Getting Stronger: Discussion Forum

Discussion Topics => New Applications => Topic started by: OtisBrown on November 04, 2011, 03:54:36 PM

Title: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on November 04, 2011, 03:54:36 PM
Subject: Why science and analysis supports Todd's personal success.

Re:  I believe in science -- but I always ask to "see the science" that supports personal prevention.

Re: It is one thing to talk about it -- but difficult to show it.

Re: We know from Chalmer Prentics' statement that it takes strong personal resolve to "recover" from 20/40 to 20/60 (about -3/4 to -1.25 diopters)  Chalmer estimated about nine months.  But we also know it sure is not easy.  But what does science show about this issue.  If you made the personal commitment, could you, on your own, clear your distant vision by 1) Not using a minus (unless absolutely necessary) and wearing a plus (read at just blur point) for the nine months required.

Re: In this study, the kids wore a plus for five years -- and it prevented it from getting worse (i.e., they did not change).  I think that a more mature person, at 20/40 could do bettter than a child who has no idea what he is doing or why he is doing it.  We as mature adults (and engineers) COULD understand WHY we are doing it.  Here is the science of it.

Subject: You can not have science, unless you understand the statistics.

Re: But what is the significance of this excellent scientific study conducted by Dr. Francis Young?

I pointed out that you can not run a plus-prevention study with children. For that reason, the CLOSEST study we have about the
effect of a correctly used plus -- is in this "plus study" conducted by Francis Young.

Because you could PRESCRIBE a plus ( ONLY in the form of a bifocal) you could effectively force a child to wear a plus for all close work.  A control group was maintained (See "N" in this table).

http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm

So what were the results.  (Note the "plus" was placed HIGH in the glasses, so the child could not avoid looking THROUGH the plus. In these other studies, they use a small "chip" plus, which the child naturally avoided LOOKING THROUGH -- thus negating the entire effect
of the plus.

Thus, unless you can insure the child actually looks THROUGH the plus -- the result is meaningless.  What was the result of the plus -- when correctly used.
Well read the table of  kids wearing the plus for about five years.

The "plus" group did not
go down -- read the table. (In fact the plus group went up slightly.)

The control group --with just a minus lens?  Over five years?  They went down at an average rate of -0.65 diopters per year for five years, thus increasing their myopia by -3.35 diopters.

Obviously the major issue it that with a engineering college student, you could TEACH him how to wear the plus when his Snellen was 20/40, and his refractive state was -3.4 diopters.

The indication is that, with wisdom and persistence, as person who values his distant visoin could change his refractive state by +3/4 diopters, and clear his Snellen to normal.

I post these remarks to help Todd help others with prevention.  I know that few people will wish to examine the science behind plus-prevention, but I think it is necessary to understand it.  I hope this helps people who are at 20/40, (-1 diopter) continue to wear the plus, for the next nine months, until they get their Snellen back to the 20/25 to 20/20 range.  It can be done, and this is the rock-bed science that supports you.

Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on November 05, 2011, 10:58:32 AM
Subject: Wearing the plus (forced) for five years prevented entry into myopia.

Re: That is perhaps a bitter scientific truth -- but it is the truth.


Using the values obtained from this table of the natural eye's dynamic
behavior, we can calculate scientific significance:

http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm

Z = 0 - 0.65 (diopters)
________________________________
Square Root [ 0.45 ^2 / 51  +  0.45 ^ 2 / 11 ]

Z = 0.65 / 0.15

Z = 4.33  (This value far exceeds "Highly Significant" -- in the first
year.

In the following four more years, the values are:

Z = 1.3 / 0.15  (second year)

Z = 1.95 / 0.15 (third year)

Z = 2.6 / 0.15 (forth year)

Z = 3.65 / 0.15 (fifth year)

For the natural eye, these numbers FAR EXCEED "highly significant"
But that is science.
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on November 15, 2011, 06:41:48 AM
Subject:  Further analysis of the effect of a child's "habit".

The study of the natural primate eye makes the induction of a negative state of the eye -- certain.  But what if the natural human primate eye?  It is often stated that the natural primate eye is "different" and rules of science do no apply.  Well -- they do.

With a child you can not teach him how to wear a plus correctly.  So you have only one choice, and that is to provide BOTH a minus on top and a plus on the bottom.  This is obviously a compromise.  It would be much better to teach the child to use the plus when he was at 20/40. But the ONLY way I can get the information is by review of this "plus" study -- by math and science.  When I argue for "self-prevention" this is the data that supports YOU, and proves that you have little choice but to conduct prevention yourself.

This is from a scientific study conducted by Francis Young. His study had been ignored, with the claim that the results were not
"significant".  But the people who make that statement -- NEVER CHECK THE STUDY NOR THE FACTS.

 I will use the data from the "plus" group and will compare it to the  "minus" group.  |Check this table for the test (plus) and control (minus) groups. ]

 http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm

 In statistics a P = 0.05 is considered a significant result. If P =  0.01, the result is stated to be HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT.
 In this table, with N = 11 and N = 51, the calculated results in the  first year ( Diff = 0.65 diopters) were in fact incredibly  significant.

