Dear Frans,

Subject: Judy's preferred ignorance.

Yes, there is the field of Engineering/Science that Judy does not KNOW, and
NEVER wants to LEARN anyhthing new -- unless you wish to pay her $240 per hour.

And I would bet that she would be a "poor study", at that.  I don't have $240 to
pay Judy to learn Bates/Preventive methods -- do you?

Best,

Otis

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

Judys "love" of the Donder/Helmholtz "theory".





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


--- In i-see@yahoogroups.com, "Jean Daniel Mimi" <accountant@...> wrote:

> You said 'myope accommodates less than emmetrope', is there any study on it?

There is no need for a study, it is based on the physics of optics. The
accommodative demand for an object at a set distance is less for a myope wearing
minus lenses and more for a hyperope wearing plus lenses than for an emmetrope
with no lenses.

If you understand optics, I can provide you with a link to the detailed
calculations.

> For your third point I don't know what is exotrope but reading with a minus
glass at near will make a normal eye become myopic without any doubt.

You are incorrect. At least two studies of non myopes who wore minus lenses for
several years (to treat another condition called exotropia) found that they did
not become myopic.

> No, if someone knew that his myopia would raise above -10.D with the minus>
glasses and that they won't without them I think he would preferably go> without
them.

Jean, this is exactly what we don't know. We don't know that wearing minus
lenses causes myopia to progress to -10. It is highly unlikely, as -10 myopes
are very rare even though about 25% of the population in North America wears
minus lenses.

> No need clinical trials if it helps individually and if NVI is applied early
> and rightly it is effective.

You may be content with anecdotal reports for your own personal decision of
whether or not to try NVI, but optometrists dealing with the public and
providing professional advice must be guided by clinical trial.

Craig's quesions were not about personal opinion but about advice to patients in
office.

Judy

Dear Judy,

Why do you continue to tell people your endless lie??

Is your "career" that important that you must protect it by telling Frans
distortions and lies -- that he falls victim to your habit of over prescribing
the minus -- and killing any hope the child might have of keeping his Snellen
clear for life?

Shame on you!.

You are a fraud.

I think Frans is beginning to get that idea about you.

Medical Doctor Kaisu knows it -- and I think Frans knows it.

Seconcd-opinoin best,

Otis




Dear Frans,

Subject: Judy's over-prescription habit.

I think Judy will confirm this.

For the most part, she does not check the child's naked eye visual acuity.

What she does is to prescribe for "Best Visual Acuity". What this means IN
PRACTICE, is that she will be putting stronger and stronger minus lenses in
front of the child, unitl the she can get MAXIMUM SHARPNESS OF VISION FROM THAT
MINUS LENS.

She does this because she believes that this over-prescribed minus has NO
ADVERSE EFFECT. No "secondary effect". Is "perfectly safe". Is supported by
the Helmholtz THEORY that exclusively the lens "accommodates."

I happen to believe that she is practicing a massive mis-conception with tratic
long-term results for the poor child who comes under this "best Visual Acuity"
treatment.

Here a Dr. Wendell Diebold says exactly the same thing.

Would Judy care to respond? I rather doubt that she will.

The "great delusion" is that the minus is both wise and safe.

Clearly it is not.

Let me make this clear. Wendelle is talking about Judy's over-prescription of a
minus lens.

===========


The Great Delusion

"Wearing Glasses to Strengthen the Eyes"

A Billion Dollar Industry Based on an Error!

By Dr. Wendell A. Diebold

TENS of thousands make their living in a profession whose basis is founded on a
misconception! Strong statements I grant you, yet the saddest part is that they
are only too true.

Fitting of glasses to aid our vision on the theory that the lens of the eye is a
factor in accommodation, is the present practice. It is true that glasses do
enable some people to see better—for a time—just as any crutch may help a lame
man to get about, but when his lameness is gone or his broken leg has mended, he
can throw away his crutch. Not so with the crutches of the eye. The longer, in
most cases at least, glasses are worn, the poorer becomes the vision and the
stronger must the lens be. In other words, the eyesight gradually becomes less
acute—its keenness diminishes.

