Dear Frans,

Subject: Sassisailor's success -- to 20/40.

In fact I "worked" with sassisailor, and she worked with a "Focometer".

Since you plan to go through this preventive process, I recommend reading of her
own efforts in that regard.


http://sassisailor.wordpress.com/


So, remember, I am highly SUPPORTIVE of all successful preventive measures.

It is just that I think we should be informed before that FIRST minus is placed
on our face.

It is obvous that Judy is never going to say, "Boo" about any of this -- in her
office.  The "rationalizations" she goes thorugh are ENDLESS.

So in the spirit of "public information", I support stating what she refuses to
state -- you have the right to an informed, competent second-opinion.

Prevention best,

Otis

Dear Frans,

For your enjoyment and help to get to 20/20 so you can discard your -7 diotper
lenses.

http://www.central-fixation.com/better-eyesight-magazine/better-eyesight-1926-07\
.php#myopia

Best,

Otis

Dear Frans,

Subject:  Second-opinion PREVENTION -- and NO PREVENTION effort.

Here is the commentary:


"The findings of Harvey and Lister and Pasteur and Charcot and Freud, were
challenged; but they were investigated, and now they belong to humanity. The
finding of Dr. Bates are as important as any other discovery, but they have
never been investigated, nor weighed, nor tested. They are simply ignored."

- W.B. MacCracken, M.D.


As you know, I agree that PREVENTION was the goal of Dr. Bates.

But after almost 100 years, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.

While you hate the idea of prevnetion, (except for Bates) I would suggest
keeping a more "open" mind on the subject.

Also, I understand that you are a -7 diotper myope.

Were you provided with any information when you received your FIRST minus lens
-- to avoid wearing it -- except unleas absolutly necessary?

If anything, I advocate that you be INFORMED of these Bates/Prentice PREVENTIVE
measures.

Do you think Judy will "rise" to that challenge?

What do you think?  What "help" would you have expected -- as you received that
first minus?

Enjoy clearing your Snellen bact to 20/20 with Bates,

Best,

Otis

Dear Frans,

Subject: How do you conduct a BETTER study?

I have asked the people posting on i-see to review an provide commentary on:

1. Was Bates successful?

2.  If he was successful, why was the study "shut down"?

3.  If it was successful, why was it not continued until every last child got to
20/20?

4. Also note, these children has FUNCTIONAL MYOPIA, not "regular" myopis -- that
even Dr. Bates said was in-cureable.  I deeply apprecate that statement by Dr.
Bates. He made no "excessive" claim, and that is what I do.

But, what is your commentary.  How would YOU orgnaize and couduct a true
PREVENTION study?


http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/myopia-prevention-teacher\
s.php

Best,

Otis

Dear Frans,

Subject: Scientific and PERSONAL CHOICE of an OD and his family.

Re:  "Servicing" the public with a minus -- versus scientific PREVENTION.

Re: Why I use the scientific terms "refractive STATE" (in honor of Dr.
Raphaelson) and work this issue on a Engineering/Scientific level.

Some remaks about PREVENTION-minded people.

There is no doubt in my mind that Dr. Bates advocated prevention, at the
"functgional level", i.e., BEFORE the minus.  If you have not done so, why not
read his 1913 report.

And, no, he did not consider the use of the "plus" for PURE prevention.  It is
one thing to "object" to the minus, it is quite something els to be effective
with prevention.

But, let us continue with our pleasant anlytical conversation with Judy on the
scientific subject of successful prevention (of a negative refractive STATE.)

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, frans postma <postapart@...> wrote:


> Otis,

> Bates didn.t promote the plus lens for children.

Otis> Corredt. But second-opinion ODs insisted that their own children wear the
plus for the purpose of prevention.  Futher, Dr. Prentice advocated the use of
the plus for the same purpose.  But it truly MUST depend on the person himself
to make these two methods effective -- under control of the person himself.

See This short case by Emily Lierman

>  f.i. Hyman:
http://www.central-fixation.com/stories-from-the-clinic/chapter-1.php#hyman

Otis>  I will read it when I get done typing this.


> Or can you give an example where he did so?

Otis> Frans, I NEVER use the word, "CURE" -- EVER.  Further I NEVER said that
Bates advocated the use of a plus for pure-prevnetion. But I do say that
prevention is the second-opinion, and that Dr. Bates was part of that group.  It
is up to you to choose WHICH method of prevention works for you.


Frans> About Judy she is not so bad.

Otis> I never said she was.  She is simply conducting the same method that
Johann Kepler used on himself.  In 1610, Kepler "knew optics" at that time, and
did a simple optical analysis -- and discovered that he could clear his vision
with a minus. The "policy" of dealing with an eye with a self-induced negative
STATE has not changed one iota sicne then.


Frans> You have an axe to grind. You hate all eye doctors.

Otis> That is a total lie.  What I said was that prevention is the
second-opinion.

Otis> I said that I totally RESPECT second-opinion ODs, in their work to
PREVENT.  I hope you understand that issue clearly.


Frans> Judy is honest' I believe. She is trying to be professional.


Otis> Fine!  If you love the minus lens, and don't mind stair-case myopis from
the minus -- continue with what youa are doing.


Frans> I have no problem with Judy, except when there is something she cannot
account for; then she does not reply!

Otis> Frans, in science, you learn to "re-think" your question, and how you ask
your question.  That is what I learned from Dr. Raphaelson.  Judy will always
EVADE that crucial question, as well as the correct scientific answer.  But that
is a matter of my judgment (and your judgment also).  You love Bates.  That is
fine.  I "teach" the reading of the Snellen -- as advocated by Dr. Bates.  I
advoacte that you clear your Snellen to at least 20/40 so you can discard your
minus lenses.

Otis> Tell me, what line can your read on your Snellen today?


Frans> I think in China is everything better and doctors are supposed to prevent
that people have diseases.

Otis>  I don't consider a refractive STATE a "disease" -- EVER.  I think that is
a mistaken assumption.  But if you want "cure" they you should work with Judy on
that subject. But further, you should clear your Snellen to 20/20 as soon as
possible. That way you don't have to bother Judy with this discussion.

