 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2007Vision Clearing from 20/140 with Ortho-K and Plus 3
Dear Second-opinion friends, We are here on sci.med.vision to learn of successful methods others have used to clear their vision to 20/20. This is a report on a work in progress to achieve that goal. Vision-clearing with the plus is indeed slow. But some people have succeeded from the 20/70 level (about -1.25 dipoters) to 20/20 with the plus alone. Yves (name changed) used the plus at 20/140 (about -2 diopters), and saw little progress. He decided (on his own) to clear with Ortho-K, and then use a +3 diopter for ALL CLOSE WORK to retain the result of Ortho-K. This is possible, because the Ortho-K lens reshapes the cornea, so that the eye's total power can be changed from, say 60 diopters to 58 diopters, giving him a refractive STATE of zero diopters and 20/20 vision. The problem is that the cornea "springs back" and you lose what you have gained after a week -- when you quit wearing that retainer. Yves is doing an experiment. Here he confirms that his refractive power of his eyes is now about 56 diopters, and his refractive STATE is about +2 diopters, i.e., Ortho-K has achieved a total power change of 4 diopters. Refractive STATE of +2 diopters? That means that he can read 20/20 through a +2 diopter lens. Eskimos in the "open" with good vision have reafractive STATES from zero to +3 diopters -- normal and typical values for refractive STATES. Here is Yves commentary. ===================== Yves> Update: Alright, it's been two weeks now since i started ortho-k, For the last 5 days or so my left eye upon taking the contacts off in the morning was a little fogged, meaning i had a slight fog-like effect when i was looking at objects which would dissipate by the end of the day. All this time i'm using +3 for the computer work of course. During the night from friday to saturday I could not wear the contacts, as soon as i put them on i had horrible eye tearing... Next night i was pretty tired, so i just put the contacts in and went to sleep. On Monday woke up, took the contancts off - boom - both eyes now had the fogging effect and were swollen like i was stung by bees. For experimentation i put on +2 and i could see the 20/20, i thought that was a bit strange. I went to the doctor for an emergency meeting that day and he simply thought that this was due to the bad solution and gave me a new one to try.... hmm, I said ok and went home... >From Monday to Tuesday I didn't wear the contacts at night, the swelling dissipated and i currently have 20/20 in both eyes... Here's my theory: since I was using the plus lense all the time for computer pretty much 8 hours a day, i think the shape of my eye has actually changed making the current ortho-k prescription too strong, that's why i could see 20/20 with the +2 on... not sure if that makes much sense, let me know what you think otis. Also this morning I could read the computer screen from 1.5 meters with +3 on.. My plan is to skip another night and see how much it goes down by tomorrow night. Thanks! Yves =========== It is my belief that Yves will be successful, and will maintain a refractive STATE of +1/2 diopter (or better) and therefore 20/20. But I expect that it will take about three months, of continuous use before the +3 diopter will "lock" his refractive STATE at +1/2 diopter and 20/20 vision. Best, Otis > This > is a report on a work in progress to achieve that goal. This is another Elevator Boy, unverifiable, third-party anecdote. Please ignore it. Mr. Brown has a horrible allergy to facts, honesty, and truth. [snip] > We are here on sci.med.vision to learn of successful methods > others have used to clear their vision to 20/20. No, we're here to learn why anecdotes are treacherous evidence. > Vision-clearing with the plus is indeed slow. But some > people have succeeded from the 20/70 level (about -1.25 dipoters) > to 20/20 with the plus alone. Yve's eyes did not grow shorter. Tonic accommodation is not anatomical myopia. In the real world we have to consider them separately. You don't. -MT Once again you show what a total moron you are Cletis. (Def: Moron - one with an IQ<70) If this were real, the simple answer is Yves would be overcorrected with OK. He would also be the first person in history to use +3.00 on a computer as we all sit 33cm from the screen. In reality, you are still making up stories as we have run out of Francis Young stories and Steven Leung has distanced himself from you. Even Christine Wildsoet thinks you are a total dickhead. dr grant Dear SUPPORTIVE Ortho-K friends, Fortunately a