 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2009Dr. Flitcroft's Graph and DIscussion
Dear Scientific friends, I have read his paper -- in considerable detail. But since most of you have not, here is a review of his (second- opinion) judgment about the effect that over-prescribing (for "best visual acuity") has on the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye. I invite Mike Tyner to himself READ THE PAPER, and stop saying I have not read the paper. Let me say that I don't disagree with Mike on his opinion that denies the graph presented here. But the second-opinion is as Flitcroft states it. This is Flitcrofts judgment -- that I support as fundamental science and second-opnion medicine. Let us try to stop personal attacks when discussing this science. =============== Subject: An evaluation of Dr. Flitcroft’s graph – on the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye, sometimes called “emmetropization”. As most scientists know, the natural eye (in an open environment) has a positive refractive STATE, with the average being between +1 and +2 diopters. Thus Graph 9 shows a starting point for the normal eye at +2 diopters. The eye is then placed in a “reading” environment, and the refractive STATE begins to go down. When the refractive STATE goes negative, this graph shows that if no minus lens is applied, the eye will “stabilize” at about -3/4 diopter, (or about 20/40 to 20/50) and will remain stable at that value if no minus lens is applied. (The dotted line labeled “Effect of No Glasses”) The solid line Labeled “Distance Correction (D), shows what looks like a “stair case” pattern. The last dashed line, showing a change in refractive STATE from +2 diopters to -2.5 diopters is labeled “Effect of Glasses” TITLE ON FIG 9 Graph showing the change in refraction (vertical axis) over repeated iterations (horizontal axis) from a starting refraction of +2 D with other parameters as for Fig 4a. The dotted line shows the change in refraction without spectacle correction, and the dashed line shows the effect of progressive correction of the induced myopia (spectacle correction shown as solid line). Enjoy, So it's all speculation? -MT Dear Scientific friends, I have read his paper -- in considerable detail. But since most of you have not, here is a review of his (second- opinion) judgment about the effect that over-prescribing (for "best visual acuity") has on the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye. I invite Mike Tyner to himself READ THE PAPER, and stop saying I have not read the paper. Let me say that I don't disagree with Mike on his opinion that denies the graph presented here. But the second-opinion is as Flitcroft states it. This is Flitcrofts judgment -- that I support as fundamental science and second-opnion medicine. Let us try to stop personal attacks when discussing this science. =============== Subject: An evaluation of Dr. Flitcroft’s graph – on the dynamic behavior of the fundamental eye, sometimes called “emmetropization”. As most scientists know, the natural eye (in an open environment) has a positive refractive STATE, with the average being between +1 and +2 diopters. Thus Graph 9 shows a starting point for the normal eye at +2 diopters. The eye is then placed in a “reading” environment, and the refractive STATE begins to go down. When the refractive STATE goes negative, this graph shows that if no minus lens is applied, the eye will “stabilize” at about -3/4 diopter, (or about 20/40 to 20/50) and will remain stable at that value if no minus lens is applied. (The dotted line labeled “Effect of No Glasses”) The solid line Labeled “Distance Correction (D), shows what looks like a “stair case” pattern. The last dashed line, showing a change in refractive STATE from +2 diopters to -2.5 diopters is labeled “Effect of Glasses” TITLE ON FIG 9 Graph showing the change in refraction (vertical axis) over repeated iterations (horizontal axis) from a starting refraction of +2 D with other parameters as for Fig 4a. The dotted line shows the change in refraction without spectacle correction, and the dashed line shows the effect of progressive correction of the induced myopia (spectacle correction shown as solid line). Enjoy, My you are fast -- Mike. You do not read jack-sh.t -- and judge that you can respond in ten minutes. But that is your style -- don't read anything at all -- and the proclaim that it is all wrong. I think you have a "black hole" in your mind for emerging scientific research. But let us say that your self-imposed intellectual blindness towards physical science and prevetive methods is just the "majority-opinion", and let it go at that. Research Science (that you never read) best, Otis > So it's all speculation? > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > Enjoy, > My you are fast -- Mike. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > physical science and prevetive methods is just the "majority-opinion", > and let it go at that. You didn't answer Mike's question. Big shock, there. > You do not read jack-sh.t -- and judge that you can respond in ten > minutes. Hey, it was just a question. I thought you might be able to tell me if there were actual measurements of refractive STATE, don't you know. -MT > I thought you might be able to tell me if there were actual measurements > of refractive STATE, don't you know. Evidently not. It'll be a while before I can get to the medical library, but meantime I found this interesting reaction and I'm thinking you may have a friend in Mr. Flitcroft. Sounds like he stood the meeting on its ear: The 2008 Vision Research Meeting began with a fascinating discussion of the biological basis of myopia. Mr Ian Flitcroft called the audience to attention by sharing his vivid vision of a 300 pound gorilla. His illustration required his listeners to recalibrate their understanding of the well recognised role of genetic and environmental influences on myopia. Dear Mike, I never said "myopia". I said, "the dynamic behavior of the eye, measured as refractive STATES". But let us review: Tyner> The 2008 Vision Research Meeting began with a fascinating discussion of the biological basis of myopia. Otis> Scientific basis for ACCURATE representing the dynamic behavior of a population of eyes, when measured OBJECTIVELY in terms of refractive STATE. (Refractive STATE to be established by one of two methods. Use of atropine, cyclogel, or some drug derivitive, and OBJECTIVELY measured with a retinoscope, using the classic method for this measurement. The easier method to measure a person's refractive STATE is the one used for the last 100 years in the office of an optometrist (because they were prohibited from using any drug. In this method, you place a well-lit Snellen at 20 feet, and then use the "classic" trial lens kit and then you (or engineer/scientist) measures your refractive STATE were you find the pont of "just blur" by use of that trial lens kit. Mr Ian Flitcroft called the audience to attention by sharing his vivid vision of a 300 pound gorilla. Otis> The "Vivid Vision" was that the minus lens was put into use by Kepler (and others) for the obvious reason that it works instantly, and Kepler established after he induced the situation in himself. But that is not science, that is just "practical". Tyner> His illustration required his listeners to recalibrate their understanding of the well recognised role of genetic and environmental influences on myopia Otis> His scientific approach was to recognize that you establish that a population of fundamental eyes are DYNAMIC, by testing a sub- population of these self-same eyes. Otis> This type of experiment is both objective and convincing. It can also be repeated in ANY SCIENTIFIC LAB who does the EXPERIMENT EXACTLY AS EARL SMITH DID IT. Otis> It was reconginze that this approach to fundamental objective science would be the 400 pound primate in the room, and that there would be profoud dislike of the scientific concept. Second-opinion best, Otis > > I thought you might be able to tell me if there were actual measurements > > of refractive STATE, don't you know. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > illustration required his listeners to recalibrate their understanding of > the well recognised role of genetic and environmental influences on myopia. You're welcome to take this up with the authors at http://tinyurl.com/m3w3tt It was a news item in Clinical Ophthalmology. They might publish responses from you or me, but I doubt it. > I never said "myopia". I said, "the dynamic behavior of the eye, > measured as refractive STATES". While you're writing Clinical Ophthalmology, tell them they're using the wrong term for it. -MT > Let us try > to stop personal attacks when discussing this science. If you stopped lying, then other people may be more willing to consider similar adult gestures toward you. But I don't see that happening. It seems to be who you are ... down at the DNA level. |
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
|
©2009 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.