++++++++++++++
Subject: Show the calculations for the refractive state of the natural eye.

In the first year, the difference was 0.65 diopters.

The value from the table 4 is for one year:

Control group: N = 51 Ref = -0.65, Standard Deviation = 0.4

Plus Group: N = 11, Ref = 0.00, S. D. (Sigma) = 0.4 dioters.

The "t" value was 4.80

The "Z" value is calculated this way:

X1 - X 2
______________________________________ = Z
Sqrt [ Sigma^2 / N1 + Sigma^2 / N2 ]

0.65 / [ .4^2/ 51 + .4^ / 11 ] = Z

Z = 4.89 (This is infact "off the chart". )

P less-than  .0001

I know that Todd is conversant with this type of statistical analysis.  We both agree, it would be wise to start wearing the plus before you get "deeper" than one diopter.

Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on November 25, 2011, 04:44:10 AM
Post 1 of 3:  How Todd's success could be conducted at a four year college.

Subject:  A statistical study of prevention — at 20/40 and -1 diopter.

Required reading by all pilot students in an “open” preventive study – by use of a plus.

Re: An included statement by Dr. Chalmer Prentice. Indeed, it takes a great deal
of personal commitment to be effective a plus-prevention.

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

EXAMPLE CASES

Age forty-three; myopia; had been wearing over the right eye
-1.25 D, left eye -1 D, with little or no change for the space of
two years; eyes in use more or less at the near point. I
recommended the removal of the concave glasses for distant vision
and prescribed +3.50 D for reading, writing and other office work.

After reading in these glasses for several days, the patient
was able to read print twelve inches from the eyes. This patient
was of more than ordinary intelligence and understood the aim of
the effort. In six months I changed the glasses for reading and
writing to a +4 D without seeing the patient. After using the +4
D glasses for several months he again came under my care for an
examination, when the left eye gave twenty-twentieths of vision,
while the right eye was very nearly the same, but the acuity was
just perceptibly less.

Similar results have been attained in 34 like cases;

…but the process is very tedious for the patients, and unless their understanding is clear on the subject, it is almost impossible to induce them to undergo the trial.

Otis> Impossible?  When you attempt to FORCE a person to use the plus -- then yeas.  But the person MUST understand the value of his own study, and the
need for true presistence in his own work, and by his own judgment. In other words, success will ALWAYS depend on the person himself and NEVER on the doctor.

Otis> What follows is a plan to ORGANIZE the motivation necessary to use the plus successfully – by the people who have the greates need for that success.
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on November 25, 2011, 04:50:19 AM
Part 2:

Subject: What is the minimum number of eyes required for a valid statistical approach?

In a statistical you are looking for an indicator that you are doing the right-thing, and going in the right-direction.  A good statistical verification can tell you that,

1) Yes, if continued, a greater level of success is possible or

Here is what I would propose:

Twelve volunteer engineer/pilots, would be making the measurements and judging the results.

We know that each eye controls its refractive state independently of the other
eye — thanks to the excellent work by Dr. Earl Smith. This means that we will
have a total of 24 eyes in the study, with 12 in the control group and 12 in the
test group.

Each of the 12 pilots would have a visual acuity of 20/40 to 20/50, and would
understand that the plus group could probably succeed. This would be measured by the pilots at about -3/4 to -1.0 diopters.

The Standard Deviation (or Sigma) would be calculated for all 24 eyes, based on the measurements made by the pilots.

From long experience of the Francis Young study, it is estimated that Sigma would be about 0.45 diopters. We will use this value for the calculations
provided below.

Note: Sigma (Standard Deviation)  is given for “Large N”. In general the letter “s” is used for the (small) sample standard deviation.

If N > 30, then here is the equation to calculate the probability that the
natural eye has changed its refractive state.

Z = Xc – Xt / Square Root [ Sigma^2 / Nc + Sigma^2 / Nt ]

In this study of 12 pilots, each will be taught the statistics of this study. As
engineers, they will be taking a course on this subject, and should have no
problem with it.

Each man will measure the refractive state of his eyes.  Thus, at the start of the study:

N = 24 eyes. s = Sigma = 0.45 diopters. The average refractive state of all 24
eyes = -1.0 diopters.

The “spread” of these values is estimated to be from -0.5 to -1.5 diopters.)

The study will be conducted for eight months, with the control group wearing a minus lens all the time, and the plus group using a strong plus for all close work. They will measure the refractive state themselves every two weeks. Anyone can drop out of the study — but cannot rejoin it.   Here are the estimated statistical results:

The minus group can be expected to go down by about -1/4 diopter, and the plus group can be expected to go “up” by about +3/4 diopters. (Estimated from Dr. Colgate’s results.)

Thus, Xc – Xt = -0.25 – (0.75) = 1.0 diopters difference between control and test groups.

