> My remarks are EXCLUSIVELY about a naturel eye
> that can, and potentially does have a positive refractive
> state.
Irrelevant. Your answers cannot be assumed to apply to human eyes wearing
appropriate correction.
> I REFUSE to use the term "organic defect", or any other
> assumption to talk about a population of natural primate
> eyes that behave this way.
Irrelevant. What you name it has no bearing on whether one group gets more
nearsighted than the other.
> If you want to call scientific proof about the
> natural eye's proven behavior a "lie" then do so.
The lie is that you pretend to know more than anyone else.
> It will not change the nature of pure science, nor
> the nature of scientific proof.
You have not cited any scientific proof concerning appropriate correction on
human eyes.
> And, while difficult, scientific proof does support the
> preventive second opinion as conducted by
> Steve Leung OD, and advocated by myself.
You are citing an opinion. You have not cited a comparison between one group
and another. Dr. Leung has not presented any comparison between human myopes
wearing appropriate minus and human myopes who don't. Until you present a
controverting set of data, we'll stay with the data we have.
> The others on this site can contemplate the
> nature of scientific "proof" as evaluated
> and presented by Thomans Kuhn, in
> "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".
Stop trying to teach us science and present some evidence relating to
appropriate correction in human myopes.
Again, instead of giving us comparisons between groups, you give us blather,
rhetoric, and opinion. Your opinion is not sufficient to change medical
standards.
-MT
LarryDoc - 08 Feb 2006 04:51 GMT
> Stop trying to teach us science and present some evidence relating to
> appropriate correction in human myopes.
He can't because it does not exist, except, of course in his mind.
> Again, instead of giving us comparisons between groups, you give us blather,
> rhetoric, and opinion. Your opinion is not sufficient to change medical
> standards.
You forgot to mention that his opinion has been discussed, tested and
disproved repeatedly, scientifically.
And lest we forget, it has now been four long years this month of Otis
and his Tale of Second Opinion. Congratulations, Otis, you continue to
prove only one thing: [fill in the blank or just leave it so.]
LB