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

Dear MS,

Subject: Putting on "airs" for the general public.

Using a trial lens kit to determine your refractive STATE takes some
practice.

In fact, all you need is the "scientific lenses" and the ablity to use
them correctly.

Since Mike says "screw you" if you ask him scientific questions -- you
truly have no choice but to take responsiblity to understand
objective SCIENCE, and PREVENT under your control.

Mike is a "dead horse". There is little choice but to teach yourself
prevention under your control.

Second-opinion (and true-prevention) best,

+++++++

Alwasy remember -- there are a small "band of brother ODs and MDs who
support true SCIENTIFIC PREVENTION. It is up to you to find them, and
follow their PREVENTIVE recommendations.

O

 

The problem is that Mike doesn't understand the True Science method of
medicine. First you do the surgery. Only then do you figure out how to
do the surgery. Then, you determine whether surgery was necessary.
Only as a last step, do you diagnose the patient to find out whether any
treatment is required.

Gotta do things in the right order!

 

Also, if anyone asks intelligent questions about the POSSIBLE
'secondary-effects", simply tell them "screw off".

 

Rods? Didn't Moses have one of those?

Noah's ark? Didn't that flood last longer than 10 seconds? Wasn't
that flood deeper than 5 cm?

What is it with you and Biblical references man?

 

How do you know?

 

Dear Mike Tyner,

Subject: Putting "words" in my mouth -- that I NEVER SAID!!!

I stated that it would be wise for a person to check both his Snellen,
and his refractive STATE with his own Trial-Lens kit.

You will find that people will learn a great deal -- IF THEY MAKE
THEIR OWN MEASUREMENTS.

I have suggested this approach for a Engineering/Scientific study --
with the "empowerment" being that each man -- MAKE HIS OWN
MEASUREMENTS.

Enjoy the science of the concept of prevention (exclusively).

 

You're FREAKED out about this ?

You do this ALL THE TIME.

You're an absolute fucking idiot, Otis, and a pathological liar.

How pathetic you are.

 

Fo' shaw. Skip the diagnosis part altogether I'd say. Nevermind
treatment either. Let the patient suffer. Serve 'em right. Saves
our NHS a bit of £ too. What with the economic crisis and all. Like,
you get me?

 

Subject: The Second-Opinion ODs who "figured it out".

Re: Find a lens that "works". Apply it. Impress the public. End of
story.

Yes, there are "insightful" ODs who were able to recognize that the
fundamental eye is dynamic -- and that THRESHOLD PREVENTION WAS
POSSIBLE.

But the public is so "set" to accept the "impress the public" part --
that it is impossble to get beyond that primitive "quick-fix"
mentality.

The second-opinion ODs and MDs are correct.

The over-prescribed minus lens is in fact "...poision glasses for
children".

But your attitude towards ENGINEERING/SCIENCE -- is indeed "screw
you".

For any review by Engineers, I suggest that should be the first topic
to discuss.

Science and prevention best,

 

You're an idiot, Otis.

A pathological liar and an absolute fucking idiot.

How can you live with yourself ?

 

Read all about it. The disappearance of Dr. Bates.

http://www.mediafire.com/?juzdnzdzkju

 

Dear MS,

Indeed Dr. Bates was a "different" person.

He had run "preventive" studies in N.D., with some success.

But never forget, that other ODs and MDs had "reasoned out" the
possiblityof prevention using the plus lens.

But none of these "methods" are "easy", and none of them can be
"prescribed".

Enjoy our discussions,

 

Dr. Bates publishes his findings.

http://www.mediafire.com/?u5zmmmttmzx

 

Dear MS,

Subject: Yes, Bates published -- and any an all results were ignored.

In fact, the "advocates" of plus-prevention prepared a review of the
"public's" response -- which is critical to understanding the issue of
PREVENTION.

That was ignored also.

As this titel suggests, it is very easy to "impress" the public with a
minus -- and very few (at the threshold) wish anything else.

Enjoy the analysis.

 

Mrs. Lierman, Dr. Bates' assistant and later wife describes her
experience at the Harlem Hospital in treating eye cases. The official
companion to "Perfect Sight Without Glasses."

http://www.mediafire.com/?xuzjwmdgm1j

Dr. MacCracken writes as a physician after using Dr. Bates' methods in
his practice for 10 years.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ztwyhj23zkj

Entire run of "Better Eyesight." The monthly magazine edited by Dr.
Bates as the official reference companion to his book.

http://www.mediafire.com/?2lyy1jznmv1

Reprint of "Better Eyesight." Each volume reproduced in microprint.

http://bettereyesightmagazine.com

 

Thanks for the analysis, Otis. I agree. It's very odd how Dr. Bates
and his work have simply gone ignored all these years. A funny world
we live in.

 

Dear MS,

Subject: Dr. Bates and the need for a future study.

You are correct. But those voices that "object" to the minus lens are
"destoryed" in so many ways.

But never forget those ODs and MDs who refer to the minus as "poision
glasses for children".

Yes -- the minus lens does "work" impressively. This is why I suggest
the person get his own trial-lens kit, and (wth no medical problem)
check his vision himself.

That would be a start of a future Bates study, only with each person
receiving a better education on:

1. Reading his Snellen.
2. The "History" of the problem.
3. The possibility of clearing his Snellen from 20/60 to normal
through the use of Bates/Prentice concepts and methods.

The problem?

The minus lens is so "easy" and "obvious" that few will undergo the
effort of prevention.

This remains the open question today.

Enjoy the analysis,

 

Want to know where to find Dr Bates' (& 2 of his associates') original
and yes, 100% unedited material? All you have to do is to visit my
profile where you'll find all the links you need.

 

Dear MS,

Subject: Why was Dr. Bates 1913 study SHUT DOWN??



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


So far, there has been NO REVIEW of this study. Why not give the man
a "fair chance", and plan for a better (more organized) PREVENTIVE
study.

I certainly agree that PREVENTION of a negative STATE for the natural
eye WILL NOT BE EASY. But anything worth while -- has never been
easy.

But the endless "snipeing" as conducted on this site -- makes rational
DISCUSSION of even the POSSIBLITY OF PREVENTION (before that first
minus) -- IMPOSSIBLE.

People do managed to "clear their Snellen" by use of these various
methods -- PROVIDED THEY NEVER "START" WITH THE MINUS.

MS -- why not provide your review of Dr. Bates study, to include the
reasons you think that:

1. The Snellens were removed from the classroom, and
2. The study terminated -- because the kids were not supported
correctly in their success?

Thanks,

 

Sorry Otis, I can't comment.

That apparently was what the Board of Education decided.

Your thoughts?