 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2006SCIENCE: The proven effect of environment-change on the eye's refractive STATE
Subject: Change of refractive STATE -- wild monkeys compared with laboratory monkeys. Data collected and published by Dr. Francis Young. All measurements were OBJECTIVE -- using a retinoscope. 1. Wild Monkeys (The control group) N = 598 eyes (of wild monkeys) had their refractive state measured. The refractive state (average) was +0.63. The standard deviation was 0.72 2. Laboratory Monkeys (The test group) N = 646 eyes (of inside) monkeys had their refractive state measured. The refractive state (average) was -0.09. The Standard deviation was 1.32 In statistical testing you look for confidence levels (that the natural eye is dynamic. Levels greater-than 3.9 spell virtual certainty -- that the fundamental eye is dynamic with respect to a change in its average visual environment. Here are the calculations. The large-scale statistics are: z = [ Xc - Xt ] / Sqrt [ Sigma(c) ^2 / Nc + Sigma(t) ^2 / Nt ] z = [0.63 - ( 0.09)] / Sqrt [ (0.72 ^2 / 598) + (1.32 ^2 / 646)] z = 9.05 The one-tailed "Z" value for 99.8 percent confidence is 2.88. This calculated value profoundly exceeds this level of confidence. Anything above 3.9 is considered a virtual certainty that the refractive STATE changes as a dynamic and natural process. Enjoy, Otis > Subject: Change of refractive STATE -- wild monkeys > compared with laboratory monkeys. Gee.... Maybe alt.animals.kooks may get some use out of this dribble? I live in a human world *smile* Allen > > Subject: Change of refractive STATE -- wild monkeys > > compared with laboratory monkeys. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Allen Clearly, the domestic monkeys watch way too much TV and hold their reading material too close, compared to the wild monkeys. Gee.....how about one, just one HUMAN study that validates one, just ONE of your ridiculous beliefs. Nope, can't do that because it doesn't exist. LB I think you meant to post this in the sci.med.vision.monkey newsgroup. > Subject: Change of refractive STATE -- wild monkeys > compared with laboratory monkeys. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Otis I wonder what the statistics show for a third group, i.e. monkeys who have their visual space restricted SOMETIMES but then spend a portion of their day in the wild? you know, kind of like PEOPLE who are sometimes inside but sometimes outside. I wonder what kind of "profound" and "virtually certain" changes in their refractive state would occur? anyway, given the below data, what did axial length measurements on these two groups of monkeys show? did the laboratory monkeys have a night-light in the lab when they slept? ;) ========================== > Subject: Change of refractive STATE -- wild monkeys > compared with laboratory monkeys. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Otis > All measurements were OBJECTIVE -- using a retinoscope. > > 1. Wild Monkeys (The control group) All you can do at this point is chuckle. Once again you show yourself to be a total tosser. Francis Young is old-hat and disproven. Come up with something new - I dare you. Just don't make it something Stephen Leung has published - oops sorry he hasn't published anything has he. Well you know what I mean, come up with something original instead of the same old crap that has been shown to be wrong, misleading and totally unproven. dr grant Dear Grant, The preventive-plus is the second-opinion. As always, your arrogance and ignorance of objective scientific facts shines through. Otis > Once again you show yourself to be a total tosser. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > dr grant Dear Grant, Plus PREVENTION is the second-opinion. The only thing that exceeds your arrogance -- is your ignorance concerning the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye. As you are now demonstrating it. Further you can not even spell Steve's name correctly. See: www.chinamyopia.org Jeeze! Otis > Once again you show yourself to be a total tosser. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > dr grant > Dear Grant, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the fundamental eye. As you are now > demonstrating it. Hey, Otis. Finish your initial post by demonstrating how studies performed on MONKEYS can be considered relevant to HUMANS. Factoring in, of course, how behavioral differences between monkeys and humans is to be discarded as a variable. Monekys do not likely stare at a TV screen or computer screen for hours on end, do they? They vary their accomodation more regularly than humans, don't they? That might well make a difference in all this, might it not? If not, TELL US WHY. And do NOT, as you did before, simply tell me to do the research myself. Explain it thoroughly. Without such explanation, it's just a study on monkeys. Big frickin' deal. ((waiting for the inevitable sound of crickets...)) BD Dear BD, So you agree that when you move a population of primates from the "wild" into a caged environment their refractive STATE will cange in direction and magnitude to the "changed" enviroment. But now you claim is that NEVER happens to the human-primate eye. That SOMEHOW, the the human eye is NEVER affected by a change in environment and will NEVER move in a negative direction as a natural process. Well, how do we test you box-camera thesis? By your "story" eskimo children, with an initial refractive STATE should not move in a negative direction after either years in school. I would suggest you read Francis Youngs SCIENTIFIC study of the dynamic behavior of the natural human eye. But I am certain you will think up more excuses to ignore objective scientifc facts -- as you have done in the past. At least SOME second-opinion optometrists like Steve Leung will address this issue with the parents -- even as you will not. See: www.chinamyopia.org for a science-based method of preventing the developement of a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye. But that is science -- and nothing you are going to understand. Otis > > Dear Grant, > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > BD > So you agree that when you move a population of > primates from the "wild" into a caged environment > their refractive STATE will cange in direction > and magnitude to the "changed" enviroment. I have *agreed* to nothing. I am suggesting aspects of your theory which require additional support - and which you consistently refuse to support. > But now you claim is that NEVER happens to > the human-primate eye. That SOMEHOW, the > the human eye is NEVER affected by a change > in environment and will NEVER move in a > negative direction as a natural process. I have *claimed* nothing. I have asked you questions. Please do not put words in my mouth. I ask for an expansion on your views in the context of comparative accomodation between species. This is NOT a claim. YOU are the one making all the claims here, meladdo. > By your "story" eskimo children, with an initial refractive > STATE should not move in a negative direction > after either years in school. I have told no *story*. I have asked for clarification which you continually deflect. How about addressing my questions directly? Oh, right - it's you. I forgot. You don't do that. > I would suggest you read Francis Youngs SCIENTIFIC study > of the dynamic behavior of the natural human eye. I'm sure you would. > But I am certain you will think up more excuses to > ignore objective scientifc facts -- as you have > done in the past. And I'm sure you will continue to repeat your dogmatic claims, as you have done in the past. > At least SOME second-opinion optometrists like > Steve Leung will address this issue with the > parents -- even as you will not. NAME 'EM! > But that is science -- and nothing you are going > to understand. Oh, I understand the scientific method reasonably well. Well enough to know that someone who purports to follow the scientific method would welcome scrutiny, or at least have the cojones to respond to it directly. You ignore it, or continue to quote Leung and post the same link over and over and over. You sadly need a new schtick. Face it, Otis. You are a joke in this group. Leung would be embarrassed to have you as an advocate. Your credibility is gone, and it will never be regained. Unless you try a new schtick under a different name. Dear "BD", But of course, you wish to know if the natural human eye will move in a positive direction if you place a +2 diopter lens on a child's eyes and insist the child wear it 16/7. Here is an example of that "adaptation" with you deny. Otis ++++++++++++++++++ Subject: Proving that a positive state can be developed in the fundamental eye. This case is by a Bogo, who verified that the eye changed its refractive STATE from +2.00 diopters (both eyes) to +3.25 diopters in 8 months, and in Case 2, the change was from 0.0 to +2.75 diopters in one year. This is the expeted behavior of a dynamic living eye. From the study of the primate eye (in an open environment), it is established that the range of NORMAL refractive states is from zero to +2 diopters. It is not proper to describe a natural refractive STATE as a "error". ++++++++++++++ Hi, I wrote on March 15 regarding my son. Here is the link in case is of any use, there were a lot of nice people helping me. http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/t hread/a6... To make the story short: My four years old boy was diagnosed with strabismus and amblyopia. He started crossing (in) his right eye when he was almost 4 years old. The ophthalmologist prescribed glasses OD +2.25 (sphere) OS +1.75 (+0.25) and then advised us to patch him 2 hours a day, and do some manual activities while patched. We did this for 7 months, the amblyopia is gone for now. Both eyes are 20/30. The doctor has raised the prescription twice, so in 8 months my son has needed 3 different prescriptions, why didn't the doctor go all the way since day one? Anyway, my son has been wearing the last prescription, +3.25 in both eyes, for 5 days now and we noticed today, as he was watching TV, that he still crosses his right eye. Thanks Bogo > Here is an example of that "adaptation" with you deny. You mean *which* you deny, I presume. Your spelling errors are almost as tiresome as... well, the rest of you. And, for the record, I *denied* nothing. I asked for clarifications. Whether or not your... algebra lessons, or whatever that other post was, will suffice - is doubtful. By the way... a one-off claim from someone named "Bogo" pulled off another group posting is not particularly persuasive. You got another one of these? maybe some gal from Detroit nicknamed Zippy, otherwise completely anonymous? Umm... like something verifiable maybe? Scientific method my a.s. You're a HACK. But a little more enjoyable now than when people took you seriously. ;-) > > Here is an example of that "adaptation" with you deny. