-20 D under self-treatment, update report

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by g.gatti, Jan 31, 2005.

  1. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    Now our client has reached 17 cm of remote point, reading letters
    calibrated for 1,25 feet (normal vision) on the white reduced snellen
    chart. This should be about four tenth of normal vision.

    For the first time today she was able to read letters of the 5 feet
    line at about 5 feet distance, indoors, with a 300 watt lamp pointed to
    the Snellen chart.

    However the Snellen chart was the black one type, with black background
    and white letters.

    With the black chart she is more easily drawn to relaxation and the
    vision is much better.


    Those who are interested in the true cure of all vision problems, can
    visit our website http://TheCentralFixation.com


    This intelligent girl, who is studying third year of a doctorate in
    biology, can be an interesting case for all high myopes.

    The cure exists and it is quite simple, although may be difficult to
    practice.

    But it is true.

    By the way, the eccentric fixation we measured in the first days of
    self-treatment, stated to be of 2 meters at 2 meters, has now been
    reduced at 1 meter.

    Now one question for the learned men here.

    When she was able to read the 5 feet line at five feet, the eye was
    emmetropic.

    Is this correct?

    Now how can a -20 D myopic eye become again emmetropic?

    Please explain.
     
    g.gatti, Jan 31, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. g.gatti

    retinula Guest

    accommodative myopia stupid! you are the only person in this newgroup
    who is dumber than Otis Brown.

    Do you know anything about the structure of the eye? If so then read
    about the portion called the ciliary muscle.
     
    retinula, Feb 1, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    is there a more idiot than you?

    please Mister Tyner, explain to this idiot why "pseudo-myopia" cannot
    account for -20 D.
     
    g.gatti, Feb 1, 2005
    #3
  4. g.gatti

    retinula Guest

    Of course it would be unlikely that a -20D myope is due to
    accommodation. But how do you know the true refractive state of the
    patient? Did a qualified person do a manifest and cycloplegic
    refraction? Do you even understand what I am talking about?

    What do you think is the prevalence of -20D myopes in the population.

    I don't think your "patient" is really what you claim her to be, if she
    exists outside your mind at all.
     
    retinula, Feb 2, 2005
    #4
  5. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    You are a STRONG idiot what is the point to talk with you?

    You don't even think what is possible to do with our evoluted methods.

    Just stay silent and try to learn.

    We are doing a great job.

    People with high myopia can do very well, if they can escape from your
    stupid mind, and rotten too.

    <<Of course it would be unlikely that a -20D myope is due to
    accomodation.>>

    You are truly a great idiot.
     
    g.gatti, Feb 2, 2005
    #5
  6. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Rishi,

    "I don't get no respect"

    Rodney Dangerfield

    Unlike "Retin..." I show people respect -- both you and
    others.

    You have an honest opinion about nearsightednes -- as I do.

    If we are honest in assessing the behavior of the
    natural eye as a "sophisticated sytem" we
    might get closer to the truth about
    the prevention of nearsighedness.

    When a person resorts to "name calling" he
    is acting as a spoild child.

    It is clear that the prevention of nearsighedness
    is not easy -- and will require both intelligence
    and motivation IN THE PERSON to work towards
    that goal.

    Calling "names" just diminishes the person
    who does it.

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Feb 2, 2005
    #6
  7. g.gatti

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I'm sorry. I meant to say, "YOU'RE TRYING TO ALIGN YOURSELF . . . WITH
    *RISHI* . . . *AGAINST* THE CONCEPT OF NAME CALLING???"

    There. Much better.

    Otis, you slay me. What a hoot!!
     
    Neil Brooks, Feb 2, 2005
    #7
  8. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    Let's align against stupdiity and exploitation of the normal people.

    You learned men have failed in your true mission but continue to harm
    people, innocent people, against the truth.
     
    g.gatti, Feb 2, 2005
    #8
  9. g.gatti

    RM Guest

    Rishi is Otis' only ally. That ought to tell you something.

    =====

     
    RM, Feb 3, 2005
    #9
  10. g.gatti

    RM Guest

    This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
    that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
    "" or "Otis, Engineer".

    Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
    training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is
    unproven.

    In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the
    names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been
    caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise.
    Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel
    him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument.

    Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not
    reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that
    should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick
    psychological needs.