scientific concept of the natural eye's dynamic behavior has been developed and published. See: http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic. This blue-tint mathematical model of the fundamental eye's proven behavior is correct in science. The only issue is the scale of this response, (both plus and minus). It is indeed slow. Yves has changed the power of his eyes by about 4 diopters, from 60 to 56 diopters by altering the shape of the cornea. The cornean will "spring back" in about a week, unless Yves gets rid of that wretched "near" environment with a plus 3. If he continues to use the +3 for ALL close work the "blue-tint" mathmatical model will "kick in", and pick up the slack as the cornea springs back. Thus the plus effect (blue tint model) will enable Yves to retain a refractive STATE of +1 dioper (and 20/20) long after the "spring back" effect has worn off. Yves shall see in time if this it the truth. This would be a powerful "selling" tool for Orth-K -- in the future. As the second-opinion -- of course! It would beat Lasik that has serious secondary consequences. Best, Otis > Once again you show what a total moron you are Cletis. (Def: Moron - > one with an IQ<70) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > dr grant Dear prevention-minded friends, Here is some clarification about plus-prevention ENABLED by Ortho-K. Dear Yves, Subject: The majority-opinion against Ortho-K I am glad you posted this -- see 20/20 through a plus 2 diopters. When you are able to do this, your refractive STATE is +2 diopters. Yves> "...actually changed making the current ortho-k prescription too strong, that's why i could see 20/20 with the +2 on... " Actually, this proves how EFFECTIVE Ortho-K actually is. You could quit wearing Ortho-K until the cornea "springs back" to zero diopters (i.e., a +1/2 diopter would blur the 20/20 line. Yves> "...not sure if that makes much sense, let me know what you think otis. Otis> A refractive STATE of +2 diopters (as you measured it) is a buffer. Thus, I would strongly recommend that you go on "hold" with your Ortho-K retainer, until you find that a +1 diopter will blur the 20/20 line for you. Otis> In fact I would not wear the Ortho-K until you again see blur on the 20/20 line. Otis> This is wear a set of low-cost plus lenses would be of value for this type of checking. Yves > "...Also this morning I could read the computer screen from 1.5 meters with +3 on..". Otis> More valuable information for me and you. Otis> This simply proves that you have a temporary refractive STATE of about +2 diopters. Otis> You can now check for "spring back" of the cornea. As this "spring-back" occurs you will find that the blur-point simply moves closer, to about 0.5 cm. Otis> There is no reason to wear the Ortho-K "retainer" until that happens. Otis> I am VERY INTERESTED IN THIS PROCESS FOR BOTH OF US! Otis> If your refractive STATE were zero, the point of just-blur would be about 13 inches through a +3 diopter lens. Otis> What a GREAT learning experience! Otis +++++++++++++++ ======== On Feb 8, 4:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear SUPPORTIVE Ortho-K friends, > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You are ramming so much crap up your cake-hole Cletis you are falling apart at the seams. It appears that stuffing too much crap up your rear really does have crap coming out your mouth. Try discussing science for once, it may help with the constipation. dr grant You still responding to your own posts time and again? Makes you look rather ... oh, I don't know ... insane? Yeah. That's it. On Feb 8, 1:54 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear prevention-minded friends, > > Here is some clarification about plus-prevention > ENABLED by Ortho-K. > > DearYves, [unverifiable, third-hand anecdote -- probably from fictitious person -- snipped] --- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@...> wrote: > Dear Second-opinion friends, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yves used the plus at 20/140 (about -2 diopters), and saw > little progress. I'm always grateful for these unverifiable, third-hand anecdotes. That said, however, here is a far more plausible explanation of the results that we all see far too often around here: The plus lens really isn't doing anything. How do I back up that claim? Here. Look at the study of US Air Force Academy cadets (n=994): http://print.nap.edu/pdf/0309040817/pdf_image/33.pdf You'll see that: - 26% of the myopes did not shift or shifted HYPEROPIC - 59% of the emmetropes did not shift or shifted HYPEROPIC - 52% of the hyperopes did not