Dear Prevention-minded friends,

Subject: Scientific testing to confirm the eye's dynamic
behavior.

Re: What is the nature of scientific proof?

Re: A majority-opinion optometrists explains his "position"
and attitude.

Retinula is an "unknown" person on the "Net" who MIGHT be an
optometrist. He offers no identification -- but his statements
reflect the majority-opinion as currently practiced.

The issue is to determine of the fundamental eye is a dynamic
system, using NEUTRAL words to describe what you ACTUALLY MEASURE.

By this I mean REFRACTIVE STATE. If these scientific
experiments prove Retinula RIGHT, in his insistence that the
natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC, then he would "win" on a scientific
level.

Problem is -- his theory, his concept, has failed completely
-- and he knows it. So now, to "keep his position" he must AVOID
all scientific questions related to the fundamental behavior of
all eyes.

This removes him from "respect" as a scientist.

(There is still the issue of the public walking in off the
street, and expecting a very strong minus that makes them "happy"
-- but that is a separate issue from understanding and respecting
the eye as a dynamic system.)

You are right -- and on a pure scientific level, Retinula
(M.O. OD) is telling you endless office fibs. Just remember,
however, that there are more insightful ODs (S.O.) who support
intelligent preventive work on YOUR PART -- SUPPORTED by them.

To further evaluate the majority OPINION.

++++++++++

Ret > I have stated my position and you know it.

Otis> Yes, that the eye is not dynamic, and that a -3 diopter lens
has NO EFFECT on the refractive STATE of all natural eyes.
Retinula states an OPINION -- not a scientific fact. If you
do not believe me -- run the experiment yourself and confirm
the results (that the eye is dynamic.)

Ret > ...minus lenses are not "wretched" and do not cause myopia.

Otis> Two parts:

Otis> 1. It is clear that a strong minus will make eye-chart
very, very clear. No one argues that point. But,

Ret > ...staircase myopia is a figment of your imagination.

Otis> No, it is a figment of your office-fib. This is proven by
the Oakley-Young study in that the single minus goes down by
-2 diopters in four years. I suggest that any dedicated
scientist run the dynamic eye test to confirm this
scientific fact. But that is why I describe you as
expressing and OPINION that the eye is not DYNAMIC, when
pure science says it is.

Ret > ...plus lenses are about as much help as throwing salt over
your shoulder.

Otis> That is a matter of your OPINION. The "Success Stories" on
YaBB say the DEAD OPPOSITE of your statement. Again you
confuse your OPINION with the scientific facts. But I do
agree that vision clearing is slow AND MUST START BEFORE
THAT FIRST MINUS LENS IS WORN 16/7. That is a
second-opinion choice -- not for you -- but for the person
who has greatest need for it. Your general "attitude"
FORCES the person to avoid you and you over-prescribed minus
lens.

Ret > ...and i don't have to say "trust me".

Otis> And there are many reasons (with the primate studies) why we
should not trust you. And you fail to say that a person has
the right to an informed choice in the matter. You just
crank on that minus lens for BVA, and create an
over-prescription of about -1, -1.5 and -2 diopters -- when
the kid is still passing the "room" Snellen at 20/40. But
after you do that, it is virtually certain his vision will
start DOWN at a steady -1/2 diopter per year. So much for
trusting YOU!


Ret > ...you forget that I am the one with the scientific
literature...

Otis> You forget that your "literature" is majority-opinion
MEDICAL (NOT scientific) literature. You have a very
arrogant opinion of yourself, and can not answer basic
scientific questions about the proven behavior of all
fundamental eyes. Sorry your arrogance exceeds all reason.

Ret > ...to support what i say.

Otis> You say "the minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive
state of all eyes. I say -- OK lets test Ret's theory and
see if it is correct -- that the eye is passive as you
insist. When I put a -3 diopter lens on the eye, and it
goes down by -2 diopters -- I say you are profoundly WRONG
on a pure scientific level. But let us just call this your
un-supported OPINION or the MAJORITY opinion and let it go
at that.

Ret > ...you are the man with some anecdotal stories about dead
optometrists and some cliche phrases but no proof.

Otis> That depends on WHO defines "proof" -- and that should NEVER
be you.

Otis> Since you evade direct scientific proof of the effect that the
minus on the refractive STATE of the fundamental eye --
it turns ou that all you have is your MAJORITY OPINION -- and
no meaningful SCIENTIFIC proof.

Otis> But let me remind you of this phrase:

Otis> "FIRST DO NO HARM."

OTis> And the SCIENTIFIC PROOF of the dynamic eye that IMPLIES
that you do VAST HARM, by ignoring scientific PROOF -- that
you hate and ignore.

Otis> And that, my friend, is proof of your intense BIAS AGAINST
SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

Ret > ...here are some yes or no answers for you:

Ret > yes -- you deliberately mislead people with lies

Otis> Is offering a person a intelligent discussion, supporting
their RIGHT OF CHOICE a lie. Is suggesting that they search
out a SECOND OPINION ODs who will SUPPORT them with the
preventive plus a "lie". Is your insistance that the eye is
PASSIVE (when science says otherwise) a lie?

Ret > yes -- you are not honest and should not be listened to

Otis> That is another fib. You tell people that the eye is not
dynamic, and does not move in a negative direction when you
place a -3 diopter lens on it. I suggest that the person
who DOUBTS this proven dynamic behavior of all natural eyes RUN
THIS EXPERIMENT HIMSELF -- AND CONFIRM THESE RESULTS BY
PERSONAL TESTING. I HAVE NO FEAR ABOUT THESE RESULTS. WHY
DO YOU FEAR SCIENTIFC TESTING AND PROVEN RESULTS? That is
not a scientific lie -- but you do lie about scientific
results -- by refusing to answer questions about it.

Ret > yes -- you are under investigation by the authorities in
Pennsylvania

Otis> Again -- False. Neil D. Brooks (from California) typed in a
slander against me to the state of Pennsylvania. The site
was for PA RESIDENTS (and NOT CA Residents) to post
complaints. In fact ANYONE CAN TYPE ANYTHING INTO THAT SITE
THEY WISH. And that is exactly what Brooks did. I think
that they read Brooks slander and knew how false it was. I am
certain that the "authorities" are having a chuckle about
some idiot who failed to read the by-line that this site is
for PA residents -- and NOT California residents.

Ret > Yes -- you have NO scientific evidence to support you.

Otis> Again, this is your office-fib -- that TOTALLY ignores the
proven fact that the fundamental eye is dynamic, as
discussed. You also ignore the fact that PEVENTION (although
difficult) is possible -- as confirmed by the primate
studies. Even your fellow ODs (S.O. ODs are offering the
public and HONEST CHOICE in this manner) -- before that FIRST
over-prescribed minus is placed on these poor kids faces.

Ret > no -- you will NOT bother to answer direct questions posed to
you asking you to explain your ideas and the evidence for
them.

Otis> No, you totally ignore all scientific facts, and proof that
the eye is dynamic, rather than passive (as you insist in so
many ways,
and in fact PROVEN to be a dynamic system.

Otis> You then loudly proclaim that no "proof" exists -- that the
eye is dynamic -- while totally ignoring scientific proof
that it is.

Have a nice day,

Otis