Using the equation:

Z = Xc – Xt / Square Root [ Sigma^2/Nc + Sigma^2/Nt ]

Z = 1.0 / Square Root [ 0.45^2 / 12 + 0.45^2 / 12 ]

Z = 5.44

Comment: This value is “off the table”, of a P is less than 0.0001  Thus a study with as few at 6 people in the "control group" (plus lens) could succeed.  But it would take about seven months to clear from 20/40 to 20/20.  The "minus" group would go down by about -1/2 diopter.  The problem would be to get the six people to wear the minus all the time -- when the realized that the minus would make matters worse.  But that would be the challenge of running an "open" study.
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on November 25, 2011, 04:55:51 AM
Part 3

I often get the "argument" about "Small N" in statistics.  When N is less-than 30, you need to use a "special table" to get more accurate results.  Here is that analysis.  This is why you need an engineer to lead a prevention study -- with other engineers (starting at 20/40 and -1 diopter).  THEY would understand the science supporting their eforts.

Since “N” is < 30, we should show the “t” probability calculation:

Sigma = Sqr Root [ (Nc s^2 + Nt s^2) / ( Nc + Nt - 2 ) ]

Sigma = Sqr Root [ ( 12 * 0.45^2 + 12 * 0.45^2 ) / ( 12 + 12 - 2 ) ]

Degrees of freedom = 22

Sigma = 0.47

t = ( Xc – Xt ) / Sigma * (Sqr Root ( 1/Nc + 1/Nt ) )

t = 1.0 / 0.47 * Sqr Root [ 1/12 + 1/12 ]

t = 5.21

Again this number is “off the table”. P is less than 0.0001

Comment:

Even with the small (N = 24 eyes) a difference of 1.0 diopters indicates that the ‘plus group’ would get their status to zero of a positive value, and therefor 20/20.

The minus group would continue down at a rate of -1/3 diopters for each year they are in college.

No one should consider entering this type of self-measurement and self-control study, until they read and understand Dr. Prentic’s statement.  If you are going to prevent under YOUR control, you had must have the resolve to actually wear the plus for at least seven months.

It is clear that persistence will be required of BOTH GROUPS.  It will become clear to both groups, that the “plus group” has a good chance of clearing their Snellen back to normal, while the pure-minus group, will experience and down-ward change in their refractive status, say from 20/40 to 20/60.

But, if that happens to the “negative lens” group in seven months, after a favorable result with the “plus group”, the minus-group could then begin the wearing of the plus until THEY got their refractive state to change in a positive direction, and get to 20/20 after perhaps 12 months.
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on December 02, 2011, 06:21:38 AM

Subject: The medical argument.

First -- I don't think a medical person will ever help you with prevention.  Second -- prevention (as per Chalmer Prentice, if not understood by the person) will be profoundly REJECTED by the person.

In fact, I will not get into a "medical argument" for that reason exclusively.  I think that if you are going to "conduct prevention", (at the 20/50 level) you need to understand the "position" of an OD or MD in his office.  He has a quick-fix that works.  If he attempted to even DISCUSS the use of the plus at 20/40, (and the person rejected it) he could be sued (successfully) for mal-practice.  I don't think most people realize how effect that implication of mal-practice is for a "sitting" MD in his office.  If it were me, I would not "take the risk".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viDTbtpfpac&feature=related

But these "arguments" can only perpetuate the "status-quo", and that means you will get a strong minus lens (in an office) and the above arguments".

That convinces me that I must be lucky enough, and wise enough to do it myself.  But I would also teach myself simplified optometry -- as I have presented it.  This is NOT medicine, but is totally self-protective.  If you have a Snellen up, and a -3/4 in your hand, that removes any mystery about this "medicine".  You could in fact prescribe for yourself (and save a great deal of money).  But it is important that you see yourself doing that.  That is how your "myopia" has been handled for the last 200 years.  If you wish to break out of this "mode of thinking", then, while you can order your own minus, you should not do that, but rather, begin your systematic use of the plus.  We are indeed fortunate that Todd has done this, and supports all who wish to "prevent" at 20/40 to 20/50 to duplicate his success.  Otis
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on December 02, 2011, 11:34:50 AM
Subject:  Commentary to a friend who has promoted true-prevention for the last thirty years!
 
Excellent!
 
I don’t understand why so many people do not “get it” – but that is the reality of the “medical world”.
 
I truly regret that the N.E.I. and N.I.H., can not get out of their “office” and help us!
 
But that is always the terrible reality of anyone who is willing to “restrict” himself to working on prevention.
 
I truly like your video on the subject, and thank you for them.
 
In sheer “disgust” I have created a series of video on how to “do it yourself” (when you are at 20/40, and are entering into a four year college).
 
They show
1) How to obtain some test lenses from Zennioptical
2) How to use them, and a Snellen to measure your refractive status.
3) How to “push print”, when reading through a plus.
4) Reference to the fact that it will about seven months to a year to clear your Snellen to normal.
 
What truly got to me was Young’s “plus” study, and your Table #4.
 
All these kids are literally INDUCING this situation, in their ignorance and in their “bad habits”.
 
