Vision Clearing from 20/140 with Ortho-K and Plus 3

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Medicine - Vision Forum » Vision Clearing from 20/140 with Ortho-K and Plus 3

Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Author

Message

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:01 pm

Guest

Quote:

On Feb 10, 12:17 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Dear Open-minded freinds,

Subject: The easy minus lens.

Yes, a quick-fix works and is profoundly impressive.

It it were proven to be SAFE, then everything would
be OK.

The problem is -- that is NOT the case.

Fortunately a scientific concept of the
natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
developed and published. See:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.

Now the question is, who is supporting HONEST
PREVENTIVE MEASURES, and who do you
TRUST and why?

One thing is certain. When I discuss plus-prevention
and the honest difficulties with is -- I also discuss
profound arrogance and the effect it has on understanding
the nature of plus-prevention at the threshold.

And this is an example of that insufferable arrogance.

I believe is having an OPEN and HONEST discussion
about the natural eye's proven behavior. Indeed,
I will call is the second-opinion if you wish.

But any discussion of these wide ranging scientific
paradigms must review Catman's blind attitude towards
science and the facts.

No progress is possible under this circumstance presented
below.

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

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank,
and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him.

Mark Twain

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
the point is to discover them."

Galileo

From Dr. Grant

Speaking seriously, and as a professional, there are a few
points I wish to make.

1) In my consulting room, as you correctly stated, I am god.

2) I earned that right through study, hard work and developing a
reputation for quality work, excellent results and caring for
my patients and their welfare.

3) You have not earned that right. You are a pathetic little
pissant that insults the very fibre of prevention of myopia.
You do not deal with 20 patients a day wanting to see
clearly, you do not have to ensure that a kid can see the
board in class, as well as read and function outside the
classroom.

4) You have no concept of the issues, I and every other OD must
face on a daily basis for the best welfare of each and every
one of our patients. You prefer to pontificate about evil
minus and second opinion crap, whose supporters are less
credible than yourself.

5) You keep talking about second opinion doctors, but never name
any other than Steven Leung. Why is this? I do know several
OD's in Hong Kong and Singapore and Steven Leung is held in
the esteem that I hold you and Nancy. He has no basis to his
method, he just uses the fear of parents to sell his glasses
for his own profit. His website is a fraud and most of the
links don't work. There is no scientific validation, just
fear-mongering.

All in all, you are a pathetic, miserable sycophant that has
nothing to provdie other than fear. No answers, no proof,
nothing.

Crawl back under your rock and fester away.

dr grant (CatMan)

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

Otis,

Which theory do you believe best explains why humans become
nearsighted? Is it because of over-accommodation, under-
accommodation, off-axis hyperopic defocus?

Do you know that optometrists are actually involved in this research?
Can you name some of them?

DrG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Otis,

Why not just answer my question?

DrG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 4:32 pm

Guest

On Feb 10, 3:01 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Quote:

For the same reason you do not answer my question
about the proven effect that a -3 diopter lens has on
a population of natural eyes.

See the blue-tint model of the behavior of the natural
dynamic eye -- since you do not seem to understand
the English language describing what is natural,
normal and EXPECTED.

But yes, if quick-fixing in an office in 5 minutes is all you
do -- well I understand THAT aspect of your business.

Otis

On Feb 10, 2:13 pm, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:17 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Dear Open-minded freinds,

Subject: The easy minus lens.

Yes, a quick-fix works and is profoundly impressive.

It it were proven to be SAFE, then everything would
be OK.

The problem is -- that is NOT the case.

Fortunately a scientific concept of the
natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
developed and published. See:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.

Now the question is, who is supporting HONEST
PREVENTIVE MEASURES, and who do you
TRUST and why?

One thing is certain. When I discuss plus-prevention
and the honest difficulties with is -- I also discuss
profound arrogance and the effect it has on understanding
the nature of plus-prevention at the threshold.

And this is an example of that insufferable arrogance.

I believe is having an OPEN and HONEST discussion
about the natural eye's proven behavior. Indeed,
I will call is the second-opinion if you wish.

But any discussion of these wide ranging scientific
paradigms must review Catman's blind attitude towards
science and the facts.

No progress is possible under this circumstance presented
below.

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

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank,
and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him.

Mark Twain

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
the point is to discover them."

Galileo

From Dr. Grant

Speaking seriously, and as a professional, there are a few
points I wish to make.

