Author Topic: Objective Science, the "Thought Experiment", and Confirmation of the dynamic eye  (Read 1146 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Subject: The standard for objective science, is the "Though Experiment".

Here is an example of a poor scientific experiment.

There are some good ones - that show all normal eyes (refractive state = 0.0 diopters) becoming nearsighted from:

1)   Long-term near work and
2)  The forced wearing of a strong minus all the time.

You will not find any office-optometrist (who prescribes a strong minus) EVER willing to discuss this objective science and facts.

Only from a totally honest optometrist - did I find out about this "convenient" scientific blindness of these ODs. 

That is scientific basis of these discussions.  But I do agree that prevention (at 20/40, and self-measured -1 diopter),
is tough.  I never argue about that issue.  I just say that highly motivated pilots, who "don't quit", are successful.

People expect a "guaranteed success", that some "office OD" will prescribe".   

« Last Edit: August 19, 2015, 03:42:10 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Subject:  Why the OD, seeing that everything you visit - he PRESCRIBES a stronger and stronger minus lens.

Question: Do not they NOTICE this trend?  What is going on in their brains? 

The picture of an OD with his "head in the sand", is quite accurate about this issue.

It is up to you - alone - to figure out how to always pass the 20/40 line (preferred the 20/30 line) under your control,
because the OD KNOWS you are going down - for dead certain - if you are in high school, going on to college.

But he will have rationale for not telling you anything. 

Do you converse with him about this issue?  Or do you keep your mouth shut? 

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Subject: Who exactly is Jim Boston?

Myoctim, is working on recovery - with some success.  Below I described my interests.  Now if Jim would identify himself - it would be wonderful.

I do not "make money" on what I do or say.  The question is this - is Jim employed in selling glasses.  Jim said, FULL DISCLOSURE. It makes a BIG difference if you
aim at an impartial discussion about science and facts.

Hi Myoctim,

You are right.  I do believe that if you put yourself into a very strong minus lens, your natural eyes will "adapt" to it, and the nearsightedness you are certain to develop from that, (i.e., -3, -6, -9) can not be reversed.  No one should kid himself about that issue (when they can still read the 20/40 oline) because I would never do that.  For the most part, I make no claims of results.

I would probably like Jim Boston, if I met him.  It these stilted conversations - that make it impossible to judge people and their various motivations.  Here are my background and interests. (In pure science, not in medicine).

Now if Jim Boston would provide is C.V., (Resume) we could have better understanding of his thesis.  (That seems to be that even the slightest prevention,
is totally impossible, and out of the question.

I enjoy reading about your self-measured success.  But I do agree that it is a very long path to getting back to 20/40 or better.

I am dead certain that no OD can ever prescribe this - for obvious reasons.

« Last Edit: August 19, 2015, 05:38:44 AM by OtisBrown »