shift or shifted HYPEROPIC Something tells me that these percentages will pretty much mirror the results of plus lens therapy. In other words, here's a good control for you. It sure seems like the plus lens hasn't had ANY impact on these numbers, meaning that ... it hasn't been any more effective than -- what do YOU call it? -- the "null hypothesis" (in this case: doing nothing). Please address this ... fully, directly, and honestly. > http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html > > Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic. At what age? > This blue-tint mathematical model of the fundamental eye's > proven behavior is correct in science. At what age? > The only issue is the scale of this response, (both > plus and minus). It is indeed slow. At what age? -MT Dear Second-opinion Friends, The Normal eye can be expected to be dynamic. The blue-tint mathematical model for the NORMAL eye can be verified -- and has been under a number of objective tests. If the blue-tint concept is correct for Yves normal eyes, then there are two possible results: 1. The blue-tint model (predicting stablization at +1/2 diopter, 20/20) is correct. When Yves stops using the Ortho-K Retainer, his refractive STATS will be at 1/2 to +1 diopter -- WHICH HE WILL VERIFY with a +1/2 to +1 diopter lens. 2. The blue-tint model is not accurate. When the use of the Ortho-K retainer is stopped, his refractve state will go from 56 diopters back to 60 diopters, and his relative refractive STATE will be -2 diopters, with a Snellen of 20/140. Since this process takes very strong dedication, we can not predict this result. But, assuming Yves sticks with this effort, I will report results in terms of refractive STATE as they develop. Best, Otis > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > -MT Subject: My opinion about Ortho-K, and a follow-up +3 diopter. If you pay $1,600 for Ortho-K, and that clears your refractive STATE from -2 diopters to +2 diopters then that is great. I regard this like a dental operation. Effective for its purpose. I regard the use of the plus 3 for all close work -- like brushing your teeth on a daily basis -- to keep what you have gained for the $1,600 you paid to get to a positive refractive STATE. I think that anyone selling Ortho-K, should automatically DISCUSS the possibility of using the plus, and SAVING the $1,600 that the person invested in his distant vision. That is the real issue for Yves. Since his is making these refractive STATE measurements himself on his NORMAL eye, he can also make the judgment about the results also. If successful, his retainer is not Ortho-K, but rather a $9 plus lens. And the "price" of "brushing your teeth" on a regular basis. Sounds like a good trade-off to me. Otis On Feb 8, 9:34 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Second-opinion Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > If you pay $1,600 for Ortho-K, and that clears your refractive > STATE from -2 diopters to +2 diopters then that is > great. > > I regard this like a dental operation. Effective for > its purpose. Like pulling a tooth that always grows back. > I regard the use of the plus 3 for all close work -- like > brushing your teeth on a daily basis -- to keep > what you have gained for the $1,600 you paid > to get to a positive refractive STATE. So that's why ortho-K includes a free pair of +3.00 reading glasses? > I think that anyone selling Ortho-K, should > automatically DISCUSS the possibility > of using the plus, and SAVING the > $1,600 that the person invested > in his distant vision. That's because ortho-K works, sorta. The other doesn't. > That is the real issue for Yves. Since > his is making these refractive STATE measurements > himself on his NORMAL eye, he can also > make the judgment about the results also. Yes. Self-evaluation is the epitome of good experimental design. > If successful, his retainer is not Ortho-K, but > rather a $9 plus lens. *If*? Whaddya mean *if*? > And the "price" of "brushing your teeth" on > a regular basis. Like a $1600 haircut? > Sounds like a good trade-off to me. Sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. Not that you care. -MT On Feb 8, 4:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Fortunately a scientific concept of the > natural eye's dynamic behavior has been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic. Perhaps readers may want to check out Dr Wildsoet's home page before accepting "proven". In it she says: "The etiology of human myopia remains poorly understood." and she says: "Of the many questions waiting to be answered: What aspects of