Advice for 9-year old newly in glasses.

I used impractical in sense that is much easier to correct then to repair.

To make precise movements muscle must contract simultaneously. Pointing for
far seeing must be precise. So and the strain also. It must shorten the
eyeball and flatten the cornea. In nature all is perfect. Pointing to far
object help in proper focusing.

Some muscles work all time (heart). Some have possibility to tell us (pain)
that they cannot work. Nutrition and minerals can improve it. The same is
when is pain in the eye when pointing to far object. First nutrition next
training.

I am here to lern. All my suggestions and conclusions I should ended: Am I
right?
I am just learnig also PC and English. It is not easy.
S*

 

I have many relatives who have learned English as a second language.
They all confirm how difficult it is.

I have one suggestion for you: drop the phrase "it must". I don't know
exactly what you intend the meaning to be, but it is like waving the red
flag at the bull during a bull fight. Especially since you provide no
references or explanation.

 

"Dan Abel"

May be that thanks this I have more free English lessons.

I came across the Bershak Method days ago. I am raw in this. But it seems to
me very valuable.
S*

 

It changes sometimes itselves but we do not know why.

We must go to the details. The hand, ready to writing, as an example. Before
writing all muscles are in "tonus" state. During writing all muscles
becames harder. You can consciously make them very hard (all contracted)

In Englsh is "strain your ears/eyes = try very hard to hear or see" At
myopia it meens " contract (properly) your external muscle. But if they are
very week it does not work.

It takes years when it will be in texstbooks.

Eyes are at least a masterpiece.

At fatigue we feel some sort of pain
When muscles are strong no fatigue no pain.

But I only want to know if is a correlation beetwin children myopia epidemic
and the LOWER salt cosumption (or minerals deficiency).
I bet that such research are done or are pending. Now is a big mess about
salt and minerals.
S*

 

"Mike Tyner"

Neil wrote:
"In studies

- some myopes get more myopic over time
- some myopes get LESS myopic over time
- some myopes stay the same over time

This is with NO conscious interventions"
S*

 

Dear Szcz,

Subject: The "Random" theory of refractive STATES -- by the Majority-
Opinion ODs.

That is there theory -- that the refractive STATES of the fundamental
eye
are all "random".

They see no order in the behavior of the natural eye. Regrettable!

For the record, Francis Young studied the behavior of the natural
eye of Eskimos.

The grandparents (about 99 percent) had postive refractive STATES and
excellent distant vision.

The grandkids, who went through 12 years of school, had negative
refractive STATES, and poor vision.

Yes, if you want to be blind to the behavior of the fundamental
eye -- you can ignore just about anything.

Otis

 

Subject: Defending "Tradition" and "Quick-fix" in an office.

I am sorry you get so much wrong -- and then declare
yourself "right".

But that has always been your "habit".

Since and the facts, concerning the proven dynamic
behavior of the eye -- mean absolutly nothing to you.

There is no doubt but that prevention is indeed difficult.

But you keep on insisting that PREVENTING entry
into a negative refractive STATE for the natural
eye is IMPOSSIBLE.

And then you insist on calling all people "liars" when
they report scientific facts accurately.

That is the point of our disagreement. The
facts (concerning the dynamic behavior of
the natural eye are clear. It is your warping
of those facts that are the problem.

Other (more open minded optometrsits) do not
support your "position".

That is always the nature of a second-opinion argument.

Enjoy,

Otis

 

really?

 

did you write this to yourself?

i think the difference is what you think constitutes proof. animal
studies do not prove how the human eye behaves since it has been
without doubt clearly shown that animal and human eyes behave
differently. likewise, studies of Eskimos cannot be generalized to
all humans since there are quite clearly racial and genetic
differences among human populations.

Otis, I am sorry that you want to make the development of refractive
errors in humans into a simple mechanism with only 1 or 2
determinates. what is known is that there are genetic influences,
environmental influences, and that the real mechanism is complex. not
what you hoped for I'm sure but its true. eye doctors live it and see
it every day so when you make your simpleton analogies and statements
it ticks us off.

since we don't know what the mechanism really is, then prevention is
much more than difficult, its IMPOSSIBLE.

but maybe if a person just tried real real hard....?!

But what happened to your niece Joy? Your prevention schemes didn't
work for her. You have a convenient memory, but thats the way it
always is with "Second-opinion" Otis Brown, engineer.

 

Wow, Otis.

New e-mail address, but same old pathological liar and absolute
fucking idiot, huh??

Nice.

 

Opinion ODs.

eye are all "random".

In textbooks are theories which were famous (as false or true) in time of
writting.

eye of Eskimos.

excellent distant vision.

refractive STATES, and poor vision.

For such new ones the only place are Web sides.

eye -- you can ignore just about anything.