But just try to talk to a person about that issue – and they go screaming out of the room, and shout that an Engineer is attempting to practice “medicine”.

Link References:

http://www.myopia.org/links.htm
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on December 02, 2011, 09:21:42 PM
Subject: "Symmetry in Science".
It was an optometrist (Raphaelson) that provoked my interest in researching all who honestly object to the minus lens.  It was very interesting to hear the words, "Poision glasses for children".  I mean, why would any OD, who is basically FORCED to use a minus on a child -- even THINK about that issue.  For me, it was this abstract scientific question that made me wonder that mayby a minus is used - simply because it "works", and any "deeper" thinking was beyond the OD and the people entering his shop.  So you ask the questions, "...I wonder what would happen if I forced a minus lens on the natural eye".  Here is what always has happened, and always WILL HAPPEN.  But that is science, and few people can "translate" the meaning of this experiment, and the fact that our natural eyes simply are "adjusting" to long-term near in much the same way.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/FundEye.html :-\

The above to me is the final statement in science.  Otis
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on December 30, 2011, 12:16:34 PM
Subject:  Close work produces a negative status for the natural eye.

http://okglobal.org/myopia.html

Prevention is possible, before your Snellen goes below 20/40.

No OD is prepared to help you with prevention at -3/4 diopter -- when it can be reversed under YOUR control.

This is a massive tragedy for all of us.  Truly a bitter lesson to learn that the people who are SUPPOSED TO INFORM US OF THIS PROBLEM -- remain totally silent.

Word to the wise.
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on January 08, 2012, 07:03:46 AM

Subject: Money, making money, SELLING THINGS to make money.  SELLING prevention.

I have no objection to people doing this.  But I believe that prevention should be (almost) FREE.  I also don't believe in the term, "improve vision" -- although it has a nice sound to it.  I think you should be aware that "improving your Snellen" is how you prove that you "improved your vision" -- because ultimate proof is YOU proving to YOURSELF that you reach a point wear you pass the required 20/40 line (and better).

In fact I strongly support this site:

http://www.powervisionsystem.com/

That Jansen used to recover from -4 and -2 diopters. Here is another site, stating success also for your interest.

http://www.thecureforblur.com/

Once you get to 20/40, (about -1/2 to -3/4 diopters) it will take continued use of the plus (for free) to slowly change your refractive status by +1/2 diopter.  This is then just "sticking" to the wearing of the plus, and costs nothing at all -- except very strong "force of will" in the person.  Otis

Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on January 24, 2012, 01:02:35 PM
Dear Richard OD,

No, Frank Young's study not "self-published." Here is his study.

http://www.myopia.org/bifocals.htm

Let me remark that you can not teach a child to wear a plus "correctly". Thus if a child "leans forward" it almost cancels out the desired effect of a plus.

But even with this EXTREMELY LIMITED effect, the "plus" group stopped going down.

If the group were PILOTS at 20/40, and –3/4 diopters, and could be given intelligent instructions, the a difference in refractive state would be about 1 diopters in on year.

(The minus group would go down by –1/3 diopter, the the plus group would go up by +2/3 diopters – with the plus group clearing their Snellen back to normal.)

The problem is the un-controlled habits of a child – in my opinion.  This prevents a rationally organized scientific study -- where each man is respected and taught to use the plus "correctly".

This must be under intellectual and physical control of the person himself.  Only in that manner can you have final proof that recovery (from 20/40) is possible.

Sincerely,

Otis

Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on January 25, 2012, 04:38:32 AM

Subject; What do most optometrists think -- about their own children?


Second-opinion> There are ODs who have figured out that the fundamental eye is
dynamic, and the a plus MUST BE USED for prevention.

Here is the majority-opinion on plus prevention by Judy who is an OD.

+++++
Re: Judy, why don't ODs help their own children with Plus-prevention?

Judy> I'm an optometrist, I work in a group with five other optometrists, in a
city with several dozen optometrists,have a few dozen acquaintances who are
optometrists and none of us have our children use plus at near unless those
children are hyperopic.

(Hyperopic?) The natural eye with a positive refractive state.

++++++

What this means is that if you desire prevention, it MUST be under your control.
You will never go to an OD, and request support for your wise use of a plus, to
keep you Snellen clear for life. If they don't know enough to help their own
children with this critical issue -- they don't know enough to help YOU. This
is why I request that a person put up a Snellen in bright light and check
himself. Further, for engineers, I request that they use a weak "test lens" to
measure their refractive state also.

For those who ask, "...why does my OD not tell me about plus-prevention", I think
Judy has answered your question correctly.

If they will not help even their own chilrens with plus-prevention, they certainly will never help you.

Otis

Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on January 31, 2012, 07:30:26 AM
 Subject: Why, if you want prevention -- you must do it yourself.
Here is a profoundly arrogant OD.  He has no science of facts behind him.  But he does put his own child in a minus.  This is why I have my own Snellen and trial lens kit -- even if it means I must practice "optometry" on  myself.  This is now, a totally destructive profession -- if you value your distant vision for life.
++++++++++

Questions: Why don't ODs help their own children with prevention?