Frans> So that concern is difficult to put on our culture. where priority lies
on fighting illneessess or fighting organisms that cause the disease and not
making the patient healthier so he will have strong health.

Otis> Fine.  But nothing I have stated involves "illness" only, on the
threshold, avoiding entry into "nearsighedness".  Thus the goal is the same as
Dr. Bates. The methods are Bates/Prentice.  Clearly I don't take it beyond the
point of "prevention". But that must be your issue to solved.  Good luck in
getting to 20/20 with your efforts.

The same thing that I read in Bates' writings

Otis> Good!  And I see the same thing in Dr. Prentice's writings.  We must
choose our heros wisely.


Frans> So Dr. Judy does not pretend that the minus lens prevents.

Otis> She "pretends" that, in a scientific test, a -3 diopter lens -- applied to
the fundamenta eye -- has NO EFFECT on the refactive STATE of the eye.  On a
scientific level, I look at the data itself.  Judy simply IGNORES SCIENCE AND
FACTS -- and then tells me to "trust her".  I don't trust the majority opinion,
at this point. But you can trust Judy if you wish.


Frans>  She uses it as an instant solution and it is not permanent..

Otis> You are correct.  She over-prescribes the minus. The kids eyes now adjust
to that "near", and then his STATE moves negative again. A year latter, the kid
comes back.  Now a STRONGER minus.  NOw his eyes "adapt" to that.  And soon you
are at -7 diopters.  Are you suggesting this NEVER HAPPENS?  That is Judy's
theory.  I happen to disagree with the Helmholtz theory as Bates did.

Frans>  How to make clear that lenses are harmful for the eyes especially on
children?

Otis> Frans, what do you believe?  Do you believe that a minus lens is "harmful"
for a child? Do you believe that a strong minus has NO EFFECT ont the refractive
STATE of the natural eye? Do you believe in scientific tests to determine if a
minus is safe?


Otis> Judy LOVES putting a child into a strong minus?

Otis>  I understand how impressive that minus lens is in an office.  I have
never gone into an ODs office and argued with that person.  Tat is "hands off"
for me.  But if you wish a rational analysis, and Judy wishes to post on
Myopia-Freee, then she can expect to be "scrubbed" on the pure science issues.



> I hope I helped you to give clarence to  the discussion or making it more
fruitful likewise Alex does.

Otis> I takes it this way.  Preception of scientific "truth" is in the mind.

Otis> How you develop you preception is up to you.

Otin> Continue your excellent work to clear your Snellen back to 20/20 -- and I
support you totally in your personal goal.

Best,

Otis



>
> Otis wrote:
>  Frans,
>
>
>
>
> I know you wish to "cure" with Bates – and MORE POWER TO YOU!!
>
> But it is always wise to understand why I object to Judy stating that the
over-prescribed minus is "perfectly safe".
>
>
> http://www.i-see..org/otis_brown/chapter_03.html
>
> It is NOT.
>
> A massive body of SCIENCE says that it is NOT.
>
> Any preventive effort or scientific study MUST take this issue into account.
>
> And I don't care if it is a "bates" or Prentice" study.
>
> The important point is to "empower" the person before his Snellen goes below
20/60, and STATE of -1 diopter.
>
> Yet after Dr. Bates 1913 study – there were NO OTHER STUDIES about prevention.
>
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Otis
>
>
> No viruses found in this outgoing message
> Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.7.1
> http://www.iolo.com
> _________________________________________________________________
> Kakker, Party of Nerd: download ze gratis voor in je Messenger
> http://buddytest.rulive.nl/default.aspx?src=taglines
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Dear Judy,

I regret that you don't understand the word "metaphor" -- i.e., the analogy
between PREVENTION, versus a "quick-fix" in your office.

Here is the definition of the word:

Metahpor:  A figure of speech or pharase literally denoting one kind of object
or idea is used in place of another by way of suggesting a likeness or analogy
between them.

Engineering/Science and Semantics best,

Otis

Otis,
Bates didn.t promote the plus lens for children. See This short case by Emily
Lierman
  f.i. Hyman:
http://www.central-fixation.com/stories-from-the-clinic/chapter-1.php#hyman

Or can you give an example where he did so?

About Judy she is not so bad.
You have an axe to grind. You hate all eye doctors.
Judy is honest' I believe. She is trying to be professional.

I have no problem with Judy, except when there is something she cannot account
for; then she does not reply!

I think in China is everything better and doctors are supposed to prevent that
people have diseases. So that concern is difficult to put on our culture. where
priority lies on fighting illneessess or fighting organisms that cause the
disease and not making the patient healthier so he will have strong health. The
same thing that I read in Bates' writings
So Dr. Judy does not pretend that the minus lens prevents. She uses it as an
instant solution and it is not permanent.. How to make clear that lenses are
harmful for the eyes especially on children?
I hope I helped you to give clarence to  the discussion or making it more
fruitful likewise Alex does.

Otis wrote:
  Frans,




I know you wish to “cure” with Bates – and MORE POWER TO YOU!!

But it is always wise to understand why I object to Judy stating that the
over-prescribed minus is “perfectly safe”.


http://www.i-see..org/otis_brown/chapter_03.html

It is NOT.

A massive body of SCIENCE says that it is NOT.

Any preventive effort or scientific study MUST take this issue into account.

And I don’t care if it is a “bates” or Prentice” study.

The important point is to “empower” the person before his Snellen goes below
20/60, and STATE of -1 diopter.

Yet after Dr. Bates 1913 study – there were NO OTHER STUDIES about prevention.


Enjoy,

Otis


No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.7.1
http://www.iolo.com
_________________________________________________________________
Kakker, Party of Nerd: download ze gratis voor in je Messenger
http://buddytest.rulive.nl/default.aspx?src=taglines

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Judy,

I have concluded that the only way a person will avoid stair-case myopia -- is
to avoid you can your gross over-prescription policy, or "best visual acuity"
where you destroy a poor child with 20/40 with a -2 diopter lens or so.