1) In my consulting room, as you correctly stated, I am god.

2) I earned that right through study, hard work and developing a
reputation for quality work, excellent results and caring for
my patients and their welfare.

3) You have not earned that right. You are a pathetic little
pissant that insults the very fibre of prevention of myopia.
You do not deal with 20 patients a day wanting to see
clearly, you do not have to ensure that a kid can see the
board in class, as well as read and function outside the
classroom.

4) You have no concept of the issues, I and every other OD must
face on a daily basis for the best welfare of each and every
one of our patients. You prefer to pontificate about evil
minus and second opinion crap, whose supporters are less
credible than yourself.

5) You keep talking about second opinion doctors, but never name
any other than Steven Leung. Why is this? I do know several
OD's in Hong Kong and Singapore and Steven Leung is held in
the esteem that I hold you and Nancy. He has no basis to his
method, he just uses the fear of parents to sell his glasses
for his own profit. His website is a fraud and most of the
links don't work. There is no scientific validation, just
fear-mongering.

All in all, you are a pathetic, miserable sycophant that has
nothing to provdie other than fear. No answers, no proof,
nothing.

Crawl back under your rock and fester away.

dr grant (CatMan)

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

Otis,

Which theory do you believe best explains why humans become
nearsighted? Is it because of over-accommodation, under-
accommodation, off-axis hyperopic defocus?

Do you know that optometrists are actually involved in this research?
Can you name some of them?

DrG- Hide quoted text -

But remember the title of this thread:'

Ortho-K, and ENHANCEMENT with a +3 diopter lens.

Are you against the SECOND-OPINION of Otho-K?

Yes or no?

Do you support alternative methods, that include
the right of the person to ENHANCE the
result of Ortho-K, and keep his refractive
STATE POSITIVE, and his 20/20?

It seems to me that Yves has that basic human
right.

Are you trying to deny him that right?

You do not like the dynamic-eye concept, and
plus-prevention. Sure, I understand that. No
one asked YOU to practice it -- did they??

Yves wants to keep his refractive STATE positive,
and the blue-tint paradigm indicates that is MIGHT
be possible.

Since Yves can check his refractive STATE with
a Snellen and a +1 dipoter lens -- and KNOWS
WHAT HE IS DOING -- why not encourage
him to continue -- and LEARN SOMETHING
IN THIS PROCESS.

If Yves is totally successful, the the optometrists
supporging Orth-K will have a powerful selling
point for there professional product.

And BOTH parties get what they want in
that exchange.

So if you HATE this process -- of personal
empowerment -- why not say so.

That is your opinion and NO ONE IS
ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT PLUS PREVENTION,
nor Ortho-K and plus prevention.

Otis

Quote:

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Otis,

Why not just answer my question?

DrG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dr. Leukoma

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:18 pm

Guest

On Feb 10, 2:01 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Quote:

Dear Otis,

If you put a +3 diopter lens on the eye of an emmetropic chicken, then
the eye of the chicken will become hyperopic. If you put a -3 diopter
lens on an emmetropic chicken, the chicken's eye will become myopic.
Of course, the chicken needs to be natural and dynamic.

Now, please answer my question.

Drg

Neil Brooks

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:04 pm

Guest

Dr. G wrote-

Quote:

Why not just answer my question?

otisbrown@pa.net did nothing but defecate via the keyboard:

Quote:

But remember the title of this thread:'

Yes. We all know. When YOU want to blather, you cling desperately to
your preferred topic. When others dispute you, you tap-dance, avoid,
obfuscate, create straw men, or -- not nearly often enough -- just hide
for a bit.

Quote:

Ortho-K, and ENHANCEMENT with a +3 diopter lens.

Are you against the SECOND-OPINION of Otho-K?

Yes or no?

Nice straw man. Can't you EVER answer a simple, direct, relevant question?

Quote:

Do you support alternative methods, that include
the right of the person to ENHANCE the
result of Ortho-K, and keep his refractive
STATE POSITIVE, and his 20/20?

See previous comment.

Quote:

It seems to me that Yves has that basic human
right.

Are you trying to deny him that right?

Yeah, Otis. He's on an extraordinary rendition flight to Syria right now.

You need psychiatric help.

Quote:

You do not like the dynamic-eye concept, and
plus-prevention. Sure, I understand that. No
one asked YOU to practice it -- did they??