Mike Tyner OD> I am an optometrist. I practice in a city where there are about a hundred optometrists and ophthalmologists, a major school of optometry and a tertiary eye hospital.  None of the optometrists or ophthalmologists I know require their children to wear plus lenses to prevent myopia.

And none of them feel that wearing glasses promotes further myopia enough that children should be forbidden to wear corrective lenses.

You have to be exceedingly ill-informed to believe NONE of these doctors wants to prevent myopia. There ARE such ill-informed people, and you have obviously heard from one.

They often claim that this "second opinion" represents something new, when actually it is an old idea. The "second opinion" was promoted by Aldous
Huxley (a non-scientist) and it was believed and practiced by MOST eye doctors fifty and a hundred years ago.

But when a treatment like plus lenses actually works, modern statistical methods make it EASY to show it's effective, by comparing a treated group with an untreated group. These same modern methods are used in drug research, rehabilitation, physics and chemistry. "Statistical significance" is the foundation of all modern science and can't really be discarded if you want to test plus lenses..

In every comparison I've seen using actual human children, there is NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the treated and untreated groups.

This is why "OD's don't help their own children." Nor MDs nor PhDs either. It doesn't work.

When a handful of "specialists" around the world make outdated claims WITHOUT bothering to compare treated vs untreated groups - it doesn't deserve to be called a "second opinion".

The doctors I know call it quackery.

Mike Tyner, Optometrist
++++++++++++++++++++++

He of course is lying.  Some Ph.Ds insist their own children wear a plus FOR PREVENTION and our successful. This is also true of ODs and MDs.  But is it true, that if you want plus prevention, you will have to do it yourself, and avoid this person like the plague that he is.
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on February 06, 2012, 08:11:25 AM
Subject: The scientific concept of the dynamic natural eye – is indeed pure science. (I measure refractive STATES – never errors.)

Re: To save dispute, I call this the second-opinion.

Otis> I objectively measure BOTH my visual acuity AND my refractive STATE myself. Why? Because of this "herd-think" of this optometrist, Mike Tyner.

Otis> I have no doubt but that AFTER you induce a negative state for your eyes, anyone can impress you with a strong minus. But I prefer objective
science for correct answers. That is why I publish the SCIENCE of the natural eye – that shows that the eye ALWAYS GOES DOWN when you place a minus lens on it.

Otis> Further, the natural eye always goes down when you place it in a LONG-TERM NEAR environment. This is pure, objective science. So what does Tyner think of science, that tells objective truth?? He calls it "quackery", and anyone who respects science must, by his definition be a "quack". It is truly impossible to reason with a man like Tyner, until he pays attention to objective science.

Otis> The worse part of this is that he can not even respect the fact that ODs and MDs have recognized that prevention is possible. They are "shouted down" as quacks. I will respond to Mike by stating that all he denies, is confirmed by second-opinion ODs, Ph.D., Ophthalmologists, pilots and engineers. Here is my response:

+++++

Tyner> ...And none of them (ODs) feel that wearing glasses promotes further myopia enough that children should be forbidden to wear corrective lenses.

Otis> This is false on the face of it. If Mike said MOST BELIEVE, that their children should not wear a plus for prevention, then he would be correct.

Tyner> You have to be exceedingly ill-informed to believe NONE of these doctors wants to prevent myopia.

Otis> This is a result of being "beaten down" by the prevailing belief that NOTHING has any effect on the refractive state of the natural eye. This is pure "herd think". Exactly and pure science says the exact opposite.

Tyner> There ARE such ill-informed people, and you have obviously heard from
one.

Otis> I have no doubt that Mike refers to me, and ALL ODS AND MDS WHO DISAGREE
WITH HIM.

Otis> This is tragically TYPICAL -- and profoundly arrogant. It prevents Tyner
from looking at the PROVEN behavior of the natural eye (which is essential in
science), and his habit of referring people who actually PAY ATTENTION TO
SCIENCE, as "ill informed".

Otis. Why you have here is "herd think" that is truly blind to objective science
and facts. But again, this suggest WHY you must reading your own Snellen, and
use your own trial lens kit to measure your refractive state. You can be assured
that this man will over-prescribe a minus lens -- and that truly will "take your
vision down". This is why objective science of the natural eye is important for
your success. If it means avoiding Tyner in his office, then I think that is
your only choice.

Tyner> They often claim that this "second opinion" represents something new,
when actually it is an old idea. The "second opinion" was promoted by Aldous
Huxley (a non-scientist) and it was believed and practiced by MOST eye doctors
fifty and a hundred years ago.

Otis> There are those who have not make the scientific analysis, like Huxley.
But then, Tyner jumps to the false conclusion that ALL OTHERS ARE EXACTLY LIKE
HUXLEY. That is just plain false. I would refer you to scientists like Stirling
Colgate, and medical people who spell this arrogance out for you.

