I need help debunking a claim of paranormal ophthamology ability

[kugel]

I know this sounds odd, probably because it is. I'm a psychiatrist and you're welcome to view my posts in the psychiatry forum to check me out.
One of my hobbies is work with the Center for Inquiry, publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, supporting rationality and debunking pseudoscience wherever it lurks. Within CFI, I work with the Independent Investigations Group (www.iigwest.org). Our organization has been approached by an opthamologist who is claiming he can significantly lower the IOP of a glaucoma pt from across the globe, on command, in as little as 10-15 minutes. Basically, this is a claim of a form of telekinetic ability.

In order to debunk this claim, I would appreciate some info from experts. If any of you have the inclination, would you answer a few questions for me:
1) What is the normal variability for IOP measurement in successive measurements in this time frame? How much might any glaucoma pt's IOP change from one measurement to the next over 15 min and have that change be considered normal?

2) How much would a pt's IOP have to change in such a setting for you to be impressed? Not that a single altered measurement proves anything, but what amount of change would make you interested in seeing the rest of the trials?

3) If you were as masochistic as me and want to pursue testing such a claim, what measurement tool would you want to use, and why?

4) If you were trying to find an ophthamologist in southern California to help with testing such a claim (spending 2-3 hrs, one time), how would you go about trying to find an ophthamologist who might be willling to help dispel such paranormal claims?

None of the answers to these informal questions will be cited or published in any way.
However, if you have the slightest interest in more indepth involvement, or know someone who might, please PM me.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[PBEA]

If I tell people to relax, breathe normally, calm down, change their posture, etc I can also lower their IOP reading. That's hardly telekinesis though. As well, subsequent reading in any person can be lower then the initial one., I believe that is a hysteresis issue.

1) I'd say 1 -3, possibly 4 mmHg is fair game
2) no amount of evidence/data from anyone other then an OD or OMD would impress me in the slightest. But if you mention telekinees again I don't care if you are duke-elder, I'm not impressed
3) since the testing would be equally as invalid as the claim, and makes no difference one way or another you might get one of those home IOP devices that were introduced years ago. they aren't accurate, but like I said, that doesn't matter in this case. The gold standard however is slit lamp mounted, goldmann applanation tonometery
4) no idea

 

[fatpigeon2010]

Hahahahahahaha. Wow, just wow. Does such a ridiculous claim even warrant anyone's time to try and debunk? If anything, trying to debunk this gives more clout to his claims. Although maybe he can start a new fellowship: teleglaucoma

 

[elementals]

well, in all fairness, if his claim is that he can tell people to breathe deeply, relax, and push on their eyeballs, i wouldn't be surprised if IOPs go down non-telekinetically. but i wouldn't really attribute that to his skill as a physician, either.

 

[TheLesPaul]

Hahahahahahaha. Wow, just wow. Does such a ridiculous claim even warrant anyone's time to try and debunk? If anything, trying to debunk this gives more clout to his claims. Although maybe he can start a new fellowship: teleglaucoma

Why did placebo cause a 10% IOP decline in the EGPS study?