You've typed lots of bytes here, but nothing coherent.

Not one single answer to the direct question posed to you.

Quote:

Yves wants to keep his refractive STATE positive,
and the blue-tint paradigm indicates that is MIGHT
be possible.

See my oven thermostat analogy, then answer the question. What happens
when you put a -3d lens on a -3d eye (hint: nothing).

Quote:

Since Yves can check his refractive STATE with
a Snellen and a +1 dipoter lens -- and KNOWS
WHAT HE IS DOING -- why not encourage
him to continue -- and LEARN SOMETHING
IN THIS PROCESS.

Your straw man is getting bigger and bigger and bigger, yet -- as always
-- you're the only one talking about this chimerical "Yves."

Quote:

If Yves is totally successful, the the optometrists
supporging Orth-K will have a powerful selling
point for there professional product.

And BOTH parties get what they want in
that exchange.

So if you HATE this process -- of personal
empowerment -- why not say so.

Why must you constantly put words in people's mouths. It just makes you
look more and more pathetic and dishonest. You realize that, don't you?

Quote:

That is your opinion and NO ONE IS
ASKING YOU TO SUPPORT PLUS PREVENTION,
nor Ortho-K and plus prevention.

But--as always--people ARE asking YOU to answer direct, logical, and
relevant questions, and--as always--you will not.

Sick, pathetic, old man....

Neil Brooks

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 6:18 pm

Guest

You still responding to your own posts time and again?

Makes you look rather ... oh, I don't know ... insane?

Yeah. That's it.

Mike Tyner

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:35 pm

Guest

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

Quote:

For the same reason you do not answer my question
about the proven effect that a -3 diopter lens has on
a population of natural eyes.

Because you can't TELL the effect without comparing a similar group with NO
lens.

If you ever bother to make that comparison, you'll stop making ignorant
claims.

Quote:

See the blue-tint model of the behavior of the natural
dynamic eye -- since you do not seem to understand
the English language describing what is natural,
normal and EXPECTED.

Your "blue-tint model" doesn't work in humans old enough to get myopia.

Quote:

But yes, if quick-fixing in an office in 5 minutes is all you
do -- well I understand THAT aspect of your business.

Obviously not.

-MT

Mike Tyner

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:35 pm

Guest

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

Quote:

Do you support alternative methods, that include
the right of the person to ENHANCE the
result of Ortho-K, and keep his refractive
STATE POSITIVE, and his 20/20?

That doesn't work.

-MT

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 11:13 pm

Guest

Dear "L",

Subject: Separating objective, scientific fact -- from
the public's preception of you.

Your definition of NORMAL is "Emmetropic".
And what you mean, is a refractive STATE of
zero, +1/4 diopter.

Therefore to test the NORMAL eye's behavior,
it would be necessary to measure the refractive STATEs
of primates PRIOR to deterning the behavior
of the NORMAL eye.

I think you agree with the above statement thus far.

Now the question is this. If I force a -3 diopter lens
on the young primate eye, what will happen?

The first thing that will happen is that the NORMAL
accommodation system will change to clear
the blur induced by the -3 diopter lens (as
a natural process of the NORMAL accommodation
system.)

We have changed BOTH the instant value of
accomodation and its AVERAGE value as
well on a 16 hour / 7 day basis.

Now the NORMAL eye "knows" this average
value.

Does the NORMAL eye change its refractive
STATE by -2 diopters in six months -- or
does it not.

You said the "chicken eye", and ASSUMED
that the natural human-primate or monkey-primate
eye does not "control" in this maner.

Thus you deny that the NORMAL eye will
change in this manner.

That is fine with me. You have every
right to maintain you majority-opinion that
the NORMAL eye will not respond in this
manner.

I disagree with you on the basis on
objective, scientific facts.

That is all.

Otis

On Feb 10, 4:18 pm, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 10, 2:01 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

For the same reason you do not answer my question
about the proven effect that a -3 diopter lens has on
a population of natural eyes.

See the blue-tint model of the behavior of the natural
dynamic eye -- since you do not seem to understand
the English language describing what is natural,
normal and EXPECTED.

But yes, if quick-fixing in an office in 5 minutes is all you
do -- well I understand THAT aspect of your business.

Otis

On Feb 10, 2:13 pm, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> wrote:

On Feb 10, 12:17 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Dear Open-minded freinds,

Subject: The easy minus lens.