visual experience and associated retinal images underlie myopia? What are the ocular growth signals and how are they signaled from the retina and sclera? How do myopic eyes achieve their enlarged dimensions? Is it possible to inhibit myopic growth pharmacologically in ways that may be suitable for use in humans? " With regard to the diagram, this is a diagram illustrating emmetropization in young animals when hyperopia is imposed by minus lenses (it has little to no relevance to correcting myopia with minus) "However, experimentally imposed focusing errors (refractive errors) also trigger emmetropization: for example, with hyperopia imposed with negative defocusing lenses, the eye elongates and with imposed myopia (with positive defocusing lenses), eye growth is inhibited. In both cases, the end result in young animals is emmetropia with the lenses in place" Dr Judy > On Feb 8, 4:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > cases, the end result in young animals is emmetropia with the lenses > in place" I was an Electrical Engineering major in college. I always get a chuckle when Elevator Boy tries to pull "closed-loop feedback system" analogies out of his arse. Think of your home's oven as an analogy. You set the thermostat for 350 degrees (F). If the oven is already at 275F, then the thermostat will signal an INcrease in temperature. If the oven is already at 425F, then the thermostat will signal a DEcrease in temperature. IF, however, the oven is already at 350F -- the desired temperature -- then the thermostat will not signal any change. Elevator boy can't even make the simplest of engineering metaphors work. ... He also cannot differentiate between age groups (dangerous, I think). He also cannot differentiate between chickens, shrews, monkeys, and people (possibly explaining why he never reproduced. Possibly). He also cannot differentiate between near-point esophores and those without binocular abnormalities. He also cannot differentiate between correlation and causation. He has great difficulty with honesty and factual information (presents nephew as 'success story' while forgetting about myopic niece). I suspect he is a =deeply= religious man. While some who hold such strong beliefs can still be objective observers of scientific fact--he cannot. It goes on and on and on. The pathology ... she runs quite deep. On Feb 8, 3:47 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear SUPPORTIVE Ortho-K friends, > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Otis, Which theory do you believe best explains why humans become nearsighted? Is it because of over-accommodation, under- accommodation, off-axis hyperopic defocus? Do you know that optometrists are actually involved in this research? Can you name some of them? DrG Dear Open-minded freinds, Subject: The easy minus lens. Yes, a quick-fix works and is profoundly impressive. It it were proven to be SAFE, then everything would be OK. The problem is -- that is NOT the case. Fortunately a scientific concept of the natural eye's dynamic behavior has been developed and published. See: http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic. Now the question is, who is supporting HONEST PREVENTIVE MEASURES, and who do you TRUST and why? One thing is certain. When I discuss plus-prevention and the honest difficulties with is -- I also discuss profound arrogance and the effect it has on understanding the nature of plus-prevention at the threshold. And this is an example of that insufferable arrogance. I believe is having an OPEN and HONEST discussion about the natural eye's proven behavior. Indeed, I will call is the second-opinion if you wish. But any discussion of these wide ranging scientific paradigms must review Catman's blind attitude towards science and the facts. No progress is possible under this circumstance presented below. ================= If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him. Mark Twain "All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." Galileo >From Dr. Grant Speaking seriously, and as a professional, there are a few points I wish to make. 1) In my consulting room, as you correctly stated, I am god. 2) I earned that right through study, hard work and developing a reputation for quality work, excellent results and caring for my patients and their welfare. 3) You have not earned that right. You are a pathetic little pissant that insults the very fibre of prevention of myopia. You do not deal with 20 patients a day wanting to see clearly, you do not have to ensure that a kid can see the board in class, as well as read and function outside the classroom. 