StudyBas.txt

Subject:  Successful future studies are built on previous 
successful studies.


     Why was the successful 1913 study "prevented", while
it was in the process of becoming successful?

     The basis of this proposed engineering study -- is from the
work of Dr. Young, Dr. Prentice and Dr. Liberman

     It is also based on tragic way that Dr.  Bates 1913 study of
prevention -- was terminated.  It was terminated because the
powers-that-be, did not like a (preventive) method that did not
conform to the "traditional" method of practice.  It was,
sorry to say, terminated by the "apathy" of the person himself.

     Here are the mathematical details of this proposed study --
not with children, but with people who are capable of mature
judgment, as per students entering a four-year aeronautical
college.

     A man, with 20/50, who MUST pass the 20/20 line (and
have a positive refractive STATE) is the person who will
have the engineering-scientific knowledge to make
all the measurements and judge his own results.

    Here is a review of this concept:

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


     The formulation of a problem is often far more essential than
its solution, which may be a matter of mathematical or
experimental skill.  To raise new questions, new possibilities, to
regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative
imagination and marks real advances in science.

     Albert Einstein


Here is the statement by T. Grosvenor:

Gros> The organization of regular conferences focused solely on
      myopia recognizes that the prevalence of myopia is so high
      as to make it an epidemic for which solutions must be found.

Otis> However, it seems that all persons who are not ODs MUST BE
      EXCLUDED FROM:

1.  Publishing papers that disagree with the majority opinion and

2.  Prevented from suggesting scientific studies (threshold),
      based on science and facts.

3.  Advocating a new study -- based on the concept of Dr. Bates
      1913 study.

Gros> Before discussing why there is an epidemic of myopia,

Otis> Why the natural eye is a dynamic system?	I think that issue
      must be resolved on a scientific level.

Gros> it will be helpful to define the word epidemic and then to
      provide evidence that an epidemic of myopia exists.

Otis> Interesting?  Why not just read "www.myopiafree.com"?

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

     But let us continue.

     I worked with Francis Young and published some papers with
him as a co-author.

     After he retired, (20 years later) he sent me most of his
published papers.

     One paper by itself is not convincing.  But the 40-plus
papers (published over 40 years) allow a broad perspective on the
problem of true prevention, or the possibility of initiating
threshold-prevention before that first minus is applied.

     Prevention is going to require a person of considerable
intelligence, as well as person motivation towards a specific
objective.

     This means a person who has a sufficient background in
fundamental statistics and science to understand this issues that
a preventive study will raise.

     The issues of statistics is critical, because an exact
understanding of it can lead to the conclusion that the efforts
being made (under intellectual control of the person himself) will
continue to be effective.

     The issue becomes one of establishing the "standard
deviation" for the group of engineers who will lead the
(preventive) study.

     The further issue is to have the engineer make all the
measurement of their refractive STATE (under their control).  This
could be accomplished by use of the Focometer.	if you want a
person to believe the results of his own study -- then have him
make all the measurements under HIS control.

     For a preventive study, you would ask the person to confirm
his:

1.  Visual Acuity (must be better than 20/70), or functional vision
     at the start.

2.  Refractive state (Focometer measured) always better than -1.75
      diopters, with the average about -1 diotper)

3.  He must have a retina capability of 20/20 confirmed by
      self-measurement using his own set of minus lenses.

     In engineering you do estimates of PREDICTABLE results.
Since we know that people in the above range have been able to
clear their Snellen back to normal, it follows that this type of
effort could become successful.

     The critical value is the Standard Deviation (Sigma).  You
will find the calculation of this value in college statistics.
Engineering students understand this concept.

     Based on Francis Young's studies, it is possible to estimate
this "Sigma" value APPROXIMATELY.  (The actual value will be
obtained from the measurements by the students themselves.) The
purpose of this calculation is to determine the required " n ", to
produce accurate results.

     The value of "Sigma" will run between 0.25 to about 0.40
diopters.  The preliminary calculation is shown below.

     The goal is to show that the results are Highly Significant
in a reasonable period of time.  Highly Significant is defined as
exceeding a 1 in 100 probability, or "2.33" by standard
statistics.

     The goal is to confirm this significant level in about one
year.

     The reference study is Dr.  Francis Young’s "plus" study
where the students wearing a "straight minus" went down at -1/2
diopter per year (average) where the "plus" students went down at
a rate of about 0.01 diopter per year, for a difference of
approximately 1/2 diopters DIFFERENCE per year.  It is expected
that, with dedicated engineering students, the same difference
between the test and control groups can be achieved.