Yes, a quick-fix works and is profoundly impressive.

It it were proven to be SAFE, then everything would
be OK.

The problem is -- that is NOT the case.

Fortunately a scientific concept of the
natural eye's dynamic behavior has been
developed and published. See:

http://vision.berkeley.edu/wildsoet/myopiaprimer.html

Thus the natural eye proves to be dynamic.

Now the question is, who is supporting HONEST
PREVENTIVE MEASURES, and who do you
TRUST and why?

One thing is certain. When I discuss plus-prevention
and the honest difficulties with is -- I also discuss
profound arrogance and the effect it has on understanding
the nature of plus-prevention at the threshold.

And this is an example of that insufferable arrogance.

I believe is having an OPEN and HONEST discussion
about the natural eye's proven behavior. Indeed,
I will call is the second-opinion if you wish.

But any discussion of these wide ranging scientific
paradigms must review Catman's blind attitude towards
science and the facts.

No progress is possible under this circumstance presented
below.

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

If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank,
and that settles it. I mean, it does nowadays, because now we
can't burn him.

Mark Twain

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;
the point is to discover them."

Galileo

From Dr. Grant

Speaking seriously, and as a professional, there are a few
points I wish to make.

1) In my consulting room, as you correctly stated, I am god.

2) I earned that right through study, hard work and developing a
reputation for quality work, excellent results and caring for
my patients and their welfare.

3) You have not earned that right. You are a pathetic little
pissant that insults the very fibre of prevention of myopia.
You do not deal with 20 patients a day wanting to see
clearly, you do not have to ensure that a kid can see the
board in class, as well as read and function outside the
classroom.

4) You have no concept of the issues, I and every other OD must
face on a daily basis for the best welfare of each and every
one of our patients. You prefer to pontificate about evil
minus and second opinion crap, whose supporters are less
credible than yourself.

5) You keep talking about second opinion doctors, but never name
any other than Steven Leung. Why is this? I do know several
OD's in Hong Kong and Singapore and Steven Leung is held in
the esteem that I hold you and Nancy. He has no basis to his
method, he just uses the fear of parents to sell his glasses
for his own profit. His website is a fraud and most of the
links don't work. There is no scientific validation, just
fear-mongering.

All in all, you are a pathetic, miserable sycophant that has
nothing to provdie other than fear. No answers, no proof,
nothing.

Crawl back under your rock and fester away.

dr grant (CatMan)

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

Otis,

Which theory do you believe best explains why humans become
nearsighted? Is it because of over-accommodation, under-
accommodation, off-axis hyperopic defocus?

Do you know that optometrists are actually involved in this research?
Can you name some of them?

DrG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Otis,

Why not just answer my question?

DrG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dear Otis,

If you put a +3 diopter lens on the eye of an emmetropic chicken, then
the eye of the chicken will become hyperopic. If you put a -3 diopter
lens on an emmetropic chicken, the chicken's eye will become myopic.
Of course, the chicken needs to be natural and dynamic.

Now, please answer my question.

Drg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Dr. Leukoma

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:36 am

Guest

On Feb 10, 9:13 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Quote:

Dear "L",

Subject: Separating objective, scientific fact -- from
the public's preception of you.

You are trying to change the subject. Why will you not answer a very
simple question: What is your theory concerning the cause of myopia?

Quote:

Your definition of NORMAL is "Emmetropic".
And what you mean, is a refractive STATE of
zero, +1/4 diopter.

Real scientists use scientific definitions. Scientists know what
"emmetropic" means.

Quote:

Therefore to test the NORMAL eye's behavior,
it would be necessary to measure the refractive STATEs
of primates PRIOR to deterning the behavior
of the NORMAL eye.

I think you agree with the above statement thus far.

Now the question is this. If I force a -3 diopter lens
on the young primate eye, what will happen?

That depends on the refractive power of the primate's eye at the
beginning of the experiment.

Quote:

The first thing that will happen is that the NORMAL
accommodation system will change to clear
the blur induced by the -3 diopter lens (as
a natural process of the NORMAL accommodation
system.)

If the primate eye has a power of +3 diopters, and the working
distance is infinity, then no accommodation will be required when a -3
diopter lens is "forced" on the primate.

Based on the above paragraph, I now "see" what your working hypothesis
is, and so there is no need to carry this discussion further. The
bottom line is that you are not keeping up with current research
because of your hubris.