4) You have no concept of the issues, I and every other OD must face on a daily basis for the best welfare of each and every one of our patients. You prefer to pontificate about evil minus and second opinion crap, whose supporters are less credible than yourself. 5) You keep talking about second opinion doctors, but never name any other than Steven Leung. Why is this? I do know several OD's in Hong Kong and Singapore and Steven Leung is held in the esteem that I hold you and Nancy. He has no basis to his method, he just uses the fear of parents to sell his glasses for his own profit. His website is a fraud and most of the links don't work. There is no scientific validation, just fear-mongering. All in all, you are a pathetic, miserable sycophant that has nothing to provdie other than fear. No answers, no proof, nothing. Crawl back under your rock and fester away. dr grant (CatMan) ============= > Otis, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Feb 10, 12:17 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Open-minded freinds, > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Otis, Why not just answer my question? DrG For the same reason you do not answer my question about the proven effect that a -3 diopter lens has on a population of natural eyes. See the blue-tint model of the behavior of the natural dynamic eye -- since you do not seem to understand the English language describing what is natural, normal and EXPECTED. But yes, if quick-fixing in an office in 5 minutes is all you do -- well I understand THAT aspect of your business. Otis > On Feb 10, 12:17 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 117 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Feb 10, 3:01 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > For the same reason you do not answer my question > about the proven effect that a -3 diopter lens has on [quoted text clipped - 119 lines] > > > > > DrG- Hide quoted text - But remember the title of this thread:' Ortho-K, and ENHANCEMENT with a +3 diopter lens. Are you against the SECOND-OPINION of Otho-K? Yes or no? Do you support alternative methods, that include the right of the person to ENHANCE the result of Ortho-K, and keep his refractive STATE POSITIVE, and his 20/20? It seems to me that Yves has that basic human right. Are you trying to deny him that right? You do not like the dynamic-eye concept, and plus-prevention. Sure, I understand that. No one asked YOU to practice it -- did they?? Yves wants to keep his refractive STATE positive, and the blue-tint paradigm indicates that is MIGHT be possible. Since Yves can check his refractive STATE with a Snellen and a +1 dipoter lens -- and KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING -- why not encourage him to continue -- and LEARN SOMETHING IN THIS PROCESS. If Yves is totally successful, the the optometrists supporging Orth-K will have a powerful selling point for there professional product. And BOTH parties get what they want in that exchange. So if you HATE this process -- of personal empowerment -- why not say so. That is your opinion and NO ONE IS ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT PLUS PREVENTION, nor Ortho-K and plus prevention. Otis > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dr. G wrote- >> Why not just answer my question? otisbrown@pa.net did nothing but defecate via the keyboard: > But remember the title of this thread:' Yes. We all know. When YOU want to blather, you cling desperately to your preferred topic. When others dispute you, you tap-dance, avoid, obfuscate, create straw men, or -- not nearly often enough -- just hide for a bit. > Ortho-K, and ENHANCEMENT with a +3 diopter lens. > > Are you against the SECOND-OPINION of Otho-K? > > Yes or no? Nice straw man. Can't you EVER answer a simple, direct, relevant question? > Do you support alternative methods, that include > the right of the person to ENHANCE the > result of Ortho-K, and keep his refractive > STATE POSITIVE, and his 20/20? See previous comment. > It seems to me that Yves has that basic human > right. > > Are you trying to deny him that right? Yeah, Otis. He's on an extraordinary rendition flight to Syria right now. You need psychiatric help. > You do not like the dynamic-eye concept, and > plus-prevention. Sure, I understand that. No > one asked YOU to practice it -- did they?? You've typed lots of bytes here, but nothing coherent. Not one single answer to the direct question posed to you. > Yves wants to keep his refractive STATE positive, > and the blue-tint paradigm indicates that is MIGHT > be possible. See my oven thermostat