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

So if you've never seen it happen it's absurd that it could ever
happen? That doesn't add up.

For the medical profession to do what it should've done 90 years ago
and properly investigate Dr. Bates' work.

 

I don't actually give a shit if/which you analyze.

The point/fact is ... you don't ... ever.

You just vomit it out, verbatim, and -- when questioned about it --
demonstrate a profound ignorance about what's wrong with it and why,
or how it WOULD be analyzed.

You really ARE like the psychotic war vet who stands on the corner and
shouts Bible verses and the top of his lungs ... to nobody.

 

It isn't my burden to analyse his work. That's what the eyecare
professionals and researchers should be doing.

 

Then write directly to the researchers.

Not everybody that sells clothing at the Department Store is involved
in research into the durability of the fibers.

You and Otis are two of the most self-defeating, counter-productive
idiots I've EVER encountered.

YOUR abuse of this newsgroup (more his than yours, but you're sure
working to catch up) is directly responsible for the exodus of
COUNTLESS eye care professionals -- the people YOU seem to imply are
your audience.

Meanwhile, it's not MY burden to stop letting people know that Otis is
an absolute idiot and pathological liar, and that you really ARE like
the psychotic war vet who stands on the corner and shouts Bible verses
and the top of his lungs ... to nobody.

I guess I'll curtail MY activities, then, when YOU curtail yours.

Meanwhile, which of you will be the first to demonstrate that anything
in which you believe (or which you reference) works ANY better than
the null hypothesis (ie, doing nothing) ?

Which, indeed.

 

Again that isn't my burden. The majority of Bates' material is out
there either in the form of reprints or electronic scan. It's all
easily accessible. All that's left to do now is for the medical
profession is to investigate it.

 

Your ignorance is profound and axiomatic.

Of COURSE it's "your burden" to prove that something you post
CONSTANTLY about, on s.m.v. works better than placebo.

Here. You might find this interesting. It encapsulates this entire
argument quite handily:

http://www.optiboard.com/forums/sho...ates-Method-and-Other-Eye-Related-Quackery?s=

 

Why do things in reverse?

You reject the null hypothesis last. First you investigate. Then you
learn the treatment. Then you do the studies. Then you either have
the proof or not.

 

That whole thread was very boring. Maybe you could summarise.

 

I don't post constantly "about" it. I've posted a very small portion
of his material.

 

Maybe.

Or ... maybe you could go **** yourself.

Maybe.

 

Maybe you could be courteous. You expect me to wade through that
massive thread?

 

Truth be known, I'd genuinely RATHER you go **** yourself.

 

Mr. Brooks why are you always so angry?

 

Ohhhh. I'm not angry at all.

It's "not my burden" (sound familiar?) to be courteous to you, and I
*would* be grateful if you DID go **** yourself.

QED

 

You sound very angry.

Maybe because you're unsatisfied with the what optometrists call
"eyecare."

 

Dear MS,

This is the general "attitude" of a majority-opinion OD towards anyone
who asks "questions".



MikeTynerOD> If you're talking about fixing astigmatism by imagining
black, go screw
yourself.


-MT

++++++++++

There are COMPASSIONATE ODs and MDs, who advocate PREVENTION. They
will attempt to answer questions about the dynamic nature of the
(fundamental) eye.

But it is nice that Mike Tyner gives his final word on this subject --
for you and everyone else who thinks that the minus lens is a
'problem" for the natural eye.

You think you are going to have a "rational" discussion with such a
person???

I think you know the answer to that.

Enjoy the science of the natural eye's proven behavior,

 

Dear MS,

Subject: Your ASSUMPTION about the "eye care" industry.


MS> It isn't my burden to analyse his work. That's what the eyecare
professionals and researchers should be doing.

I think you know their "attitude" towards PREVENTION. It comes out as
"screw you".

Don't bother asking or EXPECTING, or for that matter TELLING THEM
"what they should be doing".

You are beating on a "dead horse". You will get "grunts" from the
dead horse, but no systematic rational thought.

You must do your own analysis of the dynamic nature of the fundamental
eye.

Always remember -- there are ODS AND MDS WHO SUPPORT THE CONCEPT OF
THRESHOLD PREVENTION. The real issue is the motivation IN THE PERSON
to begin the PREVENTIVE PROCESS before any minus lens is applied.
That, truly is the issue.

Enjoy,

 

Here's some I can now read microscopic print even with a fairly
poor light.

 

Can you?

 

I take that as a no?