Re: Great minds think alike, Otis!


Dear Bill,

Some remarks:

1. Optometry REACTS people -- with a minus lens.

2. The minus lens is EASY to apply. You just sit a person in
a chair, put up a Snellen, and show that a minus lens "sharpens"
the Snellen.

3. There is some check for "medical" issues (like RP and glaucoma)
but the minus is indeed impressive, and if you only have 10 minutes
with a person, and the person EXPECTS the minus lens -- what else
can you do? The minus requires no discussion, no review, no
decision or choice by the person. Just the obvious fact that
the minus "works" -- and that is it.

++++++++++

I think that is a fair argument FOR THE MINUS. The ODs can and
SHOULD make that argument -- that they are LIMITED by what
the public expects, and indeed what works INSTANTLY -- and
that is the only thing that the public will understand and ACCEPT.

But the larger issue is this -- how did the FUNDAMENTAL EYE
change its refractive STATE from a positive value to a negative
value.

This is were these ODs go into a profound DENIAL state.

I RESPECT a population of fundamental eyes -- to be dynamic
systems. (i.e., control systems, or automatic-control systems.)

So I test the entire population of eyes, to find out if the
refractive STATE of these eyes will CHANGE their refractive
STATE when a -3 diopter lens is applied.

From a review of that type of "direct-science", you can pose
the following test, of the OD's "majority-opinion", and call
it the "null" hypotiesis -- which is that the fundamental eye
is NOT DYANMIC (in the above sense) and THEREFORE
MUST NOT CHANGE ITS REFRECTIVE STATE -- WHEN YOU
PLACE A -3 DIOPTER LENS ON IT. Retinula has
insisted MANY TIMES that the natural eye is NOT
DYNAMIC, and that there will be NO CHANGE in
refractive state of the -3 diotper test group.

From long review of this type of scientific testing of the
natural eye -- it is virtually certain that the -3 diopter
group will change its refractive STATE by greater-than -2 diopters
in one year.

If you are a scientist -- you should take the results of this
OBJECTIVE, TESTING SERIOUSLY. The only request
I have is this -- use the term refractive STATE, where the
test is to determine IF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE IS
DYNAMIC -- OR NOT. Retinula does not like the IMPLICATIONS
of this test -- so he denys the science of it.

As far as I am concered -- that resolves the issues -- and
answers the question of "The Printer's Son". There is a profound
difference between dealing with the public (off the street) where
ONLY A MINUS LENS "WORKS", and dealing with the
scientific issue of determining if the fudamental eye IS,
and PERFORMS as a dynamic system. The words descriptive
words we use to describe the SCIENTIFIC experiment are
critical. DO not use the word ORGANIC DEFECT to
describe what is characteristic and natural behavior
for the fundamental eye.

Maybe this is too abstract for the M.O. ODs on
sci.med.vision. They obviously do not understand
the concept at all.

Some more commentary:


Bill> Has such behavior been factored into the various experiments?

Otis> No, the M.O. ODs ignore both the question, and the
scientific testing -- and results.

Bill> The way kids,
with or without glasses, are not observed during a refraction session.

Otis> NO OD PAYS ANY ATTENTION TO HOW THE KIDS USE THEIR EYES.
I preceive that issue is critical. The NATURAL EYE will in fact change
its refracitve STATE to REFLECT its average visual environment.
Because
they do not wish to get involved in that type of SCIENTIFIC REVIEW
of the objective facts -- proving they type of typical behavior
for the natural eye. That is why we are having this impasse.


Bill> There
is more to good visual hygiene than merely telling a kid to use glasses
only
for seeing the blackboard.

Otis> You bet there is. But the real issue is this. Who is
going to dicipline the kids, to follow the instructions? The ODs are
not going to do it -- it's not their job. The "control" would be
the responsibility of the parents to INSTRUCT the kids in
these preventive methods -- to include the "plus" when
necessary.