--- In Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com, "Otis" <otisbrown@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear Frans,
>
> Subject: Judy's over-prescription habit.
>
> I think Judy will confirm this.
>
> For the most part, she does not check the child's naked eye visual acuity.

You are wrong.  If a patient (adult or child) presents without glasses the
unaided acuity is checked.

> Here a Dr. Wendell Diebold says exactly the same thing.

What year did Diebold write?  The hypothesis that the extra ocular muscles are
involved in accommodation has been proven incorrect with modern imaging
techniques.

Judy

Otis

I think you are right doing . I can only appreciate and listen.

It is very difficult to reverse a civilization. So I started with myself and the
discussion comes to me.

You are doing well!

Frans



To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
From: otisbrown@...
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:44:00 +0000
Subject: [Myopiafree2] For Frans, please reveiw and provide commentary.






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





_________________________________________________________________
25GB gratis online harde schijf
http://skydrive.live.com

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

Dear Frans,

Subject: Judy's over-prescription habit.

I think Judy will confirm this.

For the most part, she does not check the child's naked eye visual acuity.

What she does is to prescribe for "Best Visual Acuity".  What this means IN
PRACTICE, is that she will be putting stronger and stronger minus lenses in
front of the child, unitl the she can get MAXIMUM SHARPNESS OF VISION FROM THAT
MINUS LENS.

She does this because she believes that this over-prescribed minus has NO
ADVERSE EFFECT.  No "secondary effect".  Is "perfectly safe".  Is supported by
the Helmholtz THEORY that exclusively the lens "accommodates."

I happen to believe that she is practicing a massive mis-conception with tratic
long-term results for the poor child who comes under this "best Visual Acuity"
treatment.

Here a Dr. Wendell Diebold says exactly the same thing.

Would Judy care to respond?  I rather doubt that she will.

The "great delusion" is that the minus is both wise and safe.

Clearly it is not.

Let me make this clear.  Wendelle is talking about Judy's over-prescription of a
minus lens.

===========


The Great Delusion

"Wearing Glasses to Strengthen the Eyes"

A Billion Dollar Industry Based on an Error!

By Dr. Wendell A. Diebold

TENS of thousands make their living in a profession whose basis is founded on a
misconception! Strong statements I grant you, yet the saddest part is that they
are only too true.

Fitting of glasses to aid our vision on the theory that the lens of the eye is a
factor in accommodation, is the present practice. It is true that glasses do
enable some people to see better—for a time—just as any crutch may help a lame
man to get about, but when his lameness is gone or his broken leg has mended, he
can throw away his crutch. Not so with the crutches of the eye. The longer, in
most cases at least, glasses are worn, the poorer becomes the vision and the
stronger must the lens be. In other words, the eyesight gradually becomes less
acute—its keenness diminishes.

If glasses really strengthened the eyes, why should stronger and stronger
lenses, ever so often, be required? If the theory that we are born with
defective organs of sight (a rare condition), were correct, there might be some
justification for the enormous number of folks with glasses, but all errors of
refraction are functional, therefore, curable by the proper methods.

The general teaching regarding the eye has been that it is more or less of a
fixed organ. It is supposed that some are born with short eyes and therefore
they are apt to have various degrees of far-sightedness, and astigmatism—while
others are supposedly born with long eyeballs, and therefore they are doomed to
short or near-sight, technically known as myopia.

Experiments, made over a hundred years ago by Helmholtz and others in
photographing a candle light's reflection from the front of the lens, are
supposed to have demonstrated that the curvature of the lens changes during
aeeommodation. Helmholts's conclusion from his experiments was that the lens
contracted and expanded. This supposed contraction and expansion of the lens was
thought to be the factor that enabled the eye to accommodate for the near and
distant point in reading. I say, it seemed so to them, although Helmholtz was
never entirely satisfied himself, but his followers "more loyal than the king,"
for over a hundred years have accepted what he considered as the probable cause
of the fact without further question, or attempt to prove or disprove the idea.
All our present practice has been and is based upon this theory. If the theory
can be shown to be wrong, then the whole present practice of the eye glass
fitting fraternity, based on that theory, will have been proven to be wrong. A
correct practice cannot be founded on an incorrect or untrue premise.