Have a wonderful day,

Otis

Dear Judy,

You have done nothing but "prend" to help people on i-see with their goal of
"avoiding" nearsightedness.

In fact your goal is not that at all.

Your goal is to perpetuate the "status quo", and ignore massive science that
shows that the minus is a exacerbating "solution" at best.

Why not tell these people on i-see that you truly have no interest in them
protecting their distant for life.

Why not be honest about your REAL INTENTIONS for a change.

Honest science best,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Judy,
>
> For the reader.
>
> Judy has stated the "correction".


Incredible.  What gall.

You make a glaring error -- copy and paste someone else's comments from a two
year old post from another forum, attribute them to me, criticize me for them
and when the error is pointed out, praise the original authour for making the
same remarks.

Unbelievable.

Judy

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
> What I said was that (and Engineering/Scientific mind) could see in
vision-scientists Francis Young's paper the POTENTIAL for threshold
plus-PREVENTION.

Yes, there was much interest twenty-five to thirty years ago in the use of plus
lenses at near to prevent myopia. A number of studies with better design than
Young including experimenter blinding (Young notes in his study that the lack of
experimentor blinding is a problem) were done including the COMET study.  They
found, like Young, that a small amount of myopia progression slowing could be
obtained in myopes with esophoria. The amount is not clinically significant and,
as esophores are a small minority of myopes, plus lens would have limited
application.

So the potential was recognized, and, as in done in science, tested.


Judy

Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLpL_ebPiAc

Enjoy,

Otis

Judy, as you have said, you have NO INTEREST IN PREVENTION.

That means, you have no reason to be involved in it.

What I said was that (and Engineering/Scientific mind) could see in
vision-scientists Francis Young's paper the POTENTIAL for threshold
plus-PREVENTION.

Thus, I suggest an group of ANLYTICAL, SCIENTIFIC ENGINEERS -- who DO HAVE A
STRONG INTEREST IN TRUE PREVENTION -- be part of the intellectual analysis --
that must preceed the actual conduct of such a pontentially successful study.

But since you LOVE your myopic state -- I truly don't think you should be
involved in somthing that does take true engineering and motivational skills.

Your only interest seemst to be to "protect" the "status quo" and to hell with
people who advocate threshold prevention.

But, on a pure scientific level, I think your majority-opinion it a failure, and
the minus only exacerbates the problem, and creates a true disaster for the
child's long-term vision.

But, you love that minus and your title as "doctor".

Prevention best,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
> But when Judy says you can't PREVENT defness with ear plugs, and then says,
"trust me".

I don't recall ever discussing deafness

> Then I must say that, on the basis of Engineering/SCience --  I can never
trust Judy, or people selling "hearing aids" for $430, when $10 "ear plugs" will
prevent ENTRY into deafness.

People selling ear plugs can provide clinical evidence that they are effective
in preventing deafness.

Just two posts ago you admitted that studies of the effectiveness of myopia
prevention methods have not been done and so whether they work is unknown.

Judy

Dear Judy,

For the reader.

Judy has stated the "correction".

I personally have read almost all the publications by Dr. George Hung, Dr. John
Semmlow, and many other vision-scientist publications.

I would hope that those Engineer/Scientist who wish to be part of a truly
PREVENTION-MINDED group -- would read these papers also.

Only by developing that type of "working group" would true SCIENTIFIC PREVENTION
become possible.

So, yes, Alex made the statement that he had not read the entire article.  But
he is indeed a "layman" and has the right to say that.

But, far worse, is Judy, who insists that she be paid, $240 an hour to read
scientific papers of this nature.

Enjoy,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "drjudy65" <mpace99@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@> wrote:
>
> When are you going to remove this thead?  Here is a link to the original post
on i-see, every quote you attribute to me was actually written by Alex
>
> http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/message/14648
>
> I guess you now think that Alex is "in scientific denial"
>
> Judy
>

Why is this thread with completely inaccurate information still up?

Judy

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:

Judy
> With myopia prevention/reduction
> methods/devices, the effectiveness of the methods in prevention has > not been
established.
>
> The primary question "Are they effective" is not answered
> (the wayto answer that question is with clinical trials).

Otis
> That type of true-prevention study has NEVER BEEN ATTEMPTED -- YET.  OSB ]

Judy
Exactly. You now admit that a true prevention study has not been done and
therefore whether a prevention method is effective is unknown.

My statement:
"The primary question 'Are they effective' is not answered" is, by your own
admission, true.

Judy

Dear Frans,

I am certain that Judy is very pleasant, and believes she is TOTALLY RIGHT --
that the only solution to "deafness" is to supply a "hearing aid".

Her opinion is that "ear plugs" are not nessary, and that you should just
"trust" her with her "hearing aid", and ignore the need for ear-plugs.

And yes, you can not "cure" deafness with ear-plugs.

Futher I never "claimed" that you could "cure" in that sense of the word.

But when Judy says you can't PREVENT defness with ear plugs, and then says,
"trust me".

Then I must say that, on the basis of Engineering/SCience --  I can never trust
Judy, or people selling "hearing aids" for $430, when $10 "ear plugs" will
prevent ENTRY into deafness.



http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16722534.500-eye-wish.html


No, I don't "argue" with Judy in her office.  She can promote the "status-quo"
as much as she likes -- after all it is HER OFFICE, and she must make a living
impressing your with he "doctor" hearing aids.

But you distant vision will be permanently forfit -- because of that
over-prescription policy of hers.

Just my Engineering opinion on the subject.

Enjoy,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:

When are you going to remove this thead?  Here is a link to the original post on
i-see, every quote you attribute to me was actually written by Alex

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/message/14648

I guess you now think that Alex is "in scientific denial"

Judy

> Craig> "Suppose I was your patient and I asked if minus glasses are safe and
whether they have been tested clinically?"
>

Judy
> Even it does turn out that
> myopia progression is slightly enhanced by using minus lenses, at this point
we
> have no alternatives -

Otis
> [ In an office, with the public having NO INTEREST in true prevention?  I
would tend to agree with you -- in your office.  But the issue is
Engineering/Science, not your OPINION in your office.  OSB ]

Pay attentions Otis, Craig specifically asked what I would do in office.