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Scientific method my a.s. You're a HACK. But a little more enjoyable > now than when people took you seriously. ;-) Dear BD, BD > Whether or not your... algebra lessons, or whatever that other post was, will suffice - is doubtful. Otis> I reget they do not teach you algebra in OD school. You are apparently only taught, "..is 1 better? ... is 2 better?" No wonder any type of scientific analysis, or worse, scientific fact -- are lost on you . Now let us see. Does the fundamental eye change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters (in 6 months) if you place a -3 diopter lens on it. Measurements to be made OBJECTIVELY with retinoscope. Test group and control group to be natural or fundamental eyes. Analysis and UNDERSTANDING require ALGEBRA, and control-theory background. But they do not present you with that type of scientific question is OD school. So do not even attempt a guess. Otis > > Here is an example of that "adaptation" with you deny. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Scientific method my a.s. You're a HACK. But a little more enjoyable > now than when people took you seriously. ;-) Hey Cletis, I know religeous fundamantalists with more reasoning than you. You keep referring to Steve Leung as some sort of expert in myopia prevention. The only problem is that he isn't. He is a sham. You keep bringing up the same study by Young, but many more since have discredited this work. You have an arguement based on nothing. You still persist. You tell people to wear plus, but then insist that hyperopes not wear plus, do you want to induce myopia in these guys? Your logic once again astounds everyone. dr grant Dear Grant, Subject: The facts presented are SCIENCE. Your habit of "name calling" is not science. Why not present some data showing that the natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC as science and facts prove it to be. Oh, OK, they do not teach you that mathematics IS THE LANGUAGE OF SCIENCE. You lack of understanding of the facts, is indeed anti-science. %%%%%%%%%%%%% Here are the calculations. The large-scale statistics are: z = [ Xc - Xt ] / Sqrt [ Sigma(c) ^2 / Nc + Sigma(t) ^2 / Nt ] z = [0.63 - ( 0.09)] / Sqrt [ (0.72 ^2 / 598) + (1.32 ^2 / 646)] z = 9.05 The one-tailed "Z" value for 99.8 percent confidence is 2.88. This calculated value profoundly exceeds this level of confidence. Anything above 3.9 is considered a virtual certainty that the refractive STATE changes as a dynamic and natural process. Enjoy, Otis > Hey Cletis, I know religeous fundamantalists with more reasoning than > you. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > dr grant Hey Cletis, where in science does it once reference "the natural eye"? It doesn't. You are not arguing science, you are arguing rhetoric and inappropriate jargon. If your arguement had any validity, you could come up with more than one reference and we would have none of your made-up case studies. We would also have this "second opinion" optometrist crap not mentioned, as your only second opinion optometrist is a shonk on Hong Kong. Can't you find any one closer to home? dr grant Grant, You are expressing your majority opinion yet again -- to the effect that: 1. The natural and fundamental eye is not a dynamic system. 2. The fundamental eye will not change its refractive STATE (as a natural process) when you place a -3 diopter lens on it. (Objectively, by direct measurement -- using the term refractive STATE.) 3. You belief that the eye is a frozen box camera, as presented by Donders, Helmholtz, Gullistrand and others -- is an excellent box-camera paradigm, but is not supported as an accurate predictive model of the dynamic behavior of the living eye. But you have every right to express you majority opinion to the effect of the above statements. The second-opinion, however is supported by objective, scientific measurements. Otis > Hey Cletis, where in science does it once reference "the natural eye"? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > dr grant Otis, Grant is not saying any of this. Like Don Quixote, you continue to tilt at windmills, creating strawman arguments. What childish nonsense. You're certainly not getting any traction with this here. Is the world really any closer to adopting your narrow and misdirected viewpoint? Even the WHO used the term refractive ERROR. DrG > Grant, > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > > > dr grant > Grant, > > You are expressing your majority opinion yet again -- to > the effect that: > > 1. The natural and fundamental eye is not a dynamic system. i don't believe anyone except YOU have even said this. this is an argument YOU try to assign to everyone else. Firstly, WE are eye doctors, and we know EXACTLY what the dynamic parts of the visual system are and the degree and timeframe over which they are dynamic. our knowledge is backed up by science, hundreds of years of clinical experience that is handed down during our training, and many many years of personal experience the we personally have accumulated. you have NO experience, NO training, and NO understanding of the science. all you have is a bull-headed argument that you repeat over and over again. > 2. The fundamental