From: "Otis Brown" <otisbrown@...>

To: "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@...>

Subject: Eye adaptation to lenses?

Dear Mike,

cc: Keith, Don, Soon, Fred, David, Steve, Alfred

Subject: A "majority opinion" OD talks about his "proof" that a
lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive status of the
natural eye.

Re: Proving that a population of NATURAL eyes are DYNAMIC with
respect to their average-visual environment.

Re: Adolescent primate and humans eyes.


The issue is whether the NATURAL eye changes its refractive
state (measured the standard way -- with atropine), as the visual
environment is "moved" to a nearer value.

Mike keeps on insisting in "pure science", that this does not
happen, and I keep on insisting or running a pure-science
objective test to confirm that Mike is "right". He is not on a
pure-scientific level.

By this I mean you take a population of adolescent eyes, and
place 1/2 in a more-confined environment. This test is a matter
of reporting STRICTLY what you MEASUE, i.e., refractive STATE of
the fundamental eye -- measured with atropine.

This is pure "input" (delta in environment, but NOT for
for the control group) and then measuring the refractive state of
BOTH groups, and determining if a difference develops between the
two groups.

The result of this test is that the refractive state of the
control group WAS HIGHLY CORRELATED to the delta in the visual
environment.

Most of the people reading this statement have my book so
that THEY can examine the results of the SCIENTIFIC TEST and reach
THEIR OWN CONCLUSION.

But I do respect the fact that you state the majority opinion
(based on belief, not on scientific fact) as it has been
"practiced" for the last 400 years -- with NO CHANGE AT ALL. I do
not see how this method could be based on "science" at all.

The future "second opinion" will be work to understand the
full implication of the above scientific truth.

To further respond.

_______

From: "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@...>

Subject: Re: Eye adaptation to lenses?

> ----- Original Message -----

Otis> > They are very clear. When you place a minus lens on the
fundamental primate eye -- the refractive status FOLLOWS the
applied minus lens.

Mike> False because almost all myopes over age 30 wear glasses and
almost none of them are getting worse.

Otis> Let me make this clear. I specified adolescent primate eye,
as per above. I did not suggest "old" monkeys -- did I?

Mike> False because experiments with excessive minus show NO
effect.

Otis> The study was run with too few numbers, and there was no
"control". You can sell this as the "majority opinion" if
you wish. The direct primate data simply over-throws this
concept of yours.

Mike> False because myopes who wear glasses get worse at the same
rate as those who don't.

Otis> You state what you desperately WANT TO BELIEVE. The Oakly
Young study using a single-minus and a plus showed that the
"plus" test group went down at zero diopters per year. The
single minus when down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year.
I think the numbers were on the order of 200 plus. I know
Francis Young personally. I trust is scientific and
clinical capablities, and his "neutral" measurements. You
are intensely biased in your reporting. You tell me what
you WISH WERE TRUE, not was is scientific fact.

Mike> False because you assume all species behave the same, at all
ages.

Otis> To limit this, I state that we are talking about the natural
primate eye, separated into human-primate and monkey-primate
eyes. You are insisting that the monkey-primate eye
functions in a completely different manner than the
human-primate eye. Your majority-opinion "attutude" at
work. I think that the people reading this have more
common-sense "smarts" that you do.

Otis > > ...is a dynamic process. It always occurs when that test
is correctly done.

Mike> Show us it works for 9-year-old humans. Please.

Otis> Of course, the Okley-Young study. But you are BLIND to
anything you don't like. A profound bias -- WHICH MUST BE
UNDERSTOOD BY ALL WHO DEAL WITH YOU.

Otis> > keeping your distant vision clear with the plus makes a
great deal of technical and scientific sense.

Mike> It would if it worked. Show us it works. Please.

Otis> I hate to say this -- but you are beyond hope. The people
who learn from objective scientific truth as per above, have
already proven that they can "clear" their vision with wise
and forceful use of the plus. But they did this, because
they were able to understand scientific facts, and not your
warped version of said facts.