Judy

Subject:  Does the over-prescription of a strong minus -- has a serious
"secondary" effect.

Judy maintains that:

1. It does not!!

2. But even if it does, she is going to continue to presceribe for "best visual
acuity", which means that a child, passing the DMV at 20/40, will get a -1 or -2
diopter lens, because Judy believes -- with no scientific proof at all -- that
it has no adverse effect.

I think Judy is very clear in her statement below.  I apprecaite her honesty
about the un-proven safety of the minus.

But let us just call this her "medical belief", the majority-opinion, and say I
respect that as an opinion, but not a scientific fact.

Enjoy,

Otis

===========




Regarding:  vision researchers saying that prolonged close work causes myopia
(was: Helping ODs support you...)


--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "craig3195" <batguin-omni@...> wrote:

Craig> "Suppose I was your patient and I asked if minus glasses are safe and
whether they have been tested clinically?"

Craig> This is an interesting point on which I would also like an answer for. So
far,
I'm yet to find any clinical trials PROVING the safety or otherwise of wearing
minus lens glasses. To be honest, I'm yet to find any trials even EVALUATING
their safety (PLEASE correct me on this point if I'm wrong -- this is something
I want to be wrong about)

Craig> But, if this is true, Dr Judy, then why are you willing to compromise on
your
ethics (in never recommending clinically untested methods/devices) and freely
prescribe minus lens glasses? Is it because the benefits of wearing minus lens
glasses, in your estimation, far outweigh the doubt over any possible negative
effects?

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

Judy replies
It is a good question. The question has two parts:

1.   first, are minus lenses
effective in providing clear distance vision and,

2.  if they are, are there side
effects?

Similarly, the question for myopia prevention is first, are the
methods/devices effective and if they are, are there side effects.

Minus lenses have been used for two centuries and are certainly effective in
providing clear distance vision while they are worn.

So when I prescribe minus lenses I am confident that the patient will have clear
distance vision.

[ The superfical, effect that indeed "sells" the minus lens to the
un-suspecting.  OSB ]

The "side effect" concern raised by some is that correcting myopia will
accelerate myopia progression.

[ Let us call this "concern" the honest second-opinion, but professionals as
well as the general public.  OSB ]

The proposed mechanism for the enhanced
progression is accommodation. But corrected myopes accommodate less than
emmetropes or hyperopes, so that mechanism makes no sense. Further, myopic
animals who are given minus lenses to correct their myopia do not have myopia
progression. Non myopia human alternating exotropes given minus lenses do not
develop myopia. Myopia occurs before minus lenses are worn. Most myopes progress
for only a few years then progression stops. And myopia progression happens in
uncorrected myopes.

Judy> So all in all, I am able to say that minus lenses will provide good vision
and
there is little likelihood of unwanted side effects.

[ You was fervently that there are NO SIDE EFFECTS.  But science says otherwise.
So you simply ignore all second-opinion science because you don't like the idea
of true prevention.  So save ourselves an argument, let us just call your
attitude, the majority-opinion.  OSB ]



Even it does turn out that
myopia progression is slightly enhanced by using minus lenses, at this point we
have no alternatives -

[ In an office, with the public having NO INTEREST in true prevention?  I would
tend to agree with you -- in your office.  But the issue is Engineering/Science,
not your OPINION in your office.  OSB ]


- there is no other way to give good vision and there are
no effective ways to prevent or reduce myopia. So the benefits (clear vision) do
outweigh the unknown side effects.

Now look at myopia prevention/reversal methods.


[ Please restrict this issue to PREVENTION methods.  I don't say "reversal"
except for prevention before any minus is applied.  You insist on telling me
that PREVENTION is impossible.  OSB ]

With myopia prevention/reduction
methods/devices, the effectiveness of the methods in prevention has not been
established.

The primary question "Are they effective" is not answered

[ Because you ignore the ENgineering/Science that suggests that PREVENTION (not
cure) is possible at the thrhsold. But you already said that you are "perfectly
happy" as a -4 diopter myope.  I agree -- you are going to stay at -4 diopters. 
OSB ]

(the way
to answer that question is with clinical trials).

[ NO, the way to PREVENT is by an Engineering/Scientific "trial" where the
person has the education and widsom to use the preventive-plus correctly. This
obviously excludes YOU from this study, since you have NO INTEREST IN
PREVENTION. But I bet the engineer/scintists would -- given a fair treatement of
the subject matter.  OSB ]

  I do not have confidence that
any myopia prevention/reduction method will reduce a patient's myopia.

[ Please separate the word "prevention" from the word "reduction". The only
issue is this -- is PREVENTION possible at the "functional myopa stage".  That
must be a matter of Engineering/Scientific judgment of the person himself.  That
type of true-prevention study has NEVER BEEN ATTEMPTED -- YET.  OSB ]


The
second question "are there side effects" is also not answered.

[ Depends on WHO you ask. Second-opinion ODs call the minus, "...poinion glasses
for children".  I tihnk that issue is clear -- even if YOU IGNORE THE ISSUE. 
OSB ]

  But this time, we
have no known benefits to outweigh any unknown side effects.

Judy

===========

Depends on the the Engineer/Scientist to make that judgment.  But I appreciate
your "bias" on the subject.

Prevention best,
Otis

Re: vision researchers saying that prolonged close work causes myopia


--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, Alex Eulenberg <alex@...> wrote:


> Dr. Judy asked.

Judy> > Can you provide published statements by vision researchers saying that
prolonged close work causes myopia?

> I posted this link [to] prominent myopia researcher Christine Wildsoet:

  http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/

Alex> One of the questions her group is asking is "Why does excessive near work
cause myopia?" Not whether, but why. Her research group takes it for granted
that excessive near work causes myopia.

Judy> Maybe. Here is more detail from that link:

"Does near work cause myopia and why?
Of the many theories that abound, two fit well with evidence from animal
studies. One theory argues that printed text, as most commonly encountered in
near work activities, acts as a form deprivation stimulus for all but the
central retina. On the other hand that human myopia could be a response to
hyperopic defocus is consistent with observations of increased lags of
accommodation in developing and progressing myopes. However, the picture is by
no means clear-cut in terms of causality. Also, that eyes may progress at
different rates leading to significant anisometropia is not easily covered by
this hypothesis. Currently in this area, there are more questions than answers."