Tyner> But when a treatment like plus lenses actually works, modern statistical
methods make it EASY to show it's effective,

Otis> If done by Todd, and other ENGINEERS and scientists, they prevention would
be possible. I have provided the statistical analysis, of course, and Todd and
others have shown success is possible. But never is Tyner is involved.

Tyner> by comparing a treated group with an untreated group.

Otis> I have shown the success with the Frank Young study. Tyner claims this
'does not exist" or "does not mean anything".

Tyner> These same modern methods are used in drug research, rehabilitation,
physics and chemistry. "Statistical significance" is the foundation of all
modern science and can't really be discarded if you want to test plus lenses..

Otis> But then Tyner totally IGNORES the plus study that was HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT
-- with children!!

Tyner> In every comparison I've seen using actual human children, there is NO
SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the treated and untreated groups.

Otis> This is a TOTAL SCIENTIFIC LIE. This is why he fails as a scientist.

Tyner> This is why "OD's don't help their own children." Nor MDs nor PhDs
either. It doesn't work.

Otis> Yet another lie. Todd success is proof of that fact. But prevention is
indeed difficult, and, in my opinion, must be started before your Snellen goes
below 20/60 and a refractive state of -1.5 diopters. But this must be by your
wisdom about this intellectual blindness of ODs like Tyner. Thankfully there are
ODs who support the need for preventive change with the plus -- by Tyner will
tell you that they are ALL QUACKS!!

Tyner> When a handful of "specialists" around the world make outdated claims
bothering to compare treated vs untreated groups - it doesn't deserve to be
called a "second opinion".

Otis> When Tyner totally ignores studies that are HIGHLY SIGN CANT, and primate
data that is far better, you will have to ask yourself if you trust Tyner's
arrogant assertion about prevention not being ever possible -- not and forever.

Tyner> The doctors I know call it quackery.

Otis> Again, Tyner is FALSE. If he said that SOME doctors MIGHT call is
"Quackery" he would be OK.

Mike Tyner, Optometrist

Otis Brown, Engineer, supporting all scientists who advocate scientific freedom
of speech.
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on February 06, 2012, 05:45:26 PM
Subject:  I am following the reviews posted by Jansen and Peter -- and the success of Todd.

The reason why an OD LOVES that minus lens is that he can impress everyone with it.  That is perfectly understandable.  You don't have to argue or discuss ANYTHING with the poor patient.

But equally, I am never going to be a "patient" of such an arrogant OD -- ever again.  This is why, even though I "restrict" what I might claim, I always insist that the person understand this issue of the minus lens and why it is used, and often profoundly over-prescribed.

Yes, people are different.  But I do attempt to supply the rationale for the anti-prescription lens.  It does make logical and scientific sense.  This is why I attempt to empower the person to 1) Make certain he has his own Snellen (visual acuity chart) on the wall, to confirm he passes these DMV requirements (from 20/60 to 20/40) and sufficient expertise to have two "test" lenses to confirm the minimum minus needed to "just clear" the 20/20 line.

I advocate this as a matter of personal wisdom, and scientific fortitude.  As even Mike says it -- he has no interest in helping even his own children with plus prevention, or ANY PREVENTION.  That only means -- I must have the personal courage, to do this work myself -- before my Snellen goes below 20/60 -- in my opinion.

Otis
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on February 15, 2012, 05:27:19 AM

Statement:  If we lived in an "open" environment -- our refractive status would be positive (see below).

But when we force a kid to go through 12 years of school, the ENTIRE POPULATION OF EYES starts to become NEGATIVE in refractive state.

Here is the data itself:

Title: Ocular Biometry of Eskimo Families.

Francis A. Young
George A. Leary

Primate Research Center, Washington State University
Pullman, Washington 99163

Summary of the data:

Age (Average), Eyes (Each Group), Mean, Sigma (S.D.)

Age 58 Eyes 96 Mean +2.21 Sigma 1.31

Age 39 Eyes 180 Mean +1.19 Sigma 1.55

Age 16 Eyes 194 Mean -0.93 Sigma 1.97

Age 9 Eyes 218 Mean +1.40 Sigma 1.70


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

The use of the plus, creates a DISTANCE environment -- if  used correctly.

This is why Todd and others have become successful.  But is does take great insight to do it correctly.

Otis

Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on February 15, 2012, 08:50:04 PM
A statistical picture of the natural eye's responsiveness to being placed in a "cage".

This is a summary effect of "long-term" near on our natural eyes.  The wise use of the plus, (as Todd did it) can result in a gradual change of refractive status in a positive direction.  It would be good if you were informed of this possibility, at the earliest point in becoming nearsighted.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/DynamicEye.html

Tragically, few ODs will volunteer this information to you.

Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on February 23, 2012, 06:21:28 PM
For the Todd and the group -- why wearing the plus is both justified by science and necessary,
 
(Scientific chart by Francis Young and Don Rehm.)
 
I am often asked to PROVE the wisdom and necessity of wearing the plus for prevention.
 