But do not worry, Otis. From now all will be under control.
It is posible thanks the latest three revolutionary discoveries:

1. Magnesium and sulphour (MSM) are very important for muscles.
2. Myopia causes reading (Dan Abel)
3. External muscles help in far focussing (John Bershak)

So will be possible the scenario as follows:

When kids start going to school we serve them small amounts of the
"technical NaCl" (table salt). The fatique pain appears in eyes and the
myopia starts. Kids prefer reading. IQ is high and excelent result in
education.

Afer education we serve unrafined sea salt (or mixture 3:1 of table salt and
Epson salt). When fatique pain disappears we start repairing the myopia
with Bershak method.
I am queries if Dan was trated in such way?

Now is possible to control (conscious) the all cases.

I need add some explanation to the term "Fatigue pain". The example is the
best way:

To keep balance when standing and walking ALL muscles are contracted. They
do it all day long without the "fatigue pain" (if they are properly feed).
But some people feel the fatigue pain after a few minutes. They need a
walking-stick to eliminate (lower) this pain.
The same is with the eyes. Properly feed external eye muscles can do far
focussing all day long without the fatigue pain. Week need glasses.

It may be the new diagnostic tool for ED. Patient, after taking off glasses,
should see blurry but should not feel the fatigue pain. If such is changes
in nutrition should be considered.

For the above I have references and evidences which are enough for me.
Supply such which satisfy the whole world is not my duty (I have any
possibilities). But the Western people so such busy do it without my help.
Am I right?
S*

 

Dear Mike,

Subject: I KNOW what you believe -- and it is false


Mike> Otis, you're lying about what doctors believe. Surely you know
better.

Otis> No, Mike, I NEVER said that. I know what the majority-opinion
ODs beleive
(that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the natural eye's refracttive
state),
and what the SECOND-OPINION ODs believe -- (that is DOES).

Otis> So you jump, nay LEAP to your false conclusion (that the eye is
not
dynamic), and then call all second-opinion ODs liars because they
have a "belief" that the natural eye is dynamic.

Otis> But I do agree -- that is a person wishes to avoid entry
into a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye -- they
must avoid you.

Mike> YOUR DOCTOR DID NOT MAKE YOU NEARSIGHTED.

Otis> True. In fact, after a study of the TRUE behavior of the
fundamental eye (in terms of refractive STATE) (exact measurements),
it is clear that children do INDUCE a negative refractive STATE in
their normal eyes. (As a dynamic system, not as a "failure".)

Otis> But you ignorance about the proven effect of a -3 diopter lens
on the refractive STATE of the natural eye -- means that however
well-intended -- the minus lens can help NOTHING at all.

Otis> But you go on "believeing" that you are "perfect" and
there is no PREVENTIVE second-opinion. And that
would be a lie -- for anyone who can click on this site:

www.chinamyopia.org

Enjoy the second-opinion.

Otis



-MT

 

No. My mother was on a reduced sodium diet, so our food was not high in
sodium. I was given glasses in fourth grade, which was *way* too late.

 

Your ansfer is YES. You were treated unconsciously. Like me. My mother was
(since I was 8) on a reduced sodium diet for stomach lowering. When it
started my older brother and sister were in boarded-school and they have not
myopia.

Important is iif you was wearing is all time.

It is not too late to start the second step of my scenario.
S*

 

Imagine that I am your patient with a little English. So I say to you that
there are days when I practicly could not take off glasses for uncomfortable
feelig ( now I called it the fatigue pain). And are days when I can take
them off for long time (seeing blurry but feel comfortably)

The Bershak Method is dated January12,2008. The Author repaired -2.
To now nobody did such research.
In texstbooks is that the ciliar muscles contracts when we want to see near.
And there is written that the internal pressure restore the shape for far
seeing. It is a history.
Everybody know how to strain muscles to make them hard and visible. When we
do it we feel something (like tension) We can do the same with the external
eye muscles. We cannot touch them so we must feel the same impression. When
the all external muscles are strong strain they deform eye for far seeing.
But they must be properly feed (also with minerals). One "shot" does a
little but the millions during the months can repair myopia. Details are on
19 pages.
S*

 

Right.

Otherwise, you cannot rule out "divine intervention --" you know: hand
of God and all that.

Has anybody else noticed that the scientifically oriented and
intellectually curious POSE or ASK, while those /afflicted/ with blind
faith and unfailing certitude TELL (and seem to be wrong far more
often than not)?

I have.

 

"Mike Tyner"

I am almost sure that pain was first. I can add that one time when I taken
off glasses and feel uncomfort my colleague said; "wear on glasses". So they
(eyes)are unpleased in such state. Probably they get red after longer time
without glasses.

So myopia is nutrition dependent.

This are details. Without pressure eye would lost its shape.

Did they (subjects) pointing or "try very hard to see"?

It needs time.

But the Bershak method must be a little modified now. The subiects must be
the pain free. It was the reason why The Bates method failed.

Now we are at the beginning. Thanks Dan we know that myopia causes reading.
Till now almost common view was that reading causes myopia. So we need new
cause. My suggestion is that low salt diet is not for kids. They should be
feed like sportsmen or soldier.
S*