Pay particular attention to:
" However, the picture is by no means clear-cut in terms of causality"
and
" Currently in this area, there are more questions than answers."

My original question was in response to Otis' posting of the myopia myth
"questions to ask your eye doctor" which imply that accommodation during near
work is the exclusive cause of myopia and that plus lenses at near or the
Myopter will prevent it.

I doubt if you will find any researcher who says accommodation during near work
is "the" cause of myopia.

[ I have NEVER used the word "cause".  What I said was that a population of
fundamental eyes will CHANGE THEIR REFRACTIVE STATE -- as a NATURAL PROCESS --
from a postive to negative value, if maintained in a long-term "close"
enviroment.  Thus a mild postive STATE and a MILD negaitve state -- can be under
"control" if the person has the wisdom to do the preventive work himself. 
Reference Dr. Bates 1913 study to PREVENT functional myopia, and Dr. Prentice's
use of the plus to PREVENT functional myopia.  But this is a matter of the
person himself "rising" to the challenge of true-prevention.  YOu can't
"prescribe" this, it MUST be the person himself who has the interest in this
process -- to be effective at it.  OSB ]

Alex> you look at all the studies that Dr. Ciuffreda has written and
  continues to write connecting near work and myopia (temporary and
  permanent) it is clear he is convinced that prolonged (or "excessive",
  or "sustained" or whatever you want to call it) near work causes
  myopia. Otherwise, why would he bother pursuing this line of research?

Because he is trying to answer the question:
What is the mechanism that underlies the association between near work and
myopia in some individuals, can we identify the suseptible individuals and is
there a treatment that could prevent the development of myopia in those
individuals.

Again providing support to my statement that mainstream vision science does not
say "myopia cannot be prevented", does not ignore or denigrate myopia
prevention, and that the way to prevent myopia is currently unknown.

Judy

Dear Frans,

Subject:  The "medical mind" at work.

I report scientific facts accuratly.

Because I do that (in terms of objectively measured refractive STATE), Judy
claims that I am "optometrist BASHING".

This is a profoundly FALSE idea -- but she keeps on making that "claim".

It is clear that I deeply respect optometrists like Dr. Jake Raphaelson, and his
efforts to START the preventive process at the "functional myopia" stage.

But you see the results of that.  The person (Printer/Son) only LOVE the
impression a strong minus makes on them.  Anything "deeper" than that is
REJECTED.

So my arguments are FOR OPTOMETRISTS, which I describe as truly
"second-opinion".

But for HONEST prevention to work, it MUST start before any (excessive) minus is
applied to the poor child.

Frans, I can not tell you how to "resolve" theses issues -- and no one can tell
you that.

But I continue to recommend an Engineering/Scientific approach to
true-prevention -- and I truly don't care if it is the "Bates Method", or the
"Prentice Method".  I only care that the person who has the MOTIVATION for
prevention, receive a scientific education so he can be personally effective
with his own efforts.

The statistics I have published are both correct and accurate.  I don't know
your Engineering/Scientific education, but if I were in the "functional myopia"
stage (at 20/60), entering a four year college, I would understand them, and
(provided it was not a blind study) would RISE to the challenge, and become
successful in changing my refractive STATE from -1/2 diopters to zero diopters
-- and pass the 20/40 line, the 20/30 line, the 20/25 line, and then the 20/20 
line.  In this case your need a refractive STATE of zero diopters to pass the
20/20 line.

