Incipient detached retina information.

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by otisbrown, Sep 10, 2007.

  1. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Subject: Things to check for.

    While we have are second-opinion discussions
    about preventing ENTRY into myopia -- here
    is an issue for those who are in "deeper"
    than -6 diopters. Typically this risk increases
    as you get older.


    otisbrown, Sep 10, 2007
  2. otisbrown

    p.clarkii Guest

    too bad there isn't a myopia prevention scheme that works.
    p.clarkii, Sep 10, 2007
  3. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    X-No-Archive: yes

    If, by that, you mean one that makes money for its advocates, that may
    not be correct. Otis and Steve Leung, for example, sell books. I'm
    sure there's a hefty margin in those. Fred Deakins sells software.

    If, on the other hand, you mean one that actually prevents myopia,
    that seems true.
    Neil Brooks, Sep 10, 2007
  4. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    There are those who "complain" about my posts. I suggest
    that they kill-file my posts.

    But, no, they must post their inane commentary.


    otisbrown, Sep 10, 2007
  5. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    X-No-Archive: Yes

    As long as you're here ... and behave like a fucking idiot ... I'll be
    here, too :-D

    Otis Brown is a fucking idiot.


    [There's that world famous Otis Brown reasoning again....]
    Neil Brooks, Sep 10, 2007
  6. otisbrown

    Zetsu Guest

    Actually as a matter of facts there is, you have to just read a
    snellen chart everyday with each eye seperately down to the lowest
    line you can read without discomfort or efforts. It has been proven to
    work, in fact did you know! I'm not lying so don't say that!
    Zetsu, Sep 10, 2007
  7. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Absolutely Correct,

    Subject: The "character" of the posters -- like Neil Brooks.

    I posted a NEUTRAL statement -- of value to people who
    should KNOW about the risks of high myopia.

    There should have been NO COMMENTARY about
    that issue -- except to clarify the meaning of
    this particular site.

    So what happens:

    1. Foul-mouthed Brooks posts his bullshit.

    2. And PClar mounts some personal attacks.

    That is why is "corrupted".

    Futher, when they tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE
    to avoid entry into a negative refractive STATE -- I suggest
    their prfound bias -- against science -- comes to the

    People do "clear" their Snellen, by these second-opinion

    But just do not ask Brooks/Pclar to be involved.

    Better you recognize this intense bias to be
    against your own personal visual welfare -- and
    get control of your own life.

    Just one man's opinion.

    otisbrown, Sep 10, 2007
  8. otisbrown

    Dr Judy Guest

    So when will you post links to the citations of that proof? We've
    been waiting several days for it now.

    Dr Judy
    Dr Judy, Sep 10, 2007
  9. Exactly. If you memorize everything you need to see, myopia is much less
    Scott Seidman, Sep 10, 2007
  10. otisbrown

    Zetsu Guest


    Anyhow you don't need proofs because all the proof you can just
    demonstrate to yourself! Just follow the directions! Its so easy
    peasey lemon squeezy just read a snellen chart everyday!

    Anyhow the proofs was published in very reputable journals what means
    that the journals would want to verify the results before publish,
    otherwise they would lose the reputation! Also it was published in
    some very good journal for examples: New York Medical Journal, Medical
    Record, the Journal of the Allied Medical Associations of America,
    Virginia Medical Monthly, and the American Journal of Clinical

    Which are all very good and reputable journals so it means they would
    all have to verify the proof to see that it is not a lie or a joke. If
    you know what I means!

    Anyhow yes I cannot post the link may be I will search for it later
    but the citation is this:

    New York Medical Journal, July 29, 1911, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 237-238.

    Also I don't know why the newspaper didn't publish it may be because
    they didn't know about it. I don't sure.
    Zetsu, Sep 10, 2007
  11. otisbrown

    Zetsu Guest

    How dare you! I am not even confused not even a tiny bit so don't ever
    say that or I will say bad names for you as well. You should apologize
    because I am not confused.
    Zetsu, Sep 10, 2007
  12. otisbrown

    Zetsu Guest

    It is not the question of memorizing because the person who has cured
    the imperfect sight will know he is cured if all the rest of the stuff
    can be seen good.