Best,

Otis

Mike Tyner

_________________

Subject: The OD "Majority Opinion" and attitude:

Re: There is an honest belief that the minus in "perfectly
safe". Most people have no desire to learn ANYTHING beyond
that point.


You are quite right that most myopes over -2.00 need their
glasses full time (except for near work). I've been about -3.00
most of my life and never had a problem with wearing glasses.

They certainly didn't ruin my eyes. I've enjoyed a long life
of very clear vision. Now that I've had cataract surgery, I don't
"need" glasses for much of anything, but guess what, I still wear
them pretty much full time!

I like the protection they give and when I want to see fine
detail (like when I'm doing something critical, like examining
somebody's eyes), I appreciate what they do for me. I wouldn't
want to miss a speck of anything, for sure. Glasses are great.
Get over it.

Now where was I? Oh yeah, what is your other eye?

w.stacy, o.d.

____________________


A HISTORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE BOX-CAMERA THEORY OF THE EYE

A QUESTION CONCERNING THE NATURE OF PROOF

Reference: "Introduction to Physiological Optics", by James Southall

I have often hear the words, "prove it".

Since the "it" is never described, it follows that no one can
ever prove "it".

But if the requirement is to prove that the eye is an
auto-focused camera versus the box-camera concept, then proof is
possible.

I wrote my book so that you could help your own daughter
avoid nearsightedness. I know you want to help others but --
regardless of proof -- I do not think the general public will
understand what must be done.

Dr. Jacob Raphaelson went through this 100 years ago, as
described in, "The Printer's Son". The public wants their distant
vision sharpened instantly, and expects this of you. Anything
beyond that point they will reject -- unless they are very
motivated and intelligent about this difficult situation. It is
very clear that the person who desires prevention must have strong
motivation and support from you if the person plans to use the
plus lens effectively.

In my opinion, your work with the public is very difficult
becuase the public is not logical, and not consistent in what they
expect. Unless they have the motivation, they will not push hard
in the proper use of a plus lens. A professional pilot, who looks
at his own eye chart and sees the results as they develop will be
your best candidate for effective prevention.

The public demands immediate results and does not listen to
explanations. They will quit an effort if their is the slightest
problem, or if some other ophthalmologist or optometrist uses
"scare" tactics against them. If this happens, they will quit the
effort and blame you for anything that might happen with their
eyes. There is no incentive to attempt to help most people -- and
both you and I understand that truth.

The health profession has no choice except to apply a minus
lens and (with a few exceptions) suggests that anyone who asks
deeper questions about these issues must be "not-scientific".

I can accept this as the reality of medicine. They should
say "non-medical", rather than "not-scientific".

In science, you pay attention to direct objective
measurements. This is not quite true in optometry -- as I
described above.

Tragically, this unfortunate situation has continued since
its inception 400 years ago. The theory of the eye began this
way:

1. The lens-developers dealing with the public found a plus lens
that would sharpen near vision -- when you reached old-age.

2. In addition, they found that young people with slightly blurry
distant vision, could clear their distant vision with a
minus lens.

The theory of using a lens on the public is based on the
above understanding of responsibility and resulting direct action.
There has been very little improvement in this concept of the eye.

Around 1600 Johan Kepler (Astronomer) began developing a
pure-refractive theory of the eye. This was good work, but
assumed that you could "freeze" the eye and make all your
measurements based on the box-camera concept. This idea never
attempted to analyze the eye's dynamic behavior at all -- only the
refractive properties of an intellectually frozen eye.

This analysis this approach was good, so the fact that the
eye is not frozen was forgotten. Kepler's analysis could be used
to support Items 1 and 2 (below).

For this reason the "frozen eye" theory was accepted as a
medical theory -- and anyone who challenged the concept concerning
the bad results of item 2 were told that Kepler's theory was
"proven" and that the natural eye is a rigid box cameras.