    No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is
    only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained
    eyecare expert.

    For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of
    scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following
    link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf. If you have other topics
    you wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you.
    Don't waste your time with Otis.

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually
    appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that
    you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum.

    =============
     
    RM, Feb 3, 2005
    #10
  11. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Reader,

    Sinc RM can not face scientific truth concerning
    the natural eye as a dynamic system -- he
    resorts to these "broadsides".

    This is an open forum -- and we should share
    ideas and concepts.

    Insisting that the natural eye does not
    behave as a sophisticated system
    is not they way to do scientific research.

    So for RM has presented no scientific evidence to
    PROVE that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on
    the refractive state of the natural eye.

    But then we have no idea who he is.

    I regret his "closed minded" attitude.

    I know that other ODs now support your right
    to an "informed choice" about prevention
    at the threshold. Why does RM express
    fear -- about an honest choice you
    could make in this manner?

    Please read:

    www.chinamyopia.org

    If you doubt the devemopment of the
    preventive alternative.

    If RM would stop posting these "blasts" about
    honest alternatives -- I would stop posting
    this response.

    If RM's attitude is wide spread -- then we do
    have a major problem with technical accuracy
    and honesty as it concerns the behavior
    of the natural eye as a competent control system.
    Enjoy,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Feb 3, 2005
    #11
  12. g.gatti

    retinula Guest

    Do not read anything this person Otis writes.

    He is a zealot who argues the same thing over and over again. Eye
    doctors in this forum constantly disprove his arguments but he won't go
    away. He offers medical advise without any training.

    Disregard anything he says.
     
    retinula, Feb 3, 2005
    #12
  13. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    But who are you to counsel people in this way?

    You are MUCH MORE idiotic that Otis, an old man.

    Please respect the elders.
     
    g.gatti, Feb 3, 2005
    #13
  14. g.gatti

    RM Guest

    Where have I ever denied the eye is a dynamic system. Why do you keep trying
    to misrepresent everyone as saying this? You are the only one who ever
    talks about this. You must think this is some kind of eloquent concept--
    it's actually quite elementary. Right down your alley Otis! Even you can
    understand it it's so simple. Too bad you don't understand anything about
    the anatomy and physiology of the eye-- by your own admission.

    Otis misquotes, and lies!

    Who ever insisted that? Another Otis misquote and lie!
    What? I am supposed to provide scientific evidence that a minus lens has no
    effect on the refractive state of the eye? Says who? Otis' twisted logic
    is incredible!

    Otis proposes concepts that are not proven and have frankly been disproven
    in numerous studies-- so he turns around and points a finger at eye doctors
    using a therapy that is the standard of practice and tells us the WE need to
    prove it's efficacy.

    No Otis-- you need to prove that what you propose actually helps someone!
    Others have tried to prove it and it doesn't work, except for accommodative
    myopes which are the isolated cases you like to beat your drum about.

    Your logic is twisted indeed!
    Where have I ever expressed fear? What a foolish old man you are!

    Go away troll!
     
    RM, Feb 4, 2005
    #14
  15. g.gatti

    otisbrown Guest

    Retin...

    You are calling a person that is -20 diopters myopic -- as
    having "accommodation myopia".

    Even the ODs on this site would not stretch the truth
    that far!

    They have defined "accommodation myopia" as a person
    on the threshold who is "squinting" on the 20/50 line,
    and after a period of wearing a plus for all close work -- clears
    to pass the DMV-Snellen line.

    Perhaps YOU are dumber than dirt, and don't have clue?

    Did you ever think about that?

    Best,

    Otis
    Engineer
     
    otisbrown, Feb 5, 2005
    #15
  16. g.gatti

    RM Guest

    This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread
    that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown",
    "" or "Otis, Engineer".

    Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare
    training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is
    unproven.

    In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the
    names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been
    caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise.
    Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel
    him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument.

    Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not
    reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that
    should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick
    psychological needs.

    No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is
    only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained
    eyecare expert.

    For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of
    scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following
    link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf. If you have other topics
    you wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you.
    Don't waste your time with Otis.

    Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually
    appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that
    you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum.
     
    RM, Feb 5, 2005
    #16
  17. g.gatti

    g.gatti Guest

    This RM is truly a very very hard-rock true idiot.
     
    g.gatti, Feb 5, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.