That is all.

DrG

Neil Brooks

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:09 am

Guest

Elevator Boy blathered:

Quote:

Subject: Separating objective, scientific fact -- from
the public's preception of you.

And Dr. Leukoma responded:

Quote:

You are trying to change the subject. Why will you not answer a very
simple question: What is your theory concerning the cause of myopia?

Your definition of NORMAL is "Emmetropic".
And what you mean, is a refractive STATE of
zero, +1/4 diopter.

Real scientists use scientific definitions. Scientists know what
"emmetropic" means.

Gotta' assume Elevator Boy is either deathly afraid of challenges to his
zealously guarded hypothesis or simply too intellectually weak to
genuinely engage without straying into the Twilight Zone.

I defy the reader to find any logical fallacy of which Elevator Boy
isn't regularly guilty:

http://tinyurl.com/qx49

I'd like to suggest a sort of "Elevator Boy Home Game." We earn points
by citing the logical fallacies, by name, in Elevator Boy's posts.

Mike Tyner

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:14 am

Guest

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

Quote:

Now the question is this. If I force a -3 diopter lens
on the young primate eye, what will happen?

Is it a "natural" eye, or a -3 eye? Do you know the difference?

Quote:

The first thing that will happen is that the NORMAL
accommodation system will change to clear
the blur induced by the -3 diopter lens (as
a natural process of the NORMAL accommodation
system.)

Why would anyone put a -3 lens on a "normal" eye?

Quote:

We have changed BOTH the instant value of
accomodation and its AVERAGE value as
well on a 16 hour / 7 day basis.

Not to mention headaches, double vision, and decreased performance.

Quote:

Does the NORMAL eye change its refractive
STATE by -2 diopters in six months -- or
does it not.

So the +3 hyperope takes off his glasses and becomes a +1 hyperope in six
months?

NOT.

Quote:

Thus you deny that the NORMAL eye will
change in this manner.

Thus you demonstrate you have no idea what happens in the real world.

Quote:

That is fine with me. You have every
right to maintain you majority-opinion that
the NORMAL eye will not respond in this
manner.

And you have every right to maintain your ignorant misconceptions. But when
you start preaching your gospel to the uninitiated, forgive us for raising
an objection or two.

Quote:

I disagree with you on the basis on
objective, scientific facts.

You don't KNOW the objective, scientific facts.

Does an uncorrected +3 hyperope become a +1 hyperope?

-MT

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:10 am

Guest

Dear "L",

Please DEFINE exactly what you mean
by the work emmetropia, or "normal eye".

Is it:

1. A refractive STATE of exactly zero?

2. Refractive STATES of from zero to +1/4
dioper?

3. Or has there never been any true
definion of emmetropia at all. Just
a vague concept.

4. Under this discussion, I would agree
that the normal eye could behave differently
than the AMETROPIC eye.

5. Thus I must have an exact definition of
normal -- inorder to OBJECTIVELY TEST the
behavior of the normal eye. That way
I can draw conclusions about the dynamic
behavior of the EMMETROPIC (or normal)
eye -- and not the AMETROPIC eye.

You can not test the ametropic eye, and
draw conclusion about the normal eye -- now
can you?

Failure to provide quantitative definition
of emmetropia will end our discussion at this point.

Best,

Otis

On Feb 11, 12:36 am, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...@leukoma.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Feb 10, 9:13 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Dear "L",

Subject: Separating objective, scientific fact -- from
the public's preception of you.

You are trying to change the subject. Why will you not answer a very
simple question: What is your theory concerning the cause of myopia?

Your definition of NORMAL is "Emmetropic".
And what you mean, is a refractive STATE of
zero, +1/4 diopter.

Real scientists use scientific definitions. Scientists know what
"emmetropic" means.

Therefore to test the NORMAL eye's behavior,
it would be necessary to measure the refractive STATEs
of primates PRIOR to deterning the behavior
of the NORMAL eye.

I think you agree with the above statement thus far.

Now the question is this. If I force a -3 diopter lens
on the young primate eye, what will happen?

That depends on the refractive power of the primate's eye at the
beginning of the experiment.

The first thing that will happen is that the NORMAL
accommodation system will change to clear
the blur induced by the -3 diopter lens (as
a natural process of the NORMAL accommodation
system.)