analogy, then answer the question. What happens when you put a -3d lens on a -3d eye (hint: nothing). > Since Yves can check his refractive STATE with > a Snellen and a +1 dipoter lens -- and KNOWS > WHAT HE IS DOING -- why not encourage > him to continue -- and LEARN SOMETHING > IN THIS PROCESS. Your straw man is getting bigger and bigger and bigger, yet -- as always -- you're the only one talking about this chimerical "Yves." > If Yves is totally successful, the the optometrists > supporging Orth-K will have a powerful selling [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So if you HATE this process -- of personal > empowerment -- why not say so. Why must you constantly put words in people's mouths. It just makes you look more and more pathetic and dishonest. You realize that, don't you? > That is your opinion and NO ONE IS > ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT PLUS PREVENTION, > nor Ortho-K and plus prevention. But--as always--people ARE asking YOU to answer direct, logical, and relevant questions, and--as always--you will not. Sick, pathetic, old man.... > Do you support alternative methods, that include > the right of the person to ENHANCE the > result of Ortho-K, and keep his refractive > STATE POSITIVE, and his 20/20? That doesn't work. -MT On Feb 10, 2:01 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > For the same reason you do not answer my question > about the proven effect that a -3 diopter lens has on [quoted text clipped - 133 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Dear Otis, If you put a +3 diopter lens on the eye of an emmetropic chicken, then the eye of the chicken will become hyperopic. If you put a -3 diopter lens on an emmetropic chicken, the chicken's eye will become myopic. Of course, the chicken needs to be natural and dynamic. Now, please answer my question. Drg Dear "L", Subject: Separating objective, scientific fact -- from the public's preception of you. Your definition of NORMAL is "Emmetropic". And what you mean, is a refractive STATE of zero, +1/4 diopter. Therefore to test the NORMAL eye's behavior, it would be necessary to measure the refractive STATEs of primates PRIOR to deterning the behavior of the NORMAL eye. I think you agree with the above statement thus far. Now the question is this. If I force a -3 diopter lens on the young primate eye, what will happen? The first thing that will happen is that the NORMAL accommodation system will change to clear the blur induced by the -3 diopter lens (as a natural process of the NORMAL accommodation system.) We have changed BOTH the instant value of accomodation and its AVERAGE value as well on a 16 hour / 7 day basis. Now the NORMAL eye "knows" this average value. Does the NORMAL eye change its refractive STATE by -2 diopters in six months -- or does it not. You said the "chicken eye", and ASSUMED that the natural human-primate or monkey-primate eye does not "control" in this maner. Thus you deny that the NORMAL eye will change in this manner. That is fine with me. You have every right to maintain you majority-opinion that the NORMAL eye will not respond in this manner. I disagree with you on the basis on objective, scientific facts. That is all. Otis > On Feb 10, 2:01 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Feb 10, 9:13 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear "L", > > Subject: Separating objective, scientific fact -- from > the public's preception of you. You are trying to change the subject. Why will you not answer a very simple question: What is your theory concerning the cause of myopia? > Your definition of NORMAL is "Emmetropic". > And what you mean, is a refractive STATE of > zero, +1/4 diopter. Real scientists use scientific definitions. Scientists know what "emmetropic" means. > Therefore to test the NORMAL eye's behavior, > it would be necessary to measure the refractive STATEs [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Now the question is this. If I force a -3 diopter lens > on the young primate eye, what will happen? That depends on the refractive power of the primate's eye at the beginning of the experiment. > The first thing that will happen is that the NORMAL > accommodation system will change to clear > the blur induced by the -3 diopter lens (as > a natural process of the NORMAL accommodation > system.) If the primate eye has a power of +3 diopters, and the working distance is infinity, then no accommodation will be required when a -3 diopter lens is "forced" on the primate. Based on the above paragraph, I now "see" what your working hypothesis is, and so there is no need to carry this