Author Topic: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.  (Read 6828 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« 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.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #1 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #2 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.


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #3 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #4 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #5 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #6 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

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #7 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

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #8 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

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #9 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #10 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


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #11 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


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #12 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


Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #13 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.

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1736
Re: Science and Statistics -- supporting Todd's success.
« Reply #14 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.