Subject: The FDA versus scientific truth.


Dear Friends,

I am reposting this to correct some errors.

When some one insists that a minus "...has no effect on the
refractive STATE of the fundamental eye" -- I am inclined to run a
test to prove his "passive eye" concept, or the "null hypothesis".

This repeated testing DISPROVES the Donders-Helmholtz theory of the
eye -- that it is a "frozen" or passive SYSTEM.

Direct scientific testing proves otherwise.

Best,

Otis


***********************************

Dear Don,

When the FDA INSISTS that there is no scientific evidence that the
eye is dynamic (i.e., that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the
refractive STATE of the eye -- I get concerned. The reason is the
whole concept of science and objective facts -- and how they are
obtained and judged.

Since working with Francis Young, (and reading the "Smith"
experiment, it is clear what the result will always be on the
refractive STATE of the fundamental eye with objectively tested. Here
is the scientific experiment and "projected" results.

The problem? The FDA takes NO SCIENTIFIC FACTS SERIOUSLY -- because
they do not "like" the consequence if they take science seriously.

+++++++++++++++++++++++


Statistics.


Small "N" -- less than 30. Student's "t"


Test the proposition that a population of eyes are dynamic,
rather than passive.

24 monkeys are tested.

They are divided into two groups of 12 each.

The means of the two groups are established by measurement as
well as the standard deviation.

Test the hypothesis that the a -3 diopter lens has no effect
(ho) on the refractive STATE of the test group.

The experiment will be run for four months or 120 days.
It is expected that the refractive STATE of the test group will
change by at least -1.5 diopters in four months.

The monkeys will be adolescent and pre-adolescent. Their
accommodation range is at least 6 diopters, "amplitude of
accommodation" -- and is normal.

Check for the 95 and 99 percent confidence level.

Use small sampling statistical concept.

Small or group standard-deviation is "s"

Nc = Number in control group

Nt = Number in test group

THE CALCULATION FOR THE STANDARD DEVIATION

The "s" is 0.7 diopters for both the test and control groups.

Large standard deviation is "Sigma"


Sigma = Sqrt [ ( Nc * s^2 + Nt * s^2 ) / ( Nc + Nt - 2 ) ]

Sigma = Sqrt [ ( 12 * .7^2 + 12 * .7^2 ) / ( 12 + 12 - 2 ) ]

Sigma = 0.73

Degrees of freedom or "Nu" = 12 + 12 - 2 = 22

THE CALCULATION FOR "t"

t = [Xc - Xt] / Sigma * Sqrt [ Nc + 1 / Nt ]

t = [ 0.7 - (-.8) ] / 0.73 * Sqrt [ 1/12 + 1/12 ]

t = 5.03


Degrees of freedom = 22

From a standard "t" distribution:

For 99 percent confidence t = 2.51

For 99.5 percent confidence t = 2.82

Since 5.03 profoundly exceeds 2.82, we can conclude that the
fundamental eye is dynamic and the refractive STATE always
"follows" the applied -3 diopter lens.

These numbers come from a number of primate studies.

I have little doubt but that an actual SCIENTIFIC test
would produce very high confidence levels consistent
with these project results. In other words,
I would BET on this outcome against EQUAL MONEY with
people who honestly want to know SCIENTIFIC TRUTH.


+++++++++++++++++++


These are 24 monkeys. If each eye is considered SEPARATELY,
then Nt = 24 and Nc = 24

The large-scale statistics are:


z= [ Xc - Xt ] / Sqrt [Sigma(c) ^2 / Nc + Sigma(t) ^2 / Nt


z = [.7 - ( -.8 ) ] / Sqrt [ 0.7 ^2 / 24 + 0.7 ^2 / 24 ]

z = 7.42

The "Z" value for 99.8 percent confidence is 2.88.
This calculated value vastly exceeds this level of confidence.
Anything above 3.9 is considered a virtual certain.