RetYoung.txt


Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: Majority-opinion ignorance -- and why it stays that way.

Re: Respect for the second-opinion on a scientific level.

===============================

Ret > i can provide you with references to scientific studies
which show that plus lenses do not help reduce myopia. i
can also provide a study which shows that undercorrection
can even stimulate myopia. i have already provided these
studies recently so i will not do so here again so as not to
be so repetitive. if you want me so post the data i will be
happy to do so.

Ret > otherwise, i am sure otis is ready to tell you about his
favorite "richard young research study", his nephew keith,
and about early research studies on chicken eye development.

==============================

Otis> Retinula does not get Dr. Francis Young's name correctly.
He does not understand pure-scientific studies that verify
that the natural eye is a dynamic auto-focused camera
(measured on an "input" versus "output" basis).

Otis> He denegrates all such scientific experiments and proof. He
then refers to Professor Francis Young's study as the
"Richard Young" (Oakley-Young) research study. I cautioned
my nephew about this kind of arrogance and self-enforced
ignorance to both scientists and pure scientific research.

Otis> Retinula then states the everything his does in his
office is "science" and "based on science", even when other
optometrists and ophthalmologist has cautioned him to not do
so.

Otis> The best you can say is that Retinula expresses a
"majority opinion", but the second-opinion contradicts his
opinion, both on a "medical" AND a scientifiic level.
(Discussed at end of this tract.)

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

Retinula wrote:

Otis> Subject: Your opinion of the natural eye's behavior.

Otis> When you tell me that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the
refractive state of the natural eye -- I might believe you.

Otis> But then I go test your theory, by direct testing.

Otis> When I place a minus lens (-3 diopters) on a population of
primate eyes, and find as absolute scientific proof that the
refractive state of the living primate eye moves in the
direction and approximate magnitude of the applied minus
lens -- then, on a scientific level I PROVE that the living
eye is "dynamic" in that sense. You do not agree? Fine --
then you do express the "majority opinion."

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

Ret > here you go with the animal studies again. people are not
chickens and monkeys.

Ret > yes, in animals when you overminus them during early eye
development they move to a myopic refractive state but when
you withdraw the lens then they return to normal. kind of
like humans. and the process involving the development of
the young animal eye that has been drastically overminused
by 3 diopters is not a perfect model for the human eye now
is it? as you know i can produce HUMAN data that shows
minus lenses don't cause HUMANS to become more myopic, and
that plus lenses do not cause HUMANS to become less myopic.

Ret > otis we have discuss this eighteen billion times. it does
no good to repeat it again. you are hellbound to believe
what you believe. and hellbound to thrust it on us until
eternity it seems.

Ret > quick, time to recite some story about keith, or an engineer
pilot, or stirling colgate.

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

Subject: Separating pure-science from "medicine"

Re: Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states.

Re: Separating personal responsibiities accordingly.


I really do not appreciate the ad hominimum attacks on me
because I ask fundamentally scientific questions about the natural
behavior of all eyes. (I will take this kind of abuse ONLY for
the benifit of my immediate relatives. I hope they can learn the
science supporting true-prevention.)

I seek scientific truth, not medical truth. I define the
difference as described below.

It is my belief that all natural eye's are dynamic, as
sophisticted systems. This would seem to "conflict" with our
"previous" belief that we could completely define a positive or
negative refractive state of the eye as an "error." On a
scientific level, for engineers who understand the design of an
auto-focused camera, the proof is final. On a "medical level" no
proof is possible, now or forever.

I believe that the problem of "nearsightedness" can be
resolved on a scientific level. I owe it to you to explain this
aspect of "vision clearing".

Please enjoy the discussion.

I suggest that there is a profound difference concerning
"pure science" and "pure medicine". And I suggest the difference
is this:

Medicine: deals with a great mass of people walking in off the
street. There might be some "intelligent" people but that
can never be the assumption of the medical doctor. The
result is that we get "canned" procedures that "works"
instantly. I consider that people in this profession have
no choice but to conduct that kind of work -- and I would
do
the same thing IN THEIR PROFESSION. That would not make it
"right" but I do understand them -- and what they are
doing.

Science: "steps back" from that situation, and thinks about the
behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system. Engineers
and scientists simply do not deal with children, nor mothers
with 8th grade education, nor endless complaints about
God-knows-what.

But when you ask very fundamental questions about whether a
population of eyes (primates) are dynamic, you get the
"second-opinion" answer, that POTENTIALLY a negative refractive
status could be prevented -- before the minus lens is applied.

I believe that pure science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not
medical -- experiments proves that point.) But that is the nature
of our arguments. Many concepts in science simply can never be
reduced to "medicine" and we should understand that truth.

I enjoyed your write-up about pure science, and the "habit"
of tossing science out the window when a concept (like the dynamic
eye) can never produce a quick-fix in 15 minutes.

But that is how I separate "medical issues" from scientific
concepts exclusively experimental, objective and scientific testing.

But that is why it took a scientist like Dr. Stirling
Colgate to do the "work" correctly and clear his vision from 20/70
to 20/20.

His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the
primate eye -- again on a pure-scientific (not medical) level.

Use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can
have positive and negative refractive status (as a dynamic device)
and this situation will become clearer.

Best,

Otis