     I would expect better use of the plus from engineering
students who would understand the reason why they should use the
plus for the year of this proto-type study.

     The calculations, then, will look like this:

     Sigma (worst case) = 0.40

     Expected difference from the 60 eyes in the study = 0.5
diopters.

     Number of eyes wearing the plus = 30

     Number of eyes in randomly assigned control group = 30

     Length of time of this effort -- (everyone is knowledgeable about
the study and what is expected of them) -- would be about one year.

     Goal:  Exceed the highly-significant level in science.

     The formula and calculation:

Z = (Xt - Xc) / Square Root (( Sigma-t ^ 2 / Nt ) + (Sigma-c ^ 2 / Nc) )

Available REASONABLE numbers -- from above:


Z = (0.0 - 0.5) / Square Root (( 0.40 ^ 2 / 30 ) + ( 0.40 ^ 2 / 30) )


Z = (Approximately) 4.84

     This far exceeds the required "highly significant" level of
2.33 in a period of one year.

     I would invite a discussion of these numbers by engineers and
scientists who will accept the challenge of inspiring developing
engineers in doing work to preserve their distant vision through
their four years of college.

#############

     SD_Calc.txt

     Subject:  A proposed scientific study -- for prevention.

     Re:  Calculation of the Standard-Deviation (Sigma) for the
population of individuals on the threshold of "Myopia", i.e,
refractive STATES of from -0.75 to -1.75 diopters.

     In engineering you do estimates or PREDICTABLE results.
Since we know that people in the above range have been able to
clear their Snellen back to normal, it follows that this type of
effort could become successful.

     The value of "Sigma" will run between 0.25 to about 0.40
diopters.  (For the above measurements.  These values are "order
of magnitude").

     Here is how the calculation of "Sigma" is made, given the
above specifications (1 through 3).

1.  The refractive STATES will be judged by the pilots
      "prescription", i.e., he might have a -1.75 diopter
      prescription, but his Focometer measurement shows -1.5
      diopters.  The value of measurement used will be -1.5
      diopters.

2.  He will confirm his visual acuity by using a Standard Snellen
      at 20 feet.

3.  Given the range of values possible ( -1.75 diopters to -0.75
      diopters) you can calculate the worst-case "Sigma".  i.e.,
      assume that equal numbers (10) exist in each group.

4.  The value calculated for this "flat" distribution of 50, is
      Sigma = 0.363

5.  It is highly probable that the collection of this data from
      the 50 individuals will not be "flat" (worst case) but will
      be Gaussian, so the Standard Deviation will be less.

6.  This is a preparation calculation, the actual data MUST be
      provided by the pilot making the measurement with his
      Focometer.


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

     The calculation for Significance (using 0.4 for the Standard
Deviation is:

     The Goal:	Exceed the highly-significant level in science.

     The formula and calculation (college statistics)

Z = (Xt - Xc) / Square Root (( Sigma-t ^ 2 / Nt ) + (Sigma-c ^ 2 / Nc) )

Available REASONABLE numbers -- from above:


Z = (0.0 - 0.5) / Square Root (( 0.40 ^ 2 / 30 ) + ( 0.40 ^ 2 / 30) )


Z = (Approximately) 4.84

     This far exceeds the required "highly significant" level of
2.33 in a period of one year.



     The Focometer is described here:


     http://www.infocusonline.org/toc.htm



     +++++++++++++


     Subject:  Establishing the technical accuracy of the
Focometer for measuring the eye's refractive STATE.

     This person made 10 "runs" of this measurement.

     The accuracy with stated Standard Deviations is quite good.

     Otis

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

Measurements by Sassy, an Electrical Engineer.



Time	Trial	Estimated to nearest 1/4 Diopter

		OD	OS

1:11 PM 1	-6.5	-6.25

1:14 PM 2	-6.5	-6

1:18 PM 3	-6.5	-6.5

1:21 PM 4	-6.75	-6.5

1:25 PM 5	-6.5	-6.25

1:28 PM 6	-6.75	-6.25

1:31 PM 7	-6.5	-6

1:34 PM 8	-6.5	-6

1:36 PM 9	-6.5	-6.25

1:39 PM 10	-6.75	-6.25

	Mean	-6.575	-6.225

	StDev	0.120	0.184

	29-Feb-08


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

This level of standard-deviation measurement shows
that a change of greater-that 1/2 diopter in a positive
direction is HIGHLY-SIGNIFICANT.

Otis