Author Topic: What true SCIENTIFIC (not medical bias) studies show.  (Read 1368 times)

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
What true SCIENTIFIC (not medical bias) studies show.
« on: April 08, 2013, 09:11:09 AM »
Subject:  What does true-science show - versus the very-biased studies conducted by people who have no interest in any "prevention".

Peter's STATEMENT:

I believe this matches with what I have been trying to explain as an issue. It is rather difficult to practice some of those habits that we believe will help us when we are under pressure. 

In my opinion, you've described the same issue I face with trying to stay just inside the edge of blur.  When I require high focus on the task at hand due to work demands, or when my mind wanders, I seem to pull in from the optimal reading distance.

I think for these reasons, most child based studies with plus lenses, vision therapy, bates, or any combination show insignificant benefit if any at all.

Otis>  Not quiet true - but this issue must be truly understood - if successful prevention is to be attempted with the right people.

There have been some other studies with older military school college students and plus lenses, which is the target age group Otis is interested in. I have no idea how that study was conducted. 

Otis> I do - and I know the people who "conducted them", and why they were "indifferent" as to any result.  (They kept every person IN THE DARK as to what they were supposed to be doing - and why they were doing it.

But it also showed no benefit (statistically). It's my opinion, that if no guidance is given, if the discipline required is not explained (i.e. your riding deire of attempting to look further out, my reading desire of wanting to stay just inside the blur), then the outcomes of the studies will never look promising. 

Otis> That is EXACLTY CORRECT.  That is indeed the deadly bias of these studies.  Get the person the education, and he supplies the MOTIVATION and makes the refractive MEASUREMENTS HIMSELF - and you would have the start of excellent-science, and the "test group" would go from 20/40 to 20/20 - in about nine months.  A pilot WILL DO IT - given intellectual support.  Almost all the rest of us -  will NOT DO IT.

I must admit that I have only superficially understood how many of these studies, so you will do well to read and understand them.

Peter

Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: What true SCIENTIFIC (not medical bias) studies show.
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2013, 09:18:57 AM »
Subject: The bias of a man "locked" in his office - who can not get out of it.

Peter> I must admit that I have only superficially understood how many of these studies, so you will do well to read and understand them.

Otis> I have read most of them - but they do get  boring. 

Otis> You have to "stand back" and look at the "big picture".  The OD in his office wants to "fix" 20/40  vision with a "Best Visual Acuity" lens. He does not want to tell you, "... but you should not wear it ... except for distant vision ... because it has a serious secondary-effect."

Otis> To the extent he refuses to THINK or SAY that - he is not quite "professional".

Otis> Any SERIOUS scientific study, starting with pilots at 20/40 (who MUST get out of it) should START with that statement.  To do less than that would be to be dishonest.

Otis> Virtually all the studies - never INFORM the person of the wisdom of 1) Wearing a plus, 2) Objectively reading your own Snellen 3) Being very persistent and 4) Getting to a positive refractive STATE and 20/20.

Otis> That is the difference between a SCIENTIFIC study, and the biased "medical studies".  I will add more about these studies in due course.



Offline OtisBrown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1766
Re: What true SCIENTIFIC (not medical bias) studies show.
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2013, 09:49:10 AM »
Subject:  Why an Optometrist - said that you can not trust and optometrist.

Regarding:  An OD conducting a "study" - is protecting not YOUR long-term visual welfare, but his entire professional LIFE.

Here is what finally convinced *ME* that only prevention would be possible.

http://myopiafree.wordpress.com/kids/

I know it is hard to over-come your personal resistance to wearing the plus with the force necessary to be effective with it.

We all want to be, "under doctor's care".  But at some point - you realize you must be independent to realize that that process can never be effective - and WHY it can not be effective.

Peter made the point (totally supported by *ME* that when we sit to read - we LEAN FORWARD on our book.  Like Peter, I have no idea WHY we do it - but that is a large part of the problem.  The other part, is to both 1) SIT UP, never closer than 14 inches (-2.8 diopters stress), and 2) wear a +2.8 diopters for that type of reading.

This type of discipline is not possible for a child.  For an educated adult (with 20/40 vision) IT IS POSSIBLE - IF the person 1) Greatly needs 20/20, and 2) Overcomes his fear of wearing the plus and 3) Keeps on wearing the plus for as long a necessary.

The Frank Young showed HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT RESULTS (Far above that level). But even so - the kids were following NO INSTRUCTIONS.  If a pilot did it - and wore the plus - he would get out of it.  That type of study is PREVENTED by the medical-community - to the present time.