I am told that while a minus will CAN CAUSE MYOPIA, the plus has ‘NO PREVENTIVE EFFECT -- EVER".
 
Here is the data itself.
 
I know you can’t get a child to wear a plus “correctly”, so the kids are forced to wear a plus, by putting a minus and plus together in a bifocal. There is no other way to do this.
 
This data is over a period of five years.  These results are highly significant.  They show that the plus group – DID NOT GO DOWN. The minus went down at a rate of 0.7 diopters per year for five years.
 
This means that after five years, the child with a single-minus was a -0.7 x 5 = -3.5 diopter myope, while the kids with the plus (granted with a minus on top) stayed where they were, at –1/2 diopters, or about 20/30 if checked with your own minus lens.
 
I know that people will “object” to teaching the child to always wear a plus when they sit down to read – but there is truly no other choice, but neglect and its proven consequences for the child.
 
This is why personally wearing a minus, and checking your own Snellen in very wise.
 
http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm
 
This data is ignored by the “conventional” OD, who says that “plus studies don’t mean anything”.  In science they do – in medicine, seemingly SCIENCE HAS NO MEANING.
 
Remember, these kids could not be taught how to use a plus BY ITSELF!
 
In my judgment, if a person is at –1/2 to –3/4 diopters (threshold) and teaches himself to wear the plus for all close work, and would check his own refractive state with his own test lens, he would measure a change in status in the positive direction, and begin to pass the 20/25 line in from six to nine months.
 
This is what, in your wisdom, you could do.
 
This shows the consequences for children – if they don’t do it.
 
When are we ever going to learn that science is “different” than medicine?

For the wise and motivated.
 
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on February 25, 2012, 07:45:42 AM
I am often asked by people at -8 diopters -- if they can snap themselves out of it in two weeks with a plus.  Tragically, I can't say that.  The reason is because of the long-term slow development of a negative state for the natural eye.  (When the child places his eyes in "long-term near" -- and keeps on doing that for 6 years!!

What this plus study finally shows, is that the "do nothing" and "wear a minus" group does is go down by -0.67 diopters for six year. 

http://www.myopia.org/bifocaltable4.htm

The plus group DOES NOT GO DOWN at all.  This suggests the scientific wisdom of 1) Always check your Snellen for 20/50 or better. 2) Get your own minus if necessary for $10 3) Keep on wearing the plus.  But as the down rate it -0.67 diopters per year, you can reasonably expect the "up rate" to be on the order of +0.67 to +1 diopters per year.

Here is the "habit" that these children develop when taught to 'read early'.

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/ReadDist.html

Why do children do this?  It is like asking why children "cause their obesity".  It is just a very bad habit, that the parents should be taught to "control".  It is not "reading" that produces a negative status, as much as it is the difference between reading at 21 inches (-1.9 diopters) versus reading at 6 inches (-6 diopters) or less.  The "claim" of these ODs is that reading at 4 inches (-10 diopters) for long periods of time -- HAS NO EFFECT ON THE EYE'S REFRACTIVE STATE.  So the parents are never given any advice about this specific issue and problem. 

Otis

Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on February 26, 2012, 05:14:42 PM
Subject: How do we know that the natural eye "moves negative" from the habit of children, and the minus (while the intention might be good) does not help?

1) There is no way you can find out -- from "human experiments".  So it does take some scientific logic in the person to solve this puzzle.  First, you test the minus lens out on primates, since you don't want to CAUSE MYOPIA in the human primate eye.  Here is the scientific result, animated:

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wildsoet/images/neg_lens_induce_myopia.swf

2) OK, the eye is dynamic, and very responsive to a strong minus, but I am not convinced that the natural primate eye (our eyes) move from plus to minus if placed in long-term near for seven years.  Here again, is what science says about this "habit" of ours:

http://myopiafree.i-see.org/SaveEye.html

I hope you don't have a problem with statistical profiles, but the same NATURAL PROCESS, creates a negative state for all our eyes.  No, not 100 percent, but up to 88 percent.  You are free to reach your own conclusions about a)  the safety of putting your nose on the page for years and b) the wisdom of wearing a strong minus lens -- at the threhold -- and thinking it is not an exacerbation fact.  But

3)  For most people, it is very difficult to accept that our totally natural eyes respond in this way, and our "habits" in our modern society are creating this negative state for our natural eyes.  That is the most difficult thing to accept when you confirm your Snellen at 20/50, and your refractive state at -3/4 diopter.  Even harder to accept is the idea that ODs will not volunteer this information to us when we become slightly negative from this type of "reading habit". 
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on February 29, 2012, 07:42:44 AM
Dear Student,

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.

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


*** 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

Young Children   N = 218      +1.40   1.70 Diopters   



Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on March 03, 2012, 07:59:41 AM
Subject: The "Catch-22" of medicine -- or why no prevention study will ever be conducted.

Reference:  The use of Large N and Small N calculations. (z-table and t-Table.)

It is clear that it will take a motivated person (at 20/40) to be part of a preventive study.