If the primate eye has a power of +3 diopters, and the working
distance is infinity, then no accommodation will be required when a -3
diopter lens is "forced" on the primate.

Based on the above paragraph, I now "see" what your working hypothesis
is, and so there is no need to carry this discussion further. The
bottom line is that you are not keeping up with current research
because of your hubris.

That is all.

DrG

Dr. Leukoma

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 11:23 am

Guest

On Feb 11, 9:10 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Quote:

Please DEFINE exactly what you mean
by the work emmetropia, or "normal eye".

Is it:

1. A refractive STATE of exactly zero?

2. Refractive STATES of from zero to +1/4
dioper?

3. Or has there never been any true
definion of emmetropia at all. Just
a vague concept.

Vague to whom? Not to most people.

Here, just Google it:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=HPIC,HPIC:2005-33,HPIC:en&defl=en&q=define:emmetropia&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

I've never seen anybody with such an ability to obfuscate something as
simple as the term "emmetropia."

Quote:

Failure to provide quantitative definition
of emmetropia will end our discussion at this point.

You have turned this discussion into a form of entertainment that most
of us have grown tired of.

DrG

Mike Tyner

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:35 pm

Guest

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

Quote:

Please DEFINE exactly what you mean
by the work emmetropia, or "normal eye".

It ain't -3.00.

Quote:

3. Or has there never been any true
definion of emmetropia at all. Just
a vague concept.

How about the term "healthy?" Is that a vague concept?

How vague is "natural eye?"

Quote:

4. Under this discussion, I would agree
that the normal eye could behave differently
than the AMETROPIC eye.

So exactly why is it harmful to put -3 lenses on -3 eyes?

Quote:

5. Thus I must have an exact definition of
normal -- inorder to OBJECTIVELY TEST the
behavior of the normal eye.

Like your exact definition for "NATURAL?" No thanks.

Quote:

That way
I can draw conclusions about the dynamic
behavior of the EMMETROPIC (or normal)
eye -- and not the AMETROPIC eye.

Well, most people wearing -3 lenses are not EMMETROPIC.

Quote:

Failure to provide quantitative definition
of emmetropia will end our discussion at this point.

We would be happy if you ended your discussion at this point.

But "emmetropia" is not a mathematical term, subject to an engineer's rigor.
Clinical terms like "emmetropia" and "healthy" always allow flexibility and
a range of statistical variation. The terms "natural" and "normal" are no
better defined than "emmetropia."

Throwing up roadblocks in this manner is a deceitful debate tactic. It's
great for maintaining misconceptions, don't ya think?

-MT

otisbrown@pa.net

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:55 pm

Guest

Dear Mike,

It obviously serves YOUR purposes to use
words that have no meaningful definitions.

Why not just state that the eye can
have negative or postive refractive STATES,
rather than use misleading and biased terms
that have no meaning as you now admit.

I will not use the work "emmetropic" any more
for EXACTLY that reason. To continue to
use words that have no meaning IS NOT
SCIENTIFIC, now is it?

Otis

On Feb 11, 11:35 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:

Quote:

otisbr...@pa.net> wrote

Please DEFINE exactly what you mean
by the work emmetropia, or "normal eye".

It ain't -3.00.

3. Or has there never been any true
definion of emmetropia at all. Just
a vague concept.

How about the term "healthy?" Is that a vague concept?

How vague is "natural eye?"

4. Under this discussion, I would agree
that the normal eye could behave differently
than the AMETROPIC eye.

So exactly why is it harmful to put -3 lenses on -3 eyes?

5. Thus I must have an exact definition of
normal -- inorder to OBJECTIVELY TEST the
behavior of the normal eye.

Like your exact definition for "NATURAL?" No thanks.

That way
I can draw conclusions about the dynamic
behavior of the EMMETROPIC (or normal)
eye -- and not the AMETROPIC eye.

Well, most people wearing -3 lenses are not EMMETROPIC.

Failure to provide quantitative definition
of emmetropia will end our discussion at this point.

We would be happy if you ended your discussion at this point.

But "emmetropia" is not a mathematical term, subject to an engineer's rigor.
Clinical terms like "emmetropia" and "healthy" always allow flexibility and
a range of statistical variation. The terms "natural" and "normal" are no
better defined than "emmetropia."

Throwing up roadblocks in this manner is a deceitful debate tactic. It's
great for maintaining misconceptions, don't ya think?

-MT

Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:49 pm Science Forum Index