eye will not change its refractive STATE > (as a natural process) when you place a -3 diopter lens > on it. (Objectively, by direct measurement -- using the > term refractive STATE.) This was shown in a brief experiment done on monkeys in a laboratory environment decades ago by a one particular researcher. these animals were treated with excessive minus lenses-- using a strength that was 3 diopters greater than they needed to focus their vision on optical infinity. this amount of lens strength induced 3 diopters of compensatory accommodation in these animals 24/7! i am sure that your underdeveloped and biased brain can see that this has NO correlation to what we do when we treat nearsighted individuals with just enough minus to give them 20/20 distance vision and induce NO compensatory accommodation. this argument, that you repeat over and over again (because you have little else to support your unsound point of view) is obviously irrelevant. > 3. You belief that the eye is a frozen box camera, as > presented by Donders, Helmholtz, Gullistrand and > others -- is an excellent box-camera paradigm, but noone here has EVER said the eye is a box camera-- except you. you just try to pin this argument on others because it seems like its attackable. as mentioned in the first point above, we know far better than you what is static and what is dynamic about the human eye and visual system. you on the other hand are a retired old fool who has not real training or experience but somehow think he is gifted with an innate divine knowledge of the human eye. you are either deluded or pathetic. perhaps both. > The second-opinion, however is supported by objective, > scientific measurements. this is not the second opinion. this is Otis' opinion. you are standing alone on this one you sick old man. > 1. Wild Monkeys (The control group) Runnin' to and fro, hard Workin at the mill Never fail, get the mail He comes a rotton bill Too much monkey business Too much monkey business Too much monkey business for me to be involved in Say me Talkin to me Tryin' to run me up a creek Say you can buy ???? You can pay me next week Too much monkey business Too much monkey business Too much monkey business for me to be involved in Long-haried, good lookin' Tryin' to get me hooked Want me to marry, buy a home Settle down, write a book Too much monkey business Too much monkey business Too much monkey business for me to be involved in Same thing every day Gettin' up, going to school No need to be complainin' My objection's overruled Too much monkey business Too much monkey business Too much monkey business for me to be involved in Title: "Visual Acuity and Refractive Errors in Primates" Francis Young, Primate Research Center, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington Reprinted from the Proceedings, 77th Annual Convention, APA 1969 Extracts: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Subject: Visual Acuity and measured Refractive STATES. It is possible to have 20/20 and a refractive STATE of -1/2 diopters -- as per this discussion. (Refractive STATE measured with a retinoscope and supporting technique.) "... Animals less than 12 of age with refractive errors* between 2.00 and -0.5 diopters, normal retina and no obvious visual difficulties are likely to have 20/20 acuity at near and far at better than the 5% level of confidence. Of some 26 rhesus monkeys within this range of refractive errors* all had 20/15 or 20/20 visual acuity. Animals with refractive errors* greater than 2.00 diopters may have 20/20 acuity at far but not at near. Animals with refractive errors* which are more minus than -0.5 diopters will not have 20/20 acuity at far but may have it at near." %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% * Errors The term "error" comes from traditional practice, where all refractive STATES that were not exactly zero -- were called "errors". This implies something about these monkeys that is simply not true. That their eyes were "defective" in some manner. In fact, Dr. Young states that (with good retinas and no medical problems) eyes with refractive STATES in the range of -1/2 diopter to +2 diopters have excellent vision. The term "error", while traditional, leads to false ideas about the visual acuity of primates in the wild. In fact the distribution of refractive STATES of wild monkeys have an average of about 0.7 diopters, with a standard deviation of +0.7 diopters. With the knowledge that you can have 20/20 and a refractive STATE of -1/2 diopters, and further 20/20 with a refractive STATE of +2.5 diopters, it means that, in the wild, about 98 percent of the primates had excellent vision. This is also true of the Eskimos -- who could not read, and had no written language. Best, Otis ++++++++++++++ > Subject: Change of refractive STATE -- wild monkeys > compared with laboratory monkeys. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Otis > Title: "Visual Acuity and Refractive Errors in Primates" Put your therapist on danger pay. Funny, when I ask Cletis to provide documentation from someone other than Young, we get more Young thrown at us. Cletis is one smart guy. dr grant > Funny, when I ask Cletis to provide documentation from someone other > than Young, we get more Young thrown at us. That's because he's Special. As in "Special Needs" special. Only explanation at this point. |
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.