Most engineers plan in advance by using current data (plus study) to project the type of success that would be possible with people who do not "fear to wear" the
plus lens.

In fact, at -2/3 diopter, a group of pilots could slowly get out of it, provided they could be part of an organized scientific program. Here are the details.

Yes there are people who are wise, and manage to "wise up" and begin the use of the preventive-plus while still at -1/2 to -1.0 diopters. (-2.3 D average) They
get out of it.

In statistics, you need a fairly large "N", for good results, but for large "N" it is very difficult to manage the people in such a study.

These calculations are for a group of engineer/pilots who are not yet below 20/50, and can be expected to have the resolve to conduct a competent preventive
study.

This is a calculation using 16 eyes, (eight people). It is an absolute minimum number.

32 eyes would be better, but this is an EXAMPLE calculation.

We know that they eye goes down -1/3 diopters for each year in collge. (Ref: Naval Academy).

We know that the natural eye goes down when you place a minus lens on it.

There is reason to expect that an eye, wearing a +2.5 diopter for all close work, will go up by about + 2/3 diopter per year.

Thus a group with an average refradtive status of -2/3 diopter could be expected to get back to 20/20 in about nine months.

The difference between the test and control groups would be 1.0 diopters. ( Xt  - Xc )

The standard deviation for this group, would be approximately 0.4 diopters.

(Calculated from a group with 20/30 to 20/60 vision, and an average refractive state of -2/3 diopters.)

Here is the EXAMPLE calculation for this very small group using large "N" equation:

Z = (Xt - Xc) / Sqrt ( Sigma^2/Nt + Sigma^2/Nc )

Z = ( 1.0 diopters ) / Square Root ( 0.4^2 / 8 + 0.4^2 / 8 )

Z = 5.0 (This is far higher "highly significant)

Z = 5.00 (Z Table = 5.00 - 4.9999) = P(0.0001)

++++++

Small "N" calculation using the t-Table

Sigma = Sqrt ( Nt * Sigma^2 + Nc * Sigma^2 ) / ( N + N - 2 )

Sigma = Sqrt ( 8 * 0.4^2 + 8 * 0.4^2 ) / ( 8 + 8 - 2 )

Sigma = 0.428 (Degrees of Freedom 16 - 2 = 14)

t = (Xt - Xc) / Sigma * Sqrt ( 1 / Nt + 1 / Nc )

t = ( - 1/2 - (+1/2) ) / 0.428 * Sqrt ( 1/8 + 1/8 )

t = 4.67

Compare with Z = 5.00 as per above.

This Exceeds P(.0005) ( 4.14 = t14 Degrees of Freedom)

These results show the probable results of a scientific preventive study, with the people who have the motivation to work on a scientific project under their control.

+++++++

The problem is that when this concept is presented to ODs -- they simply say that

"...every knows that you can not get out of myopia".

Or they insist that "engineers" don't understand statistics.

Or they say that "prevention" is not part of anything they are doing -- or anything THEY WILL EVER BE DOING.

With that logic, they say that if you ever attempted to conduct this type of scientific-prevention study, you would be "practicing medicine" -- and they can't permite you that.
Title: Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
Post by: OtisBrown on April 03, 2012, 06:22:24 AM
Dear Ophthalmologist,
 
I think you will enjoy this statement by two optometrists.  They so totally believe in the minus, that they make even their own children myopic. (And I am certain, their own grandchildren.
 
This was the very difficult “problem of understanding” that I had with these ODs.
 
+++++++
 
Optometrist 1>  Also, any health professional DOES NOT go through YEARS of training because we want to get out and "dup people". We work hard and take oaths to proudly uphold standards of care to HELP people. My whole family is myopic and need glasses or contacts to see clearly in the distance. My father also had a lazy eye when he was younger. I joined the profession because I wanted to help others and educate them on their eye conditions. I LOVE and take PRIDE in helping people everyday!
 
 
Optometrist 2> This Gives me Hope due to the Fact that i will be taking me ABO in May and have been in the Optical field for over 9 1/2 years but my PASSION, i would say is the same as yours....Thank You for Your INSPIRING comment! K.U.T.G.W.
 
 
OD and family> ...to proudly uphold standards of care to HELP people. My whole family is myopic and need glasses or contacts to see clearly in the distance.

Plus-prevention advocate> So this is indeed the ethics of "lock-step" march in to serious myopia. That is indeed ethical, but totally blind to the POSSIBILITY to prevention at the "pseudo-myopia" (i.e., 20/30 to 20/60, -1/2 to -1 diopter) as described by Dr. Kaisu Viikari. As always, honest disagreement is the root of discovery in  science.

+++++++++

It is hard to mount an plus-prevention study, when all the ODs think that plus prevention is 1) A big joke, and/or 2) Anti-scientific.

These ODs spend $150,000 over four years for their training.  They don’t want to believe that there is little or no objective science to support what they have been taught.

But I do acknowledge how difficult it is to deal with the general public, when you can impress the public with a strong minus lens in 15 minutes.