Now, while the rank and file of the eye glass fraternity have blindly accepted
the teaching handed down to them in their colleges and schools, there have been
many experiences in their actual application that have no coincided with their
theory. A classical example is the cases of people who have had their lenses
removed through a cataract operation and still have been able to acquire the
ability to accommodate without a lens. This could never have occurred if the
lens were the factor of accommoda-tion. -Again, tens of thousands of cases of
near-sight, far-sightedness and astigmatism have been corrected and normal
vision secured. It is evident that these results could not have been secured if
the error of refraction were a fized thing—something people were supposed to
have been born with, and not a functional condition as first maintained by Dr.
W. H. Bates of New York City.

Dr. Bates, as long ago as 1886, cured cases of myopia by a simple method based
on a principle that he later demonstrated scientifically. He was one of the few
who was not satisfied with the usual explanations and when he found that he
could by some simple methods secure correction of "errors of refraction," he
realised that the old theory must be wrong. What did he do? He tried to prove,
by reenacting the same experiment that Helmholtz performed, that the tens
accommodation theory was correct. He worked almost continuously for two years
and every experiment made proved that the theory was wrong, due to a mistaken
interpretation of certain facts. Then he had to prove his own theory, which is,
that the extrinsic muscles that move the eyeball also control its shape. The
oblique muscles in contracting elongate the eyeball, producing myopia, and the
recti muscles in contracting shorten the eyeball and produce hypermetropia. He
made many thousands of experiments on animals of all kinds. He found that by
cutting the superior oblique muscle that the retinoscops would not show any
focusing of the eye. When it was sewed together again, the eye focused normally
as before. This proves that the tension of the extrinsic muscles determines the
shape of the eye, therefore, its focusing. go, on this basis, Dr. Bates says
that the bad habit of staring and straining to see (and other conditions of
mental and bodily strain), causes an undue tension on the extrinsic muscles,
which does not allow the eyeball to accommodate through shortening or
lengthening at will, as it should, and therefore give us perfect vision. Now the
proof of the pudding is in the eating; not only has Dr. Bates, for many years,
corrected all kinds of defective vision in tens of thousand of cases, but many
other physicians all over this country and England, by using his methods, are
securing the correction of far-sight, short-sight, "old age sight," astigmatism,
cross-eyes, and even cases of cateract and glaucoma.

Dr. Bates' work and researches are undoubtedly one of the greatest boons of this
century that has come to suffering mankind. Generstione unborn will do homage to
him. He at last has made it possible for nearly everyone to regain normal sight.
The practice of a few of his simple rules will positively prevent children from
ever developing defective vision. From a lifetime of study and practice, he
asserts with the conviction of one who (mows whereof he speaks, that to put
glasses on children is a crime. My oven eaperienee convinces me that children
and young people tan regain perfect vision if they have lost it, or maintain it
if they are now blest with it. The results in at least seventy-five per cent of
adult cases have been more than gratifying in that their vision has been
restored to normal. Even the cases where restoration could be only partially
accomplished, because of the great degree of degeneration that had taken place,
have been much improved.

All cases can secure improvement by these methods. Most cases can secure good
sight without glasses, and young people and children can secure perfect vision
with-out glasses.

Dear Frans,

Subject: The problem with Judy -- she will not admit to her mistake.

When a person attempts to "cover up" a "poor" method of practice, then we all
suffer the consequence.

If Judy were truly professional, she should agree with this statement:


There is no need to worry about our mistakes if we have the strength to admit
them (La Rochefoucauld).


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

Dr. Kaisu is a truly remarkable person.  She admits that the "minus" is a
"mistake", and advocates the "plus" for prevention.

I say EXACTLY what his medical doctor states.  (By the way, Judy is NOT a
medical doctor).

This is why I call prevention -- the MEDICAL second-opinion.

I admit that the "minus" is a mistake. Why can't Judy admit that truth, at least
as the second-opinion.

