Subject: The Commet study versus the Oakley-Young study.
Yes, I have read both of them.
You seem to have NOT read the Oakley-Young study,
or have not UNDERSTOOD IT.
Both study show this:
1. If you place a child in a strong minus (the control group)
their natural refractive STATE follows that wretched minus, and
goes DOWN at a rate of -1/2 to 6/10 diopter PER YEAR.
2. Fancis Young used a HIGH PLACED PLUS, so
the child could not avoid looking through the plus for
ALL CLOSE WORK.
3. The various small segment "bifocal" studies enable
the child to AVOID LOOKING THROUGH THE PLUS.
Further THERE WAS NO EFFORT TO SEE IF THE
KIDS ACTUALLY LOOKED THROUGH THE PLUS.
Thus it hardly qualified as a controlled study, since
what the kids were doing was un-controlled.
4. What Francis Youngs "plus" study showed that
the control group went DOWN at a rate of -1/2 diopter
per year over four years. The "plus" went down
at essentially zero diopters per year. Thus
after four years, (in concept) a plus lens user
would keep his distant vision clear, while the
strong-minus would be down by -2 diopters
or 20/140 four years.
Yes, you majority-opinion DENYS all facts
that you don't like.
Hardly an open mind I would suggest.
The second-opinion ODs suppport the
concept of the person being supplied
with this type of preventive information.
I think that the parent has the right to
review this type of second-opinion, and
you do not. That is the difference between us.
Otis
> On Feb 14, 9:56 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 100 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks - 15 Feb 2007 18:51 GMT
You're lying again, Otis.
See: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt
Mike Tyner - 15 Feb 2007 19:04 GMT
> Yes, I have read both of them.
Then you know that one of them hasn't been repeatable.
> You seem to have NOT read the Oakley-Young study,
> or have not UNDERSTOOD IT.
And YOU seem to think nobody tried it after the study was released.
> 1. If you place a child in a strong minus (the control group)
> their natural refractive STATE follows that wretched minus, and
> goes DOWN at a rate of -1/2 to 6/10 diopter PER YEAR.
Other studies show the "natural refractive STATE goes DOWN" when they DON'T
wear that wretched minus.
> Yes, you majority-opinion DENYS all facts
> that you don't like.
No, just the ones we can't verify.
-MT
Dr. Leukoma - 15 Feb 2007 20:13 GMT
On Feb 15, 12:36 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Subject: The Commet study versus the Oakley-Young study.
>
> Yes, I have read both of them.
>
> You seem to have NOT read the Oakley-Young study,
> or have not UNDERSTOOD IT.
Yes, I have read it several times, just so that I could be sure that
you misunderstood it.
> 1. If you place a child in a strong minus (the control group)
> their natural refractive STATE follows that wretched minus, and
> goes DOWN at a rate of -1/2 to 6/10 diopter PER YEAR.
Neither study concludes that. Both studies show that some children
get more nearsighted.
> 2. Fancis Young used a HIGH PLACED PLUS, so
> the child could not avoid looking through the plus for
> ALL CLOSE WORK.
So did the COMET study. The seg was placed 4 mm above the pupil.
> 3. The various small segment "bifocal" studies enable
> the child to AVOID LOOKING THROUGH THE PLUS.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Hardly an open mind I would suggest.
Apparently my mind is more open than yours. Oakley-Young's subjects
were all nearpoint esophores. All studies, including the COMET study
show that myopes who are nearpoint esopheres benefit more from the use
of bifocals than the rest of the myopes. AT MOST this represents 25%
of the myopic population.
Now, if you cannot get that through your incredible information
filter, then that's just unfortunate for you.
DrG