Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: OD Ignorance about the dynamic behavior
of the natural primate eye.

(Proven -- beyond any scientific doubt.)

But here is the majority-opinion for your interest.

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

Otis > Part of the "O'Leary" story.

Otis > But of course, this study IGNORES the proven effect that a
minus has on the primate eye

Ret > no otis. there is no PROVEN effect of minus lenses on
primates. you of course refer to data done on developing
young chicken and monkey eyes-- your favorite studies.
THERE IS NO SUCH CORROBORATION IN HUMANS REGARDLESS OF HOW
LONG AND LOUD YOU PROFESS IT.

Ret > in fact, besides O'Leary, there is similar data produced by
Chung et al. also showing that undercorrection accelerates
myopia development:

Ret > Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia
enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision
Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.

Ret > And of course THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT STAIRSTEP MYOPIA
EXISTS IN HUMANS. if you have it, then please present the
data. i won't bore everyone with the literature citations
since we discussed them before.

Ret > why do you deny all data that is not consistent with your
model? do you really think than an objective-thinking man
of science (that you proclaim to be) would do such a thing?

Ret > you are no doubt a kindly gentleman who empathizes with
peoples refractive problems. but, otis, you do not have a
command of the scientific facts regarding the eye.



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

To: "Don" <prevention@...>

Cc: "Soon See" <soonicansee@...>; "Fred T. Deakins"
<fdeakins@...>; "Lawson's_optom.ltd"
<lawson_s@...>; <hanbossino@...>;
"Keith W Benson" <benson.kw@...>; "Jonathan Buffett"
<jonathanbuffett93@...>; "Alex Eulenberg"
<alex@...>; "Stirling Colgate"
<sacolgate@...>

Subject: Desigining a "working model" of the living eye.

Date: Friday, December 23, 2005 10:45 AM

Dear Prevention minded friends,

Subject: The nature of scientific (not medical) proof.

I would suggest that us "engineers" design a WORKING MODEL of
the proven characteristic of the natural eye.

The "accommodation" model proposed by "picture" and by
Helmholtz -- would not work as a design.

What is missing is the relationship between the signal
(micro-blur) picked up at the surface of the retina, and control
"fed forward" to the lens for accurate focus.

Just try to design and BUILD a working model of the concept
expressed in 1865. I think that is the "fun" part of engineering
and science.

I know how all NATURAL eye's behave BECAUSE of the primate
studies. This is of course an "idealization" on an "input" verus
"output" basis -- but that "works" for me.

To deny this on a scientific level -- is tragic. But this is
the statement by Retinula who has no understanding of this type of
issue.

As always, please enjoy our "analytical" minds. I always
live in a "world" were the natural eye is a sophisticated
auto-focused camera, and therefore MUST behave as a control
system.

Best,

Otis

Otis> Enjoy Retinula's fractued analysis. Quite frankly in his
position, I would probably think and act the way he does.
It would be "wrong" of course, but I understand his
"thinking".

Otis> Who "loses"? Our children of course.

Otis> The preventive-plus as the second opinion still remains a
wise approach. It is up to the parents to learn to "accept"
it -- or see there children develop stair-case myopia as the
result of their "neglect" and an over-prescribed minus lens.