 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2009For Bill -- One Reasonable Citation
Dear Bill, As you know, it is never "ONE" experiment that will change the mind of an engineer. He must review the objective facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the eye -- to make HIS CHOICE or JUDGMENT. Science is always about that issue. But, here is my citation (analytical) for Soon's PREVENTIVE curve. Bill> For now,Otis, give me one reasonable citation to support Soon's work. Although my inclination is to believe what you say, my scientific roots tell me that inclination is insufficient. A peer reviewed citation is necessary. Otis> My papers on the dynamic eye were "peer reviewed". After acceptance I delivered them and they were published. The key issue is the question, "who are my peers"? Since the issue of the natural eye's dynamic behavior is engineering/science, clearly my peers are not medical people. Otis> Further you ask for the "loaded" question, "on reasonable citation." Here is the start of that process: http://www.i-see.org/otis_brown/chapter_03.html I think a engineer/scientist (at 20/60, and -1 diopters) could understand this paper. Futher, he MIGHT be interested in being part of a scientific/preventive process under HIS CONTROL. Enjoy, In article <1a1b3693-710f-4d27-93ce-5cb4a579b034@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > Otis> Further you ask for the "loaded" question, "on reasonable > citation." Here is the start of that process: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > understand this paper. Futher, he MIGHT be interested in being part > of a scientific/preventive process under HIS CONTROL. OK. Take data from the study j 2. Schaeffel., F. Glasser, A. Howland, H. C., "Accommodation, Refractive Error and Eye Growth in Chickens", Vision Res., Vol 28, No 5, pp. 639-657 (1988), Better yet would be some study using human subjects. Figure out what the best constants are for your analog computer of Figure 6. Plot results as shown in your Figure 7 or Figure 8. Superimpose the data from a study onto one of these plots. Then we will be able to see how well theory matches experiment. That kind of thing is done all the time for peer reviewed papers. Taking such data is not subjecting people to the forced implantation of unwanted lenses. In essence, the experimental human subjects will have selected themselves to get glasses. The only harm I can see is that the refraction measurement process itself is harmful. Bill  SignatureMost people go to college to get their missing high school education. > selected themselves to get glasses. The only harm I can see is that the > refraction measurement process itself is harmful. Myopia studies like COMET are done with cycloplegic drops to eliminate accommodation. That's the only complication or risk. Cycloplegics are used because excessive accommodation is common. Some say it's ubiquitous in a population 10-20 years old. Nobody has figured out how to reduce axial length or flatten the optics, short of surgery. -MT Dear Bill, I agree with you that use of "drugs" is harmful for making a measurement. This is why I would insist that the engineer/scientist be taught to make objective measurements of his own refractive STATE himself. This does not have to be expensive. I have made up my own trial-lens kit (from Zennioptical lenses) for about $60. Using my Snellen, and the classical method of measurement, I can measure to about 1/4 diopers. My Snellen is 20/20 under "office Snellen" conditions, and my refractive STATE is +1/2 to +3/4 diopters. I would think that any competent engineer could duplicate these measurements -- and place the study under his control. The purpose of the book is to clarify that issue. But I would also have you read Raphaelson's commentary about, "The Printer's Son". Unless the wisdom and motivation are developed BY THE PERSON HIMSELF, you can't have the study. You can not "impose" true-prevention on anyone, and you can NEVER PRESCRIBE IT -- as per what Rapheslon said. Rather, and excellent education of the scientific facts (as we now know them to be) MUST PRECEED the start of any prevention effort. Just my engineering second-opinion, Otis > In article > <1a1b3693-710f-4d27-93ce-5cb4a579b...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > -- > Most people go to college to get their missing high school education. >I agree with you that use of "drugs" is harmful for making a >measurement. Without cycloplegia you cannot distinguish axial myopia from excess accommodation. Well, maybe you can, but I can't. -MT > > Bill> For now,Otis, give me one reasonable citation to support Soon's > work. > Although my inclination is to believe what you say, my scientific > roots > tell me that inclination is insufficient. A peer reviewed citation is > necessary. Otis: here is my citation (analytical) for Soon's PREVENTIVE curve. > http://www.i-see.org/otis_brown/chapter_03.html Your citation contains no data measuring refractive error change in corrected myopes. How can it possibly be a support for Soon's curve? You said that Soon's curve was based on actual experimental data, not conjecture. We have asked for the citation for hte data. You have still not provided it. Perhaps you would like to change your opinion about the source of Soon's curve. Judy |
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.