discussion further. The bottom line is that you are not keeping up with current research because of your hubris. That is all. DrG Elevator Boy blathered: >> Subject: Separating objective, scientific fact -- from >> the public's preception of you. And Dr. Leukoma responded: > You are trying to change the subject. Why will you not answer a very > simple question: What is your theory concerning the cause of myopia? >> Your definition of NORMAL is "Emmetropic". >> And what you mean, is a refractive STATE of >> zero, +1/4 diopter. > Real scientists use scientific definitions. Scientists know what > "emmetropic" means. Gotta' assume Elevator Boy is either deathly afraid of challenges to his zealously guarded hypothesis or simply too intellectually weak to genuinely engage without straying into the Twilight Zone. I defy the reader to find any logical fallacy of which Elevator Boy isn't regularly guilty: http://tinyurl.com/qx49 I'd like to suggest a sort of "Elevator Boy Home Game." We earn points by citing the logical fallacies, by name, in Elevator Boy's posts. Dear "L", Please DEFINE exactly what you mean by the work emmetropia, or "normal eye". Is it: 1. A refractive STATE of exactly zero? 2. Refractive STATES of from zero to +1/4 dioper? 3. Or has there never been any true definion of emmetropia at all. Just a vague concept. 4. Under this discussion, I would agree that the normal eye could behave differently than the AMETROPIC eye. 5. Thus I must have an exact definition of normal -- inorder to OBJECTIVELY TEST the behavior of the normal eye. That way I can draw conclusions about the dynamic behavior of the EMMETROPIC (or normal) eye -- and not the AMETROPIC eye. You can not test the ametropic eye, and draw conclusion about the normal eye -- now can you? Failure to provide quantitative definition of emmetropia will end our discussion at this point. Best, Otis > On Feb 10, 9:13 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > DrG On Feb 11, 9:10 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Please DEFINE exactly what you mean > by the work emmetropia, or "normal eye". [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > definion of emmetropia at all. Just > a vague concept. Vague to whom? Not to most people. Here, just Google it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=HPIC,HPIC:2005-33,HPIC:en&defl=en&q=defin e:emmetropia&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title I've never seen anybody with such an ability to obfuscate something as simple as the term "emmetropia." > Failure to provide quantitative definition > of emmetropia will end our discussion at this point. You have turned this discussion into a form of entertainment that most of us have grown tired of. DrG > Please DEFINE exactly what you mean > by the work emmetropia, or "normal eye". It ain't -3.00. > 3. Or has there never been any true > definion of emmetropia at all. Just > a vague concept. How about the term "healthy?" Is that a vague concept? How vague is "natural eye?" > 4. Under this discussion, I would agree > that the normal eye could behave differently > than the AMETROPIC eye. So exactly why is it harmful to put -3 lenses on -3 eyes? > 5. Thus I must have an exact definition of > normal -- inorder to OBJECTIVELY TEST the > behavior of the normal eye. Like your exact definition for "NATURAL?" No thanks. > That way > I can draw conclusions about the dynamic > behavior of the EMMETROPIC (or normal) > eye -- and not the AMETROPIC eye. Well, most people wearing -3 lenses are not EMMETROPIC. > Failure to provide quantitative definition > of emmetropia will end our discussion at this point. We would be happy if you ended your discussion at this point. But "emmetropia" is not a mathematical term, subject to an engineer's rigor. Clinical terms like "emmetropia" and "healthy" always allow flexibility and a range of statistical variation. The terms "natural" and "normal" are no better defined than "emmetropia." Throwing up roadblocks in this manner is a deceitful debate tactic. It's great for maintaining misconceptions, don't ya think? -MT Dear Mike, It obviously serves YOUR purposes to use words that have no meaningful definitions. Why not just state that the eye can have negative or postive refractive STATES, rather than use misleading and biased terms that have no meaning as you now admit. I will not use the work "emmetropic" any more for EXACTLY that reason. To continue to use words that have no meaning IS NOT SCIENTIFIC, now is it? Otis > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > -MT Cluck, Cluck, Cluck...... Sounds like Cletis is feeding the