Retin7.txt


Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: The complete presentation of the OD majority opinion.

"I know that most men...can seldom accept even the
simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them
to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in
explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to
others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the very
fabric of their lives."

Leo Tolstoy

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

I agree that prevention is difficult. It takes a person with
a strong will to do it. But it is important, because wearing an
over-prescribed minus will take your vision "down" -- and there is
no "recovery" from that.

If you wish to understand WHY you get no "support" for true
prevention, the "Retinula" is spelling it out for you in this
discussion.

I value my distant vision. Given accurate facts concerning
the eye's behavior I think I could have prevented it -- if I were
old enough to understand scientific truth and facts -- and do the
work under my own control. From the remarks by Retinula I really
do not see any other choice.

There was an old movie called, "Cool Hand Luke", where the
warden described a situation by stating, "...what we have here is
a failure to communicate". Perhaps that is the real truth in the
following exchange.

Best,

Otis

___________________________

Dear Friends,

Subject: Retinula (a majority opinion OD) presents the case to
oppose true prevention with the plus.

Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the
limits of the world.

Arthur Schopenhauer

Optometrists like Dr. Raphaelson and Steve Leung has clearly
spelled out the necessity of true-prevention at the threshold. It
is my opinion, based on objective repeatable SCIENTIFIC
experiments that the highly self-motivated person can keep his
distant vision clear through the school years -- as Jon did --
once they get the idea and REALIZE THAT THEY WILL NOT GET ANY HELP
FROM A MAJORITY-OPINION OD.

I will post the reasons for this, and how I suggest we
separate pure-scientific issues, from "medical" issues.

His is an presenter from sci.med.vision, or a "hard over" OD
who believes that neither a minus lens (say -3 diopters) NOR a
more-confined environment has ANY EFFECT on the refractive state of
the natural primate eye. (Say adolescent primate eye just to make
the issue clear.)

Provided this issue is cleanly stated, I would have no
problem putting up $10,000 on a wager (against equal money) to
establish this fact (again).

NO OD RUNNING THE EXPERIMENT PLEASE.

But, here for equal time, is our shy "retinula" -- what ever
he is. (With no experimental data to contest the above DIRECT
experiment. I mean "input" versus "output" -- as in pure
science.)

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

Otis> Dear friends,

Those who fall in love with practice without science are like
a sailor who enters a ship without a helm or compass, and who
never can be certain whither he is going.

Leonardo da Vinci


Otis> Subject: Retinula should post on i-see, rather than sending
me emails.

Otis> I formally invite this Retinula to post on i-see so that he
can make his argument on a scientific level that: (the
natural eye does not "test out" as a dynamic system.)

Ret > ...i guess my fingers are as big and clumsy as yours. i hit
the wrong button and sent the message to your e-mail and not
the group. why don't you please repost my message,
unedited, in its entirety to the group?

Otis> As the biased majority opinion -- of course.

Otis> Just remember that for all of retinula's huffing and
puffing, some forward-looking ODs have put their own
children in a plus as soon as their refractive state reaches
zero diotpers -- or SLIGHTLY negative. www.chinamyopia.org

Otis> 1. A minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of
the natural eye (or that the minus lens is even "safe"),
and...

Ret > ...yes, this point is crystal clear in humans. it has been
scientifically proven and you have been given the references
so many times that i am sure you know them yourself although
you try to deny them.

Otis> These bifocal "studies" are run with NO CHECKING to see if
the kids actually look THROUGH the plus. Not really a valid
SCIENTIFIC STUDY. Your majority-opinion bias speaks for
itself. I think that the readers of i-see should recognize
their right to a "preventive" second opinion, with a
recognition of what will happen to their eyes if they even
start wearing an over-prescribed minus lens. The primate
data is clear on that point. That must be THEIR decision --
not YOUR decision.

Ret > ...you like to refer to data from earlier experiments in
chickens and monkeys that support your view.

Otis> They sure as hell do not support YOUR VIEW.

Otis> Also, why not be a man and post here -- or are you
incompetent to do that also?

Otis> The support the SECOND OPINION. The difficulties of
true-prevention I fully acknowledge.

Ret > ...the data in humans gives different results. isn't it humans
that we all care about in this forum anyway?