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

BY Dr. Kaisu:



The Clinical Significance of Ocular Accommodation

Download the entire book as a PDF (English, 506 pages)



INTRODUCTION

Oculists find themselves in the same dilemma as doctors in general: when young
they lack experience. Thus a doctor who has himself often been ill is generally
a good doctor and best understands the perils of taking several drugs at the
same time. A young oculist inevitably has little experience of the nuances
involved in prescribing glasses and has even less experience of the burden of
hypermetropic, knows nothing of the awkwardness of presbyopia with advancing
years and cannot know how hard it is for those who suffer from both
hypermetropic and presbyopia to do close work. Even a presbyotic oculist often
rejects the use of glasses in the manner of a layman. How then can he help his
tormented patient when diagnosis of his latent trouble requires at least that
the oculist understand what is going on? Thus the oculist himself, often without
intending it, makes light of hypermetropia.


Even today a great deal of "traditional knowledge" is picked up from one's
elders in the course of training - and it is hard to know whether this is good
or bad - but one thing is certain, the really important things about refraction
are sadly neglected. One sometimes wonders why capital so dearly bought should
remain in pawn. One pre-supposes that a doctor who is specializing will already
have a talent for unearthing such everyday things, but what I am trying to say
is that there are a vast number of things which cannot be learnt from books and
which require years of experience, even with the same patients, before they
become clear. You cannot really follow how the refraction of a particular
patient changes when working in an out-patients' department and in any case
three or four years' specializing is only a drop in the ocean when it comes to
learning how to prescribe glasses.


Those who have worked only a few months in a clinic easily think that they know
more or less what is involved in this field, at least where something basic like
refraction is concerned! One does not have to be a genius in order to prescribe
spectacles for those who seem to need them. This is well illustrated by the
remark of a young fellow who did not find the prescribing of glasses very
interesting. "What the hell does it matter whether a patient's glasses are half
a diopter in one direction or another?" Why not indeed, provided that it does
not bring further problems in its train and that incorrect spectacles do not
lead to a lengthy history of suffering as has so often been the case.


Prudence and true learning only begin when one's own mistakes begin to boomerang
and no comfort can be had from the thought that lack of time was the cause, for
hurriedness and prescribing of spectacles are unsatisfactory bed-fellows. One of
my colleagues once observed that in prescribing glasses one must begin by
assuming that everybody else, — often the previous oculist — has been an
absolute idiot. The only trouble is, however, that one is often the idiot
oneself. I confess that the most difficult thing of all is to face up to one's
own mistakes, but here too love of truth will help.


There is no need to worry about our mistakes if we have the strength to admit
them (La Rochefoucauld).


Just as every man must go through a certain process of biological development,
so must a man grow up to his profession \ thus one generation advances little
upon the previous one, energy is squandered on the same old mistakes which could
so easily be avoided. It is for this reason that I have here collected together
the experiences gained during twenty years of practice. One may have to see a
lot of life before one realizes how important a good basic training is. I cannot
boast of my pre-medical learning, but I understand now how important each branch
is, especially, I think, anatomy (that of nervous system), pharmacology and
physiology. I am therefore all the more horrified by all kinds of crash courses
and short-cuts in present-day medical training. One must have at least so much
basic knowledge that one can make intelli¬gent use of books when dealing with
problematic cases and in addition plenty of common sense if one is to go forward
wisely. The most efficient brains are impotent if they are used for
appropriating "accepted ideas" blindly and if they lack the true scientific
spirit and more especially if they hold key positions.


At least in Finland, the fact is that most oculists are private practitioners
and it has been estimated that the prescribing of spectacles comprises between
80% and 95% of their work. The present book is therefore based on
refraction,which is intimately connected with diseases like migraine, increase
of intraocular pressure,many troubles accepted as actual eye diseases, and
probably other troubles like high blood-pressure. Simple though the theme may
be, it is of such great importance that no (see also foot note l,p.344.) oculist
can study It too much and one must pity the oculists In hospitals who either
have not mastered refraction or underestimate Its seriousness. When the question
I am dealing with Is taken Into account the oculists' work that Is left over Is
really very restricted, at least quantitatively, although of course It has Its
problems.