Engineering and prevention science best,

Otis


--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, frans postma <postapart@...> wrote:
>
>
> Otis,
>
> I think OD,s are just medical and not scientific at all. They are only doing a
certain general making. It is up to you to take your own prevention measures.
Even if you had been chosen someone like Dr. Batesas an eyedoctor, he says it's
only you that can do the things that are required for Bates curing result.
>
> Even Dr. Bates didn't pretend he was a scientist!
>
> Frans
>
>
>
> To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
> From: otisbrown@...
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:31:38 +0000
> Subject: [Myopiafree2] Engineering/Science -- and Statistics.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Frans,
>
> There are majority-opinion ODs who have no interest in science and statistics.
They are very "happy" being myopic and have no interest in the subject of
threshold-prevention.
>
> There knowledge of the work of vision-scientists like Francis Young shows no
understanding at all.
>
> In Engineering/Science you MUST have a good background in the subject matter.
ODs simply don't understand, or don't "care" to understand. Indeed they are
myopic, and don't care about prevention at all.
>
> That is just simple bias.
>
> But when they tell you that a study is "not significant", they simply are not
telling you Scientific Truth. To avoid "conflict", they should admit that they
have no interest in science. That would be both fair and honest to all
concerned.
>
> Here are the results of the "best" plus study. They strongly suggest that, if
the person had STRONG INTEREST in the goal of his scientific study (or
true-prevnetion) he could succeed (as a professional group).
>
> And no, you can never reduce the Engineering Mind -- who understands this
issue, to a "magic minus pill" supplied to the public in 30 minutes.
>
> All the responsiblity (to learn, understand and ACT) must reside in the person
himself. You can not do this with children. But with college students, I believe
that they would want to "protect" their distant vision (in a prevntive) study --
that would be recognized as SUCCESSFUL in the first six months of the study.
>
> Here is the Engineering/Scientific Analysis -- to support a future PREVENTION
effort.
>
> True-prevention best,
>
> Otis
>
> ==============
>
> Subject: Calculating the significance level of the Oakley-Young
> study
>
> Majority-opinion ODs generally deny ANY significance for the
> Oakley-Young study.
>
> But the reality is that the results are highly significant.
>
> I have taken the time to go through Frank Young's "Plus", or
> so-called bifocal study.
>
> He stated that is results were significant -- but did not
> supply the calculation nor some of the data to prove how
> significant his results were for the large number of individuals
> involved in this study.
>
> I wonder if you could review these calculations and either
> state your support, or supply questions about the data.
>
> Here are the data from the study:
>
> Nt = 225 wearing a plus (ages from 6 to 17)
>
> Sigma-T = I am forced to estimate this, but the Standard Deviation
> (from the Eskimos) was about 1.4 diopters. ###
>
> Nc = 192 wearing a "single minus".
>
> Sigma-C = Again, forced to estimate, the Standard Deviation
> (Sigma) was about 2.0 diopters. The Eskimo data is VERY
> accurate.
>
> Here is the classic equation from statistics:
>
> Xt - Xc
>
> Z = ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Square Root of [ ( Sigma^2/ Nt ) + (Sigma^2 / Nc ) ]
>
> Xt = 0 diopters (the Plus group did not go down)
>
> Xc = -1/2 diopters across the 192 people in the control group.
> (the single-minus went down at a rage of -1/2 diopters per
> year, for the kids wearing the single minus.)
>
> After one year with 0.5 diopters difference:
>
> 0.0 - ( -0.5 )
>
> Z = ---------------------------------
>
> Square Root of [ ( 1.4^2 / 226 ) + ( 2.0^2 / 192 )]
>
> Z = 0.5 / 0.172
>
> Z = 2.91
>
> Highly Significant is above Z = 2.33
>
> This is substantially above highly significant after one
> year!!
>
> After two years:
>
> Z = 1.0 / 0.172
>
> Z = 5.82
>
> This is in fact "off the map" of the Probability Curve. ***
>
> Please check this math, and the significance level.
>
> In order to plan for FUTURE studies, (with motivated pilots,
> for instance) it is truly necessary that they understand the real
> implications of this type of scientific test, and verification of
> the significance of these results.
>
> That is why selecting engineering students who know what they
> are doing is so essential -- and have the personal motivation to
> do it right!
>
> If we ever were to propose this type of study to the National
> Eye Institute, then this would be the "core" of the argument to
> support a preventive study or effort, with respect to educated
> engineers and scientists.
>
> Best,
>
> Otis
>
> ========================
>
> *** Significance levels, from the text book.
>
> "Areas Under the Normal Probability Curve"
>
> Z is the horizontal. The probability is the area under the curve.
>
> Z Probability, or significance
>
> Z= 2.33 P= 0.01
> Z= 3.08 P= 0.001
> Z= 3.61 P= 0.0001
> Z= 3.86 P= 0.00001
>
> After one year, given the number of eyes involved, the
> results, in terms of science, were highly significant, and
> after two years, were far above Z = 3.86, and P = 0.00001.
>
> I would expect that engineers, who had the motivation to do this
> right would achieve the same scientific results.
>
> =========================
>
> #### Standard Deviation (Sigma) from:
>
> "Ocular Biometry of Eskimo Familes"
> By Francis A. Young and George A. Leary
>
> Group # of Eyes Mean Sigma
>
> Grand Parents N = 96 +2.21 1.31 Diopters
>
> Parents N = 180 +1.19 1.55 Diopters
>
> Older Children N = 194 -0.93 1.97 Diopters
>
> Young Children N = 218 +1.40 1.70 Diopters
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Alles over Windows
> http://www.windows.nl/About.aspx
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Otis,

I think OD,s are just medical and not scientific at all. They are only doing a
certain general making. It is up to you to take your own prevention measures.
Even if you had been chosen someone like Dr. Batesas an eyedoctor, he says it's
only you that can do the things that are required for Bates curing result.

Even Dr. Bates didn't pretend he was a scientist!

Frans



To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
From: otisbrown@...
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 01:31:38 +0000
Subject: [Myopiafree2] Engineering/Science -- and Statistics.







Dear Frans,

There are majority-opinion ODs who have no interest in science and statistics.
They are very "happy" being myopic and have no interest in the subject of
threshold-prevention.

There knowledge of the work of vision-scientists like Francis Young shows no
understanding at all.

In Engineering/Science you MUST have a good background in the subject matter.
ODs simply don't understand, or don't "care" to understand. Indeed they are
myopic, and don't care about prevention at all.

That is just simple bias.

But when they tell you that a study is "not significant", they simply are not
telling you Scientific Truth. To avoid "conflict", they should admit that they
have no interest in science. That would be both fair and honest to all
concerned.

Here are the results of the "best" plus study. They strongly suggest that, if
the person had STRONG INTEREST in the goal of his scientific study (or
true-prevnetion) he could succeed (as a professional group).

And no, you can never reduce the Engineering Mind -- who understands this issue,
to a "magic minus pill" supplied to the public in 30 minutes.

All the responsiblity (to learn, understand and ACT) must reside in the person
himself. You can not do this with children. But with college students, I believe
that they would want to "protect" their distant vision (in a prevntive) study --
that would be recognized as SUCCESSFUL in the first six months of the study.

Here is the Engineering/Scientific Analysis -- to support a future PREVENTION
effort.

True-prevention best,

Otis

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

Subject: Calculating the significance level of the Oakley-Young
study

Majority-opinion ODs generally deny ANY significance for the
Oakley-Young study.

But the reality is that the results are highly significant.

I have taken the time to go through Frank Young's "Plus", or
so-called bifocal study.

He stated that is results were significant -- but did not
supply the calculation nor some of the data to prove how
significant his results were for the large number of individuals
involved in this study.

I wonder if you could review these calculations and either
state your support, or supply questions about the data.

Here are the data from the study:

Nt = 225 wearing a plus (ages from 6 to 17)

Sigma-T = I am forced to estimate this, but the Standard Deviation
(from the Eskimos) was about 1.4 diopters. ###

Nc = 192 wearing a "single minus".

Sigma-C = Again, forced to estimate, the Standard Deviation
(Sigma) was about 2.0 diopters. The Eskimo data is VERY
accurate.

Here is the classic equation from statistics:

Xt - Xc

Z = ---------------------------------------------------

Square Root of [ ( Sigma^2/ Nt ) + (Sigma^2 / Nc ) ]

Xt = 0 diopters (the Plus group did not go down)

Xc = -1/2 diopters across the 192 people in the control group.
(the single-minus went down at a rage of -1/2 diopters per
year, for the kids wearing the single minus.)