Otis> You can draw your own conclusions about the bias of this
statement. I certainly have.

Otis> 2. A more-confined environment has NO EFFECT on a
population of primates. (Majority opinion)

Ret > ...i never said anything about this.

Otis> Then you should -- or stop critizing engineers who do
present accurate scientific data on the subject. You keep
on insisting that a minus is "perfectly safe". Further,
your majority opinion friends keep on saying this against
the direct, explicit experimental data. As before the
i-see people can draw their own conclusions -- just do not
patronize them.

Ret > ...why are you trying to state that i argued against this
point?

Otis> Because you have. Again, let the readership on i-see draw
their own conclusions. If they totally support your thesis,
maybe they will post in YOUR FAVOR. As per "chinamyopia",
even your fellow ODs thing your "position" is wrong, and is
harmful to the public's long-term visual welfare.

Ret > ...there is actually some scientific data to support this
notion. its just that plus lenses that you propose has been
proven not to work!

Otis> Not so. Although I do agree that it must be used on the
threshold -- as per the scientific study by Oakley-Young.
Once you even START with an over-prescribed minus you will
lose your distant vision PERMANENTLY.

Otis> The report by "Jon" shows what a highly motivated person can
do -- if he has the resolve to do it. But he MUST avoid you
and your habitually over-prescribed minus lens -- which you
insist must be worn all the time.

Otis> I have seen these experiments -- and the results. I have no
doubt that the results are repeatable -- as required in pure
science. (I am willing to repeat these experiments -- but
it is obvious that Retinula will learn nothing from it.)

Ret > ...as Dr. Judy already said in this newsgroup, and i
pointed out to you in my
posting-mistakenly-sent-as-an-e-mail, your references are
20-30 years old.

Otis> Proof that you learn NOTHING from objective science. Hell,
the method you are using was put in place 400 years ago.
You have managed to avoid true science developed in the last
50 years. The sun never enters your "office" apparently.

Ret > ...that was an age when doctors actually did believe that
plus lenses and bifocals might really affect myopia
progression.

Otis> We are not talking about "progression", or don't you get
that? We are talking about PREVENTION before that first
minus lens is prescribed. Again, the Oakley-Young study is
VERY CLEAR on that point.

Ret > ...unfortunately the real human studies disproved that
notion

Otis> So much majority-opinion BS. The public will just have to
figure out how to do it "right", because they will get no
help from your "majority opinion" indeed.

Ret > ...so we have all gone on to something else.

Otis> Something else? Continue the minus lens quick-fix of the
last 400 years. Some "improvement"!

Ret > ...why don't you?

Otis> Because you totally ignore direct scientific proof -- that
is necessary to start a true preventive effort.

Ret > otis, if you test your theory and it doesn't hold true,

Otis> The concept that the fundamental eye is dynamic is confirmed
on a scientific level. It is your "box camera" theory that is
"broken".

Ret > ...then make a new theory that agrees with the data.

Otis> I suggest you need to actually look at the direct proof,
rather than living in your dream world in your office. I do
concede that I do not deal with the general public -- but
rather with people who have the motivation to do the
preventive work "right".

Ret > ...thats what a rational scientist would do.

Otis> Then you profoundly fail that test.

Ret > ...don't engineers act rationally too.

Otis> Yes, to completely examine the objective facts that PROVE
that the fundamental eye is dynamic. An also to examine the
LIMITS placed on you by "public expectation". And lastly,
the help people who have the motivation to help themselves
Avoid GETTING IN TO IT.

Ret > ...don't just deny the data.

Otis> I pointed out to you how totally you IGNORE ALL DATA YOU DO
NOT "LIKE". That is real proof of your intense bias against
the scientific approach. That is WHY there is a
second-opinion, and why your majority opinion is so intensely
biased.

Ret > ...not very scientific to do that now is it otis?

Otis> Depends on how you look at scientific facts concerning
the proven behavior of the fundamental eye. It depends on
how you apply that knowledge to protect your distant vision
-- for the rest of your life.

Otis> I believe that the correct words are, "...first do no
harm". The objective facts themselves demonstrate that a
great deal of "harm" is done with an over-prescribed minus.
But you are oblivious to that scientific truth as demonstrated
by your refusal to take the direct-primate data seriously.

Otis and Retinula