /sham treatment control group.
Correct
You need a researcher to assist
> you in determining how large the groups should be, how to test for matching,
> to make sure the design is valid, to help design the sham treatment, to
> help with obtaining human research/ ethical clearance, to help find the
> subjects and so on. You need either a vision researcher or a licensed eye
> examiner to do pre and post treatment cycloplegic refractions.
Partially correct. I need a bona fida authority who can present me
with the pre treatment group of which all have been screened for
ethical considerations.
> It will take time
Correct
> and it cannot be done by e-mail.
Incorrect.
The treatment is best done in person but it **can** be done via email.
Certainly the pretreatment work to determine which of the group are
likely to be able to continue with the work and who wish to be selected
for more highly personal interaction **can** be done via email.
The Email would form the basis of the discussion of the results.
Myopia improvement does not lend itself to traditional scientific
anaylsis. It would require a massive write up or ideally video before
and after presentations of the behaviour and mannerisms of the myopes
before and after.
For example if myopes have issues with self esteem a video of them
being interviewed before and a video after treatment would speak a
thousand words.
But this work can be done via email of that i am confidant because I am
already doing it and getting results with people who recognise the
validity of what i am doing with them and who are finding they are
getting improvements in refraction.
Andrew
g.gatti@agora.it - 29 Mar 2005 23:55 GMT
> But this work can be done via email of that i am confidant because I am
> already doing it and getting results with people who recognise the
> validity of what i am doing with them and who are finding they are
> getting improvements in refraction.
>
> Andrew
I would like to acknowledge that you have cured yourself or discarded
glasses or reduced your prescription or something else in accord to
your efforts.
What have you reached till now?