After one year with 0.5 diopters difference:

0.0 - ( -0.5 )

Z = ---------------------------------

Square Root of [ ( 1.4^2 / 226 ) + ( 2.0^2 / 192 )]

Z = 0.5 / 0.172

Z = 2.91

Highly Significant is above Z = 2.33

This is substantially above highly significant after one
year!!

After two years:

Z = 1.0 / 0.172

Z = 5.82

This is in fact "off the map" of the Probability Curve. ***

Please check this math, and the significance level.

In order to plan for FUTURE studies, (with motivated pilots,
for instance) it is truly necessary that they understand the real
implications of this type of scientific test, and verification of
the significance of these results.

That is why selecting engineering students who know what they
are doing is so essential -- and have the personal motivation to
do it right!

If we ever were to propose this type of study to the National
Eye Institute, then this would be the "core" of the argument to
support a preventive study or effort, with respect to educated
engineers and scientists.

Best,

Otis

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

*** Significance levels, from the text book.

"Areas Under the Normal Probability Curve"

Z is the horizontal. The probability is the area under the curve.

Z Probability, or significance

Z= 2.33 P= 0.01
Z= 3.08 P= 0.001
Z= 3.61 P= 0.0001
Z= 3.86 P= 0.00001

After one year, given the number of eyes involved, the
results, in terms of science, were highly significant, and
after two years, were far above Z = 3.86, and P = 0.00001.

I would expect that engineers, who had the motivation to do this
right would achieve the same scientific results.

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

#### Standard Deviation (Sigma) from:

"Ocular Biometry of Eskimo Familes"
By Francis A. Young and George A. Leary

Group # of Eyes Mean Sigma

Grand Parents N = 96 +2.21 1.31 Diopters

Parents N = 180 +1.19 1.55 Diopters

Older Children N = 194 -0.93 1.97 Diopters

Young Children N = 218 +1.40 1.70 Diopters





_________________________________________________________________
Alles over Windows
http://www.windows.nl/About.aspx

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Judy,

Subject: TWO parts to a Engineering/Scientific question.

Dr. Raphaelson (the world's FIRST second-opinion PREVENTION optometrist),
brought into focus this specific issue:

1.  The public (as you, Judy, INSIST) has NO INTEREST IN PREVENTION..

2.  The public is indeed totally superficial.

3.  Unless VERY WISE, the OD can not "deal" with this issue as SPELLED OUT BY
JACOB RAPHAELSON.

4.  I take this as the critical and DEFINING ISSUE.

5.  Since you state you are "happy" being myopic at -4 diopters, and would not
change a thing -- I don't see you providing any "leadership" for prevention,
EVER.

6.  This means, for all practical purposes, that the person who truly desired
HONEST PREVENTION MUST:


a.  Realize your total DEFAULT.  You are simply not competent to deal with this
issue.

b.  Only an EDUCATED person, who realizes how superfical you are, could and MUST
realize he simply has no choice -- he must do prevnetion himself.

I don't expect you have any interest in any of this.  Why not stop your
"pretence" that you do.

Best,

Otis

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




WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED?

Otis> I think this explains why you, Judy, can not "offer" true-prevention.  It
satisfies me -- that this is not your area of competence -- EVER.


With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you would
think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or ophthalmologist could
introduce a practical and effective method of solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did
exactly that in the following example -- with the following result:

Otis>  Anyone SERIOUS about prevention should understand that even the MOST
DEDICATED OD CAN NOT HELP YOU.  Rather, you must be wise enough to help
yourself.  Don't sit on your butt waiting for Judy (or any OD).  It simply is
never going to happen.  I think Jake is very clear on this subject.

THE PRINTER'S SON


"It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting. She told me
about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave her my card and told her
to bring him to my office and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles.

"She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was a printer
working in another city. She did not expect him home for the next six weeks. I
told her all this would not matter, that she should bring the boy over and I
would fit him with a pair of spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them
when her husband returned home.

"She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his vision for
distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a pair of plus 1.00
diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her husband came back home.

"In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She stated
that her husband was provoked with her for getting the glasses. He had tried the
boy's eyes with different prints, far and near, and had found him to have
perfect vision with his naked eyes. In fact, she said, the boy could see even
better without the glasses than with them.

"I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that quickly. I could
hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to bring the boy back to let
me check to see if he could really see well with his naked eyes. She again
brought the boy in and I checked his vision. I found that the father was indeed
right. The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better.

"I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the mother. I
just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor vision before he
received his glasses? And who would believe that vision could be restored by
just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks?

"My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for
exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on children's
eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to investigate myopic
(nearsighted) eyes because I was myself nearsighted.

"On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in doing such
work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly, did not need them was
almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a
medical doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who
might need or be under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on
the medical profession.

"To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the following
precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any form, in print or
verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter and nothing more. Second, I
charged a reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any
special work or relief I gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I
just did it as a matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the
opportunity.

"Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship of the
eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept it up, and will
continue to do this work as long as I continue to have the incentive and
capability.

"Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair of plus one
(+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to the naked eye could be
restored to children whose eyes have a negative focal state? This was true in
1904, and it is also true now, in this decade of 1950." (It continues to be true
in this decade of 1990 -- Otis Brown)

=========

SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION

(For threshold prevention -- by the "will" and persistence of the person
himself.  Judy, you are no help at all.)

With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a profound and
adverse effect, you would think that it should be possible to develop scientific
verification for this characteristic of the normal eye. You would be correct.
The testing and verification is impeccable -- if we restrict our attention to
the normal eye's behavior.

===========

But science preception must be in the person himself.

ODs, facing people (Parent/Child) who love the "easy" of the minus, simply can
not be part of a true PREVENTION effort.

Science and prevention INSIGHTS best,

Otis

Dear Judy,

Why do you continue with your "farce" that you are INTERESTED IN PREVENTION.

You are NOT!!!

I suggest a deeper understanding of SCIENCE is essential for the person himself.