Kepler's theory was further refined and re-published in 1858
by two ophthalmologists, Dr. Donders and Dr. Helmholtz.

They accepted Kepler's frozen-eye concept, and added further
assumptions.

1. They assumed that a focal state of exactly zero could be
considered normal. Donders invented the word emmetropia to
describe this idealization of the "frozen" eye.

2. They assumed that any focal state other than exactly zero must
be a defect, or "refractive error". They invented the word
"ametropia" to describe both positive and negative focal
states of all normal eyes.

Don't get me wrong at this point. These were great men in
medicine at that time. But they continued the academic assumption
of Kepler, that you could "freeze" the eye and do a pure
refractive analysis. They also assumed that you could translate a
relative focal state into an absolute dimensions. (i.e., they
assumed that if the eye had a focal state of zero, it must have an
exact length of 24.38 mm. In fact no relationship has ever been
extablished.)

By doing this, they thought that they made the Kepler's
theory into proof that the eye was "too long", when the natural
eye simply had a normal but undesired negative focal state.

This box-camera theory made the use of a plus or minus lens
seem more systematic, although it requires a belief that the eye
is defective if it has a negative or positive focal state. (i.e.,
if your eyes have a focal state that is not zero, you are
suffering from "stress and strain" because the eye is too long or
too short. The reasoning here is circular, because it is not
proven that a focal state of zero corresponds to a exact length.
It is only an assumption that you can convert relative
measurements into absolute dimensions.)

In any event, this theory makes all eyes defective by
definition -- a thesis of doubtful validity.

Why should we object to Kepler's theory, which became the a
theory of practice? As a theory that allows refractive analysis
of an idealized eye it is excellent. As a theory of the eye that
reproduces the actual motion and change of focal state of the
natural eye -- it is not accurate.

Kepler's pure-refractive theory was correct, but the
assumptions of the follow-on (Donders-Helmholtz) theory are not
accurate or correct.

In the light of experimental data developed in the last 50
years we should begin developing a better conceptual model of the
eye's dynamic behavior.

The experimental facts demonstrate that all eyes change their
focal state as the visual environment is changed. By reference to
the facts, the eye is established to be a well designed
auto-focused camera. (i.e., you can make ALL eyes nearsighted by
forced wearing of a minus lens, if you slow increase the power of
that minus -- gradually.)

The type of data needed to demonstrate this truth was not
available in 1860. So the original conception should undergo
evolution to account for these recently developed facts. But in
fact, the operative reasons for using a plus or minus lens have
not change since their original inception -- 400 years ago. Thus
the "theory of the eye" is driven by expediency, and not by
objective scientific facts -- in my humble opinion.

Science is based on objective facts. We should be able to
recognize that there is a problem with expanding Kepler's theory,
beyond its original intended scope. He did an excellent
refractive analysis. He did not intend that we believe that all
eyes are rigid box cameras that are defective because they have
focal states other than zero.

We suggest that the natural eye is an auto-focused camera,
and that, for this reason, the natural eyes must change its focal
state (which you measure) as you change the visual environment
(which you control). Since we are using neutral language to
describe this situation, it follows that experimental conformation
(that all eyes are auto-focused cameras) will be straight forward.
The nature of this type of experiment can hardly be argued.

This means that the evolution-designed eye can have both
negative and positive focal states, and not be defective.

In fact, the measured focal state of your eyes is directly
dependent on your accommodation level -- in diopters.

Obviously, if you work for long hours, your normal eyes are
going to develop a negative focal state. This is perfectly normal
and an expected for an auto-focus camera.

The Helmholtz-Donders theory, and its required assumption has
never been objectively tested -- as stated by Dr. William H.
Bates. This means, that the box-camera picture of the eye is
misleading at best. At worst, it blinds us to a potentional
method of preventing the development of nearsightedness by
agressive use of a plus lens.

Sincerely,

Otis Brown