Dear Second-opinion friends,

Subject: Direct scientific proof -- of the eye's fundamental
behavior.

Re: I get tired of ODs insisting that a minus lens has NO EFFECT
on the refractive status of the natural eye. My intention
is to put their statement "to the test". Below is a
statement of that test. When I insist on it -- they change
the subject, state that objective scientific tests "don't
mean anything", and continue "quick-fixing" the public that
walks in off the street becasue:

1. They can and

2. Doing anything BEYOND the quick fix is impossible for them.

3. They are very protective of their "professional position".
Hell anyone can "prescribe" a minus lens. You and I could do
it. It takes real skill to NOT do it. It takes real
intellectual skill to understand WHY you must use the plus
for prevention.

Below is what I consider to be basic, clear scientific proof
that the eye functions as a highly accurate camera.

I object in strongest terms when someone tells me that
preveting a negative refractive state for the fundament eye is NOT
SCIENTIFIC. If they said NOT MEDICAL -- I would agree with them.
If they it can not be done -- I would ALMOST agree with them,
because of the "attitude" of the public.

Here the meaning of descriptive words is absoulty crucial to
the discussion. Thus the natural eye can have a positive or
negative refractive status -- and as the test below proves.

And since this test proves this dynamic characteristic of the
natural eye, then both a positive and negative refractive state
(in the range discussed) must not be called an "error" or any
other words that PRESUME something about the natural eye
that is not true.

Best,

Otie

_______________

Dear Carly,

Subject: Testing the natural primate eye (in the wild) to see if
it is dynamic (relative to a -3 diopter lens.)

Re: To understand this test is it necessary to know that the
refractive status of monkies living in the wild is about +3/4
diopters, with the "spread" bell-shaped curve running from
about zero diopters.

These are monkies that have eyes that are controling their
refractive state the their average environment.

Now your question is this. How can I verify this scientifc
truth.

You take 100 of these "wild" monkeys and place 1/2 of them
into a -3 diopter lens. The other 50 you keep in the wild.
(Remember, this is not a test to "find" or "determine" any error
or "defect". It is only work to determine if the natural eye (in
the wild) is a dynamic auto-focused camera.


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


Carly> If a monkey with no myopia was put in a -3 lens perhaps
he'd develop a bit but I'm not convinced he'd go down a whole
-3.


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


Otis> From the above test of adolescent monkeys, (and scientific
analysis), I
would suggest the following.

1. NO DIFFERENCE will develop between the two groups. (This is
the box-camera prediction.)

2. Some difference. Carly's prediction.

3. The difference will be on the order of -2.5 diopters (after
one year) between the 50 with the minus lens on, versus the
50 that remained in the wild.

Those are the potential results of a scientific test. Dr.
Judy mainatins that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive
state of the natural eye. On scientific grounds I dispute her
prediction for this objective scientific test of the natural eye's
behavior.


Best,

Otis


--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "Carly Wong" <carly_pussycat@t...>
wrote:

Carly> Well that test would not particularly interest me as my
original test was to see if wearing the actual prescription
you've been given affects the progression of your myopia.

Carly> Regarding your overprescribed lens test though, I am not
entirely convinced that the eye does adapt to the lens it's
put in, because I was clearly overprescribed for a -5.00 lens
yet when I wear my -4.75s now they aren't too weak, therefore
after more than 2 years of wearing a -5.00 my eyes haven't
worsened. If a monkey with no myopia was put in a -3 lens
perhaps he'd develop a bit but I'm not convinced he'd go down
a whole -3

Otis> No, in one year the 50 monkeys would go down by -2.5
diopters by experimental proof and mathematical analysis.
Why should we not believe in scientific tests and truth?

Otis> If this test were not this consistent -- I never
would have stated this web site and discussion.
The issue is about your long-term distant vision,
and protecting it if you can.