Even the work of a run-of-the-mill oculist Is so heavy and time-consuming that
he Is seldom able to view any patient's troubles In perspective, but once the
matter Is understood, It Is extraordinary to discover what a conspicuous part Is
played by the eyes and especially accommodation stress In a whole group of
different symptom-complexes and how crucial the decisions that have to be taken
may be for the patient. I believe the practical applications of
neuro-ophthalmology to be almost unlimited.


It may seem Incredible that such a wide medical field is covered by a
simple-seeming thing like latent hypermetropia and spasm of accommodation. We
shall
perhaps understand it better if we stand back a bit and look at it from a
distance. It may then dawn on us that the workings of the human body have in
recent times become subjected to many unwonted strains, affecting particularly
the eyes. The eye, both because of its proximity to the brain and on account of
its function as a transmitter of that indescribably important sensory stimulus -
light - is neurologically at the centre of the stage.


For this reason, the thesis here propounded, if acted upon, will mean that
patients with certain symptom-complexes are dealt with by other hands and given
a different kind of basic examination.


I have tried to ignore the objections made to my work - we all come in for our
share of obloquy - and to draw strength from those of my patients who have
returned to give thanks for the inalterable advice which has enabled them to
persist in wearing glasses when It seemed that all was lost and thus to succeed
in overcoming their troubles In the only way possible. We have all met patients
who have traipsed from doctor to doctor over the years on account of severe
headaches and have been overjoyed to hear that after wearing the glasses we have
prescribed they "never 'ad a day's illness since". And how such experiences
comfort one and confirm one in one's convictions !


"Put your glasses on the bedside-table when going to bed and put them on as soon
as you get up in the morning"^ I should like this sentence to ring in the ears
of head¬ache sufferers ! "You must come back again and again if the trouble goes
on; your glasses may have to be modified. Headaches are not normal, as some
people seem to think ! Your head shouldn't be aching!" Ethically I cannot allow
my patients' heads to ache and especially I can't bear the thought that they may
be taking headache pills.


A patient taking pills for headaches is the oculist's nightmare and no oculist
should be content with a 25 % recovery rate (Sandoz Report 3/1972). If there is
no brain tumour or other proven organic defect an oculist should have no peace
of soul until every headache has been cured. As I often say to patients I am
ashamed to see them wearing nothing but dark glasses - the sign of a bad
oculist. Tinted glasses merely cover up mistakes and enable them to endure the
wrong spectacles.


As I have said,it is all the same to me, but not to society as a whole, whether
people can cope with their lives or not, provided they are happy and fit to
work, their heads are not aching and their eyes are not troubling them. It is
all the same to me if they do not mind looking strained and old, if they do not
mind having high blood pressure and high intra-ocular pressure, both of which
endanger vision and can in extreme cases lead to blindness. However, as soon as
somebody comes to me for help, I feel my responsibility and am in no way ashamed
of my over-enthusiasm in the attempt to reach the goal. I always say to any
patient I catch being disobedient that I will not see him again because he is
just wasting my time. There are plenty who can be helped and who wish to be
helped. Patients who will not wear the glasses prescribed for them, run
incurable, from doctor to doctor, giving a totally misleading picture of the
matter.


My book is intended to demonstrate how essential the prescribing of proper
glasses can be and how important their use is for almost everything, and not
just for the eyes.


In writing the book I have tried to shut out Mark Twain's aphorism from my mind:
" The less I know about a subject, the more confident I feel and the more I
illustrate it."


I am under no illusion that in this world of "received ideas", where thought is
paralysed, any great change will be wrought at a single blow. I remain
optimistic, however, for I have seen the fruit of much more modest labour after
a lapse of only six or seven years. The one thing that is certain is that if one
does not
even try to change opinion there is no hope that it will change on its own and
the written word has the advantage over the spoken that it can bide its time !


I am fully aware that many and even contemptuous criticisms have been raised,
that there are some who see only fourth-rate didactic fiction in everything, but
even if the seed never grows I have been able to write and express myself

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]