Dear Scott,

Since Francis Young was not aware that his name was placed
on a paper with out his permission, he published his statement
to the OD Board who was reviewing "Houston Study".

It is not Francis Young's job to publish the "correction".

This is obvious chicanory - at the mininum.  If you
ask why I don't trust the "Houston" study then that
is the reason.

If you doubt Francis Young's statement, then I am
willing to FAX the his signed statement.

If you contact me by phone (and are decent about it)
I will supply you his phone number and you
can talk to him directly about what actually
did happen.

In is NORMAL in acadameic reviews that all the
authors receive both the original planning
document, and the final document.

Francis Young was completely out of this
loop.

Young's original study results stand as before.

It is not my job to "fix" the Houston document, nor
does Francis Young have any obligation to
fix it either -- since he just found out about (in
the beginning of 2005.)

Best,

Otis

Reply to Scott's quesitons about contraditions between the
     "Pullman" and "Houston" studies

Otis> Dear Friends,

Otis> It is essential the scientific documents scrupulously
     accurate -- otherwise the incorrect inferences will be made.

Otis> Professor Francis Young requests that his name be removed
     from the "Houston Study" as described below.

Otis> Thank you for your attention to this scientific matter.

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

Subject:  Francis Young just stated the facts has
he knows them to be regarding his "Pullman Study".
He had no intellectula involvement with the
"Houston Study", although some one in
Houston may have thought he did.

Scott> Just want to point out that this pretty much constitutes a
     charge of scientific misconduct by Young against the
     coauthors of that paper.

Otis> No, Francis Young simply stated the fact the he was not
     involved in the "Houston Study", and did not recieve a copy,
     and had no idea of what the conclusions were.  If you want
     to make more of this than that -- then you do so.  He just
     corrected the record from what he knew about it.    Maybe some
     one in Houston "accidentally" thought that Fancis was
     involved -- when he was not.  Just a simple mistake.

Scott> It's a serious matter.

Otis> What, a simple mistake?  Francis Young stated the simple
     truth as he knew it?  Francis simply corrected the record.
     Are you going to call Francis Young names about this issue
     now?  As long as the record is "straight" from his
     statement, then that is all that matters at this point.  You
     imply an INTENTIONAL mistake.  Maybe it was a simple error.

Scott> ...A letter to some Hong Kong Board does not constitute a
     request to remove Young as first author of the paper in
     question.

Otis> The Board got the impresson that Dr.  Francis Young was
     involved in the "Houston Study".  Since he obviously was not
     involved, the purpose was to correct the "accidental error"
     made by someone in Houston.  Young's letter corrects that
     incorrect impresson for the OD Board.  We want the truth,
     don't we, even if an "error" was made in Houston.

Scott> A letter to the editor of the publication would be in
     order, and the chairs of all relevant departments, to start,
     likely to be followed up by communication with the Office of
     Scientific Integrity.

Otis> I suggest a simple error by someone in Houston.  Why do you
     wish to make a "Federal Case" it beyond that point?  Maybe a
     secretary got the wrong impression.

Scott> This is serious stuff to involve yourself in...

Otis> It is "serious stuff" when an error of this magnitude is
     published.  I only what the facts corrected by Francis Young
     -- and that is what he did.  How this "accident" occurred is
     not my, nor Francis Young's responsibility.

Scott> ...and it's probably best to let Young do his own
     communication.

Otis> He already did.  I only wanted to have the record
     "straight".  What do you want?  The task is completed.

Scott> If you're going to post crap like this,

Otis> Your usual non-scientifc attitude.  You have already decided
     that Francis Young's statement is a lie, by calling it
     "crap".  Why go beyond that point.

Scott> ...you really should be including info on how to contact
     Francis Young.

Otis> If you contact me by email, and give me a FAX number I will
     send you his signature.  Or contact Pullman University, and
     give my regards to Dr.  Young.

Scott> Personally, I won't believe the content of this letter
     without a retraction published in the Journal,

Otis> Go back to sleep Scott.  That is fine with me.  You believe
     what you wish to believe -- regardless of the facts.  You
     have done that in the past.

Otis> And yes -- you do prefer you intellectual blindness, rahter
     than checking with the man who signed the "corrective"
     letter.  You can contact Francis Young by calling his
     college.

Scott> ...following an investigation.

Otis> Why?  To determine that some grad-student accidentally
     thought that Francis Young was involved in the "Houston
     Study"?  What are you going to do -- remove the
     grad-student's tenure?  Francis Young is old.  It is not his
     job to fix an innocent mistake of this nature.

Scott> It's hard to believe that a first author wouldn't know
     about a paper until 20 years after publication.

Otis> Well, Scott, since you called the signed statement "crap", I
     know what you prefer to believe.

Otis> I saw the "brief" of the Houston study -- and his name on
     the study fooled me, since I have worked with Francis on a
     proposal.  It only became an issue when his results so
     profoundly disagreed with the "Houston" study.  When I asked
     him to explain his "cut" on these results -- he asked me for
     details of the study.  I said that I did not have them, and
     asked him to check his records.  That shocked me.  That lead
     to further discussion and is became clear that he was never
     intellectully involved with the Houston Study and totally
     disagreed with the results (abstract) that we had.

Scott> The fact that the correction is going to Hong Kong is seen
     stranger.

Otis> The correction was discovered by talking with Francis Young
     about his excellent study and the contradictory results
     achieved by the "Houston Study".  The effort was to resolve
     the contradition.

Scott> You said earlier that Young "published" a correction.  Can
     you point to the reference?

Otis> The posted letter to the "Board" is the "published"
     correction.  I am not going to give the secretary a "hard
     time" bacause she mistakenly put his name on a study when he
     clarly had no involvement with it.

Otis> The two "studies" stand as before.  Granted the are
     profoundly contradictory about the dynamic behavior of the
     natural eye.

Otis> Francis Young used a "high" and strong plus as part of the
     plus.  There is reason to believe that the young kids
     actually looked THROUGH the plus, and the result, that
     further negative movement STOPPED is clear in the scientific
     data.  The effect of the single-minus is also clear, that
     the "control group" when "down" at a rate of -1/2 diopter
     per year.

Otis> At the very mininmum, this result supports the
     "second-opinion" that a negative refractive state of the
     natural eye could be prevented if a strong plus was used
     (under the individual's control -- with the support of a
     prevention-minded OD) BEFORE the minus lens is applied.

Best,

Otis

Scott

Dear RM,

This was just for the record -- the Francis Young had
no part of the Houston study.  He was not
consulted, nor were the final documents sent
to him for his review.  It is basically
and insult to Francis Young that this
was not done.

Best,

Otis