Author Topic: Reading medical papers - and why they are of no help.  (Read 706 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Reading medical papers - and why they are of no help.
« on: September 22, 2015, 06:12:28 AM »
As we know, ODs are so brain washed by their jargon, that they will not even help their own children - with true prevention at 20/40. But why are they so confused.  Here is part of the answer.  Read the papers yourself - and make your own educated judgment.

http://endmyopia.org/get-medical-research-papers-free/

Jake –

Thanks for the Google reference. I have found that more papers are published in one year – that one man could read in a life-time.

An effort to simplify and clarify the jargon in these papers would be greatly appreciated by all of us.

Since you have made yourself an expert on this convoluted and distorting language, perhaps you could post a blog clarifying this language – for the people who are working on long-term effective prevention for themselves.

I have read a large number of these papers, for my own education. Yet when I attempt to discuss the need for a “new view – that scientific prevention is possible”, with these ODs, they simply tell me that “all prevention in impossible” (at 20/40 and -1 diopter), and I should get out of their office, since they believe that successful prevention is not part of their responsibility, or can it ever become part of their business life.


« Last Edit: September 22, 2015, 06:16:48 AM by OtisBrown »

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: Reading medical papers - and why they are of no help.
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2015, 06:14:53 AM »


Why medical people block successful prevention studies - and how they accomplish that goal.


This situation of "blocking" prevention (with the plus at 20/40, and self-measured -1 diopter) stinks.  This is the worst kind of self-serving bias.

Jake –

Otis> You get most things correctly. You are aware that most ODs have no interest in prevention, in any manner. But I would like to clarify how almost all research is funded.

Jake> I still buy the ones I like, just to support the science. If everybody paid, researchers wouldn’t have to rely on questionable corporate funding.

Otis> Having participated in some of this funding, as a friend of a researcher, you will find that almost all funding comes from the National Eye Institute. Proposals are written by the academic community (by medical doctors) as a request or a proposal. They are then “vetted” by exclusively medical doctors. If the proposal even SUGGESTS that slight recovery is possible (say from -1 diopter to 0.0 diopters, and therefor 20/20 by the person’s own efforts), the suggest is trashed instantly, since almost all medical people insist that “no prevention is possible”, and they are “smarter than that”.

Otis> Here are some additional detail – on who writes these published studies. We the tax payer – have paid for almost all of them. (Not the lens industry). Some time ago, there was a proposal, to the effect that if your study was paid for by the tax payer – you should not have to pay for the resultant publication. Or as a minimum, the paper should have the statement, “funded by the N. E. I.” Copy of this study is free – six months after publication for that reason.

Otis> As always – the issue of medical hostility (or ignorance) about the need for true-prevention needs to be addressed. But, given the intense anti-prevention bias in the National Eye Institute, you will never get funded for a study that proposes prevention — as you are advocating for it. Each Blog Publication helps address this issue of medical arrogance, and blindness towards scientific prevention. That type of bias is PROMOTED by the “lens industry”, no doubt. But the way that successful prevention studies are blocked, is by this intense bias in the leadership of the National Eye Institute. In your heart – you are correct.