chickens again. Yes, Catman Grant. This is all a big Joke to you, isn't it? And the fact of 88 percent myopic students must have you rolling on the floor in mirth. http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html' Think of all the new business this generates for you. Yes, Catman, laugh it all off. Otis > Cluck, Cluck, Cluck...... > > Sounds like Cletis is feeding the chickens again. Hey Cletis you moron!!! Your link doesn't exist once again. Sort of like Leung, Oakley and Young, Yves and all your other alias'. Yes, I roll on the floor, laughing in mirth at your stupidity. dr grant Hey Cat man, Some people are computer-smart. You are obviously NOT. http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html There was a slight error in the post. Try the above link. Not everything in this world is simplistic as you seem to want it to be. Some things take a little "smarts" to figure out. Otis > Hey Cletis you moron!!! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > dr grant > Not everything in this world is simplistic as you seem to > want it to be. Some things take a little "smarts" to figure out. So how many +3 hyperopes have become +1 hyperopes by removing their glasses? And why aren't you wearing plus? Hmm? -MT Hey, a.s-Clown, I sort of assume that is you post a hyperlink, you post it correctly. If you want people to read your crap, you should give them the correct address, otherwise they will think you as stupid as I do. Now as much as I condemn your racist attitude, calling asians monkeys is going a bit too far. You can't compare 2 groups and expect the same responses. Where is your study of school aged students that have never been to school in Hing Kong so we can see what sort of shift is made of these kids going to school. Anything else is irrelevant. dr grant On Feb 11, 12:55 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: Otis said: > I will not use the work "emmetropic" any more > for EXACTLY that reason. To continue to > use words that have no meaning IS NOT > SCIENTIFIC, now is it? ROFL. DrG > Why not just state that the eye can > have negative or postive refractive STATES, > rather than use misleading and biased terms > that have no meaning as you now admit. Which is better defined, "emmetropia" or "natural?" > I will not use the work "emmetropic" any more > for EXACTLY that reason. To continue to > use words that have no meaning IS NOT > SCIENTIFIC, now is it? Let's say it's not "NATURAL." -MT > Now the question is this. If I force a -3 diopter lens > on the young primate eye, what will happen? Is it a "natural" eye, or a -3 eye? Do you know the difference? > The first thing that will happen is that the NORMAL > accommodation system will change to clear > the blur induced by the -3 diopter lens (as > a natural process of the NORMAL accommodation > system.) Why would anyone put a -3 lens on a "normal" eye? > We have changed BOTH the instant value of > accomodation and its AVERAGE value as > well on a 16 hour / 7 day basis. Not to mention headaches, double vision, and decreased performance. > Does the NORMAL eye change its refractive > STATE by -2 diopters in six months -- or > does it not. So the +3 hyperope takes off his glasses and becomes a +1 hyperope in six months? NOT. > Thus you deny that the NORMAL eye will > change in this manner. Thus you demonstrate you have no idea what happens in the real world. > That is fine with me. You have every > right to maintain you majority-opinion that > the NORMAL eye will not respond in this > manner. And you have every right to maintain your ignorant misconceptions. But when you start preaching your gospel to the uninitiated, forgive us for raising an objection or two. > I disagree with you on the basis on > objective, scientific facts. You don't KNOW the objective, scientific facts. Does an uncorrected +3 hyperope become a +1 hyperope? -MT > For the same reason you do not answer my question > about the proven effect that a -3 diopter lens has on > a population of natural eyes. Because you can't TELL the effect without comparing a similar group with NO lens. If you ever bother to make that comparison, you'll stop making ignorant claims. > See the blue-tint model of the behavior of the natural > dynamic eye -- since you do not seem to understand > the English language describing what is natural, > normal and EXPECTED. Your "blue-tint model" doesn't work in humans old enough to get myopia. > But yes, if quick-fixing in an office in 5 minutes is all you > do -- well I understand THAT aspect of your business. Obviously not. -MT |
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.