I suggest you STATE YOUR TOTAL "NO INTEREST" IN THRESHOLD-PREVNETION.

Because, now, you are the enemy of prevention -- why not admit it -- and end
your false-hoods.

Prevention best,

Otis

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Second-opinion Science, post #4
>
>
> I always respect Judy – but I don't agree with her opinion that prevention is
not possible.

Please stop attributing statements to me.  I have not said that prevention is
not possible.

Judy

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Subject: Science supporting Bates/Prentice PREVENTION -- at the threshold.
>
> Re: Post #3
>
>
>
>   Subject: The majority-opinion versus Dr. Bates.
>
>   It is one thing to insist that it is PROVEN that getting OUT OF a negative
state IS IMPOSSIBLE.
>
>   I can respect Judy when she says it is IMPOSSIBLE. Maybe it is.
>
>   But when Judy insists -- with no science to support her -- that PREVENTION
is impossible, the I must say that she is speaking from her "office position".
>
>   But let us consider this issue from  YOUR perspective.
>
>   You know that Judy considers it "un-ethical" and "illegal" for her to help
you with true-prevention.  Perhaps she is correct.  But since that is the case,
then who do you think SHOULD help you with prevention, i.e., starting the
preventive method before ANY minus lens is applied.

I wish you would stop attributing statements to me that I have not made.

Either post a direct link to my actual words or think of some other topic.

Judy

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:

a cut and paste of remarks he attributes to me.

Do you have a link to the original post?  I think you have attributed Alex's
remarks to me.

Please delete the original post of this thread, as they are not my comments.

Judy

Dear Frans,

There are majority-opinion ODs who have no interest in science and statistics. 
They are very "happy" being myopic and have no interest in the subject of
threshold-prevention.

There knowledge of the work of vision-scientists like Francis Young shows no
understanding at all.

In Engineering/Science you MUST have a good background in the subject matter. 
ODs simply don't understand, or don't "care" to understand.  Indeed they are
myopic, and don't care about prevention at all.

That is just simple bias.

But when they tell you that a study is "not significant", they simply are not
telling you Scientific Truth.  To avoid "conflict", they should admit that they
have no interest in science.  That would be both fair and honest to all
concerned.

Here are the results of the "best" plus study.  They strongly suggest that, if
the person had STRONG INTEREST in the goal of his scientific study (or
true-prevnetion) he could succeed (as a professional group).

And no, you can never reduce the Engineering Mind -- who understands this issue,
to a "magic minus pill" supplied to the public in 30 minutes.

All the responsiblity (to learn, understand and ACT) must reside in the person
himself. You can not do this with children.  But with college students, I
believe that they would want to "protect" their distant vision (in a prevntive)
study -- that would be recognized as SUCCESSFUL in the first six months of the
study.

Here is the Engineering/Scientific Analysis -- to support a future PREVENTION
effort.

True-prevention best,

Otis

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


Subject:  Calculating the significance level of the Oakley-Young
      study


      Majority-opinion ODs generally deny ANY significance for the
Oakley-Young study.

      But the reality is that the results are highly significant.

      I have taken the time to go through Frank Young's "Plus", or
so-called bifocal study.

      He stated that is results were significant -- but did not
supply the calculation nor some of the data to prove how
significant his results were for the large number of individuals
involved in this study.

      I wonder if you could review these calculations and either
state your support, or supply questions about the data.

      Here are the data from the study:

Nt = 225 wearing a plus (ages from 6 to 17)

Sigma-T = I am forced to estimate this, but the Standard Deviation
      (from the Eskimos) was about 1.4 diopters. ###

Nc = 192 wearing a "single minus".

Sigma-C = Again, forced to estimate, the Standard Deviation
      (Sigma) was about 2.0 diopters.  The Eskimo data is VERY
      accurate.


      Here is the classic equation from statistics:


	     Xt -  Xc

Z =  ---------------------------------------------------

     Square Root of [ ( Sigma^2/ Nt ) + (Sigma^2 / Nc ) ]


Xt = 0 diopters (the Plus group did not go down)

Xc = -1/2 diopters across the 192 people in the control group.
      (the single-minus went down at a rage of -1/2 diopters per
      year, for the kids wearing the single minus.)

      After one year with 0.5 diopters difference:


	    0.0 - ( -0.5 )

Z = ---------------------------------

   Square Root of [ ( 1.4^2 / 226 ) + ( 2.0^2 / 192 )]


Z =   0.5 / 0.172

Z = 2.91


Highly Significant is above Z = 2.33

      This is substantially above highly significant after one
year!!

      After two years:

      Z = 1.0 / 0.172


      Z = 5.82

      This is in fact "off the map" of the Probability Curve.  ***

      Please check this math, and the significance level.


      In order to plan for FUTURE studies, (with motivated pilots,
for instance) it is truly necessary that they understand the real
implications of this type of scientific test, and verification of
the significance of these results.

      That is why selecting engineering students who know what they
are doing is so essential -- and have the personal motivation to
do it right!

      If we ever were to propose this type of study to the National
Eye Institute, then this would be the "core" of the argument to
support a preventive study or effort, with respect to educated
engineers and scientists.


      Best,

      Otis

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


*** Significance levels, from the text book.

"Areas Under the Normal Probability Curve"

Z is the horizontal.  The probability is the area under the curve.


Z    Probability, or significance

Z= 2.33  P= 0.01
Z= 3.08  P= 0.001
Z= 3.61  P= 0.0001
Z= 3.86  P= 0.00001


      After one year, given the number of eyes involved, the
results, in terms of science, were highly significant, and
after two years, were far above Z = 3.86, and P = 0.00001.

      I would expect that engineers, who had the motivation to do this
right would achieve the same scientific results.

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


####  Standard Deviation (Sigma) from:

"Ocular Biometry of Eskimo Familes"
By Francis A. Young and George A. Leary

Group  # of Eyes Mean Sigma

Grand Parents N = 96  +2.21 1.31 Diopters

Parents  N = 180  +1.19 1.55 Diopters

Older Children N = 194  -0.93 1.97 Diopters

Young Children N = 218  +1.40 1.70 Diopters