Bill> Moreover, is a kid going to remove his/her
glasses when going from reading the blackboard to writing into a
notebook.

Otis> Assuming the kid still has 20/40 to 20/50, the real quesiton is
this -- will
the kid put on a +2.5 diopter for all reading -- and WAIT for his
Snellen to clear to better than 20/40 -- as parent of a visual hygiene
process. Obviously some engineer-parents have INSISTED their kids do
EXACTLY THAT -- and the kids refractive STATE does not go from plus to
minus. i.e., they avoid entry into myopia.;


Bill> If you think so, you do not know kids and have forgotten your own
childhood.

Otis> I certainly remember doing it as kid. But I was told that
"enviroment" had not connection with the refractive STATE of the eye.
So I kept on doing it.

Otis> Only as an engineer did I find out that it was established that
the
refractive STATE of the fundamental eye FOLLOWS that applied minus
lens.
So for PREVENTION to develop -- we must fisrt RESPECT the fact that
the fundamental eye is proven to be dynamic, and that
a slight negative refractive state -- can be prevented if a plus
is agressivly used at the critcial 20/50 to 20/60 level.

Just on man's opinion.

Otis



Bill
-- Ferme le Bush



Salmon Egg wrote:
On 7/27/06 11:07 AM, in article
0r-dneoNybtGnVTZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx, "Mike Tyner"
<mtyner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


<acemanvx@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

I know, it happened to me and everyone else who went with the wretched
minus.

I just examined a young woman of 19 who had never worn glasses.

Her refraction was -675 in the right eye and -375 in the left.

How did she get that way without wearing glasses?

-MT



I presume that part of the optometry jargon is to leave out the decimal
point. I can live with that. Nevertheless, the numbers you list, well under
1D in absolute value do not strike me any big deal.

How did that get to be negative at all? I have one possible reason. When I
and my cousin were kids, we spent many hours reading comic books in bad
light. To read easily, we brought the page close to our eyes. Certainly,
most people will agree that doing so will make it easier to read. The
closer, the better. With our young eyes, our accommodation allowed us to get
those pages to what memory at my now advanced age recalls as 150mm. That is,
we were able to do, without negative lenses, what was made easier with
negative lenses.

Has such behavior been factored into the various experiments? The way kids,
with or without glasses, are not observed during a refraction session. There
is more to good visual hygiene than merely telling a kid to use glasses only
for seeing the blackboard. Moreover, is a kid going to remove his/her
glasses when going from reading the blackboard to writing into a notebook.
If you think so, you do not know kids and have forgotten your own childhood.

Bill
-- Ferme le Bush

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Limits of Optometry -- and why.
    ... STARTED before the minus is applied. ... But the larger issue is this -- does the FUNDAMENTAL EYE ... change its refractive STATE from a positive value to a negative ... Otis> NO M.O. OD PAYS ANY ATTENTION TO HOW THE KIDS USE THEIR ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: Over-minused by -3 diotpers?
    ... OVER MINUS PRESCRIPTIONS by -1 to -3 diopters! ... Imagaine what THAT over-prescription does to the refractive STATE ... of the eye -- over-time! ... pupils that create a false sense of sharper vision. ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: Minus lens for 20/40 child?
    ... The effect of a -3 diopter lens on the refractive ... STATE of the eye. ... The natural eye will change its refractive STATE by ... Me> Logic dictates full time close work using minus lenses would ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: eye math question
    ... The natural eye's refractive STATE follows that minus lens. ... Thus stair-case myopia develops in these steps. ... and the eye adjusts its refractive STATE ...
    (sci.med.vision)
  • Re: Here is why I defend Otis. You optometrists have nothing but excuses, I have proof!
    ... $8 readers give them a hassle, more distance blur, and NO CHANGE IN THE ... PLUS LENSES DO NOT SHORTEN THE EYE! ... while driving so using minus lenses part-time is good too. ...
    (sci.med.vision)
Loading