Without cycloplegia you cannot distinguish axial myopia from excess
accommodation.

Well, maybe you can, but I can't.

-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-5cb4a579b034@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

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

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,