Could someone with free access to JAMA get me these two articles? x

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by Shinigami Eyes, Aug 7, 2010.

  1. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear MS,

    Subject: People selling hearing aids -- will never wish to tallk about
    PREVENTION.

    You should understand that "fixing" hearing with a hearing aid, (or a
    negative STATE of the natural eye) is what these ODs do.

    They paid $100,000 to do that.

    They have no interest in preventing ENTRY into a negaitve STATE for
    the natural eye.

    Don't be naieve about that issue.

    But don't ignore all the other idiots posting here.

    Mike Tyner as a "doctor" of optometry -- has them as his friends.

    Don't ask for anything from Mike -- along a preventive line -- because
    you are never going to get anything from him.

    Remember the 1913 study -- that was successful (in the sense of
    PREVENTION)?

    It was conducted by TEACHERS, not ODs.

    That is why it was successful.

    Enjoy,
     
    Otis, Aug 11, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

     
    Otis, Aug 12, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

     
    Otis, Aug 12, 2010
    #23
  4. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Here are some of the reasons. This is indeed the professional second-
    opinion. See:

    http://www.i-see.org/eyeglasses_harmful/chap6.html


    But, the use of the plus MUST start before a person's Snellen goes
    below the DMV
    line (i.e., 20/60, 20/50 and 20/40).

    That is the stark choice a person has -- to be IN CONTROL OF HIS OWN
    LIFE, AND
    HIS DISTANT VISION FOR LIFE.

    This is an Engineering/Scientific issue, not a medical issue.

    Enjoy,
     
    Otis, Aug 12, 2010
    #24
  5. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest



    Neil Brooks -- you are an Idiot.
     
    Otis, Aug 12, 2010
    #25
  6. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear MS,

    Subject: The reason you need a "monderated" forum.

    Re: the obvious idiots posting here.

    I would suggest moving this this site -- to discuss the issues being
    discussed.

    http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/

    sci.med.vision is a pure "majority-opinion" site.

    For the last 100 years, the "minus" has been recognized as
    a"problem". Bates was NOT the only man to recognize this problem, and
    he was the first man to conduct a PREVENTIVE effort.

    I belive in giving a man a fair-minded chance to achieve his
    PREVENTIVE goal. That is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN HERE.

    Alex's site is indeed moderated, but he will help with the second-
    opinoin concept that PREVENTION is possible.

    Don't bother trying to talk to "staus quo" supporters. They NEVER
    listen to anything new.

    See you there.
     
    Otis, Aug 12, 2010
    #26
  7. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    How will we duplicate it if we don't know what to do?
    He's dead so how would you do that?
    You assume that. If that ever took place where was it published?
     
    MS, Aug 12, 2010
    #27
  8. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear MS,

    Subject: No "perfect" study (about true prevention) has ever been
    conducted.

    Re: So we must "understand" the possiblity by review of an EXISTING
    study.

    I hope your knowledge of statistics is good -- specifically your
    undertsanding of the words, "Highly Significant".

    This study produced highly significant results. Here is the study.

    http://www.myopia.org/bifocals.htm

    The indication is that PREVENTION would be possible, IF the person
    himself had the motivation to use these (Bates/Prentice) methods --
    under his (educated) control.

    Second-opinion best,
     
    Otis, Aug 13, 2010
    #28
  9. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Why would they do that?
    Can you publish in respected journals with enough money and supporters?
     
    MS, Aug 13, 2010
    #29
  10. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    There's an article called "Routine Treatment" in the magazines. It's
    on page 927 in the PDF. It might clear things up.
    In that case how did he publish over 30 articles in medical journals?
     
    MS, Aug 13, 2010
    #30
  11. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Apparently that wasn't always the case in Dr. Bates' experience. The
    whole point of his work was to investigate the exceptions.
    That was the conclusion his research and experiments and clinical
    observations led him to. If you wanted to disprove that you'd need to
    try to repeat his stuff the same way he repeated Helmholtz's
    experiments.
    Has any attempt been made by them to properly investigate Bates' work
    instead of ignoring it?
     
    MS, Aug 13, 2010
    #31
  12. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear Mike Tyner,

    Subject: An EFFORT aimed a PREVENTING ENTRY into a negative STATE for
    the natural eye.

    You can express your opinion, that a negative STATE of the natural eye
    CAN NOT BE PREVENTED -- EVER.

    This is exactly what you state.

    But, would you be kind enough to review Dr. Bates study, and express
    your OBJECTIVE opinion about his methods, and the fact that SOME of
    these "kids" cleared their Snellens from 20/70 to normal.

    I have heard MANY "bad-mouth" Dr. Bates, but I have never seen an
    HONEST REVIEW of his 1913 study.

    http://www.central-fixation.com/bates-medical-articles/myopia-prevention-teachers.php

    If you provide a review -- that would be the first step in planning a
    FUTURE preventive study -- more under CONTROL OF THE PERSON (ENGINEER)
    HIMSELF.

    Please keep this on a "friendly" level. Prevention (which I agree is
    "difficult" still remains POSSIBLE -- as the second-opinion).

    Best,
     
    Otis, Aug 13, 2010
    #32
  13. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Also, MS, could you review this 1913 study and provide suggestions
    about how to improve it?

    Thanks,
     
    Otis, Aug 13, 2010
    #33
  14. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Was Dr. Bates lying?
     
    MS, Aug 13, 2010
    #34
  15. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Dear Mike Tyner,

    I asked you to review Dr. Bates 1913 study.

    You did not.

    But that is just typical.

    I would ask you to review Dr. Francis Young's "preventive" study, and
    the implication for the POSSIBLITY of prevention (under control of the
    person himself).

    It is obvious that you are not GOING TO DO THAT EITHER.

    So much for a "balanced" or FAIR MINDED REVIEW OF THE PLUS-PREVENTIVE
    ALTERNATIVE.

    Have a nice day,

    Otis
     
    Otis, Aug 14, 2010
    #35
  16. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

     
    Otis, Aug 14, 2010
    #36
  17. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Otis, Aug 14, 2010
    #37
  18. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

    Since Neil Brooks -- chooses to insult me -- I would suggest that with
    some effort it is possilbe to find out who he is.

    I do agree with this. If Brooks represents the "average person"
    entering an office -- the my deepest sympathy rests with those people
    who must "deal" with Brooks.

    Thus "practice" consists of "imprssing" a person like Brooks with an
    "easy" quick-fix in a short period of time. He does not understand
    anything beyond that point. Pity

    The ODs and MDs who have a deeper understanding of these issues have
    in fact insisted their own children wear the PREVENTIVE PLUS.

    That indeed has the desired prevetive effect. But the "general
    public" will always be impressed with a strong minus.

    But is it a "good idea"?

    Enjoy,
     
    Otis, Aug 14, 2010
    #38
  19. Shinigami Eyes

    Otis Guest

     
    Otis, Aug 14, 2010
    #39
  20. Shinigami Eyes

    MS Guest

    Dr. Tyner have you made any attempt to properly investigate Dr. Bates'
    work?
     
    MS, Aug 14, 2010
    #40
    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.