    Also Even if the person read the unfamiliar chart he will still get
    the same results. So it is not about memorizing you should not say
    that because it is wrong in fact.
    Zetsu, Sep 10, 2007
  13. otisbrown

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Absolutlely Bashed,

    Subject: Majority-opinion ODs bashing the messager -- so they can
    the message.

    You ask why they do "Bates Bashing", or "Otis Bashing".

    And now, absolutely bashing of Bates.

    The real issue is that they wish to IGNORE the science
    supporting second-opinion methods.

    So when you see "Otis Bashing", it is truly
    science bashing.

    otisbrown, Sep 10, 2007
  14. otisbrown

    Zetsu Guest

    It's true I'm not lying it's really true it actually works and it
    prevents myopia. Even if you don't believe me I don't care but I'm
    telling the really real truth. You should not be rude to me in fact
    you should not say I am confused because that is not nice I never said
    anything bad of you in fact I always said good stuff about you like
    'Mike is kind and helpful' but you just call me names back and even
    when I am good.
    Zetsu, Sep 10, 2007
  15. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    X-No-Archive: Yes

    There's just nothing as charming in this entire world as the
    irrepressible hypocrisy of Uncle Scrotis.

    You're SUCH a fucking idiot, Otis.

    Neil Brooks, Sep 10, 2007
  16. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    X-No-Archive: Yes

    You and science could not HAVE less in common.

    You're naught but a tired, demented, old snake oil salesman.
    Neil Brooks, Sep 10, 2007
  17. otisbrown

    lena102938 Guest

    Scientific name for method
    that OD use
    to find correct prescription when patient looks at snellen is
    "Forced Choice"

    lena102938, Sep 10, 2007
  18. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    X-No-Archive: Yes

    Come on, Uncle Scrotis .... you've done it AGAIN:

    "Dear Judy,

    Subject: Your majority-opinion that the fundamental
    does not test-out as dynamic."

    Nobody in the world USES that terminology OR discusses THAT issue but
    you, so ... every time you use that as a straw man, you're just a
    lying fucking idiot.

    If the damned "natural" or "fundamental" eye was so "dynamic," then
    why are you still a 6d myope? You're EITHER wrong, lazy, or stupid
    (or some charming combination of two or more of the above).

    You ask the wrong questions, test the wrong things, and arrive at the
    wrong conclusions ... WHEN you're not lying about the data that you
    selectively review (alas, you ALWAYS ARE).

    We know what you would do (the NON sexual part) to avoid INDUCING
    myopia in an infant macaque, but ... that's not very relevant to ...
    well ... anything that s.m.v. participants care about, now is it ...
    especially when you LIE about the very data that YOU use to buttress
    YOUR lunacy?

    You're a pathological liar and a fucking idiot.

    Neil Brooks, Sep 10, 2007
  19. otisbrown

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Oh now, that's rich. A "scientific" optometrist would either (a)
    prescribe nothing but plus, or (2) practice psychology, or (3)
    recommend palming and sunning??? So much science to choose from!
    Dr. Leukoma, Sep 10, 2007
  20. otisbrown

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Ah, yes: proof by assertion. It's true because some MPD guy SAYS it's
    Actually, we all SHOULD be rude to you. SCIENCE newsgroups are for
    discussing science-based things. "Proof by Assertion" ... just ain't

    Please visit: Thanks.
    Incidentally, as somebody with visual acuity problems, I've gotten
    REALLY, REALLY good at "reading" (more like "interpreting") street
    signs from quite a ways away.

    People are amazed at how quickly I can find the street for which I'm
    looking, and from what distance.

    They assume that my VA must be better than their 20/20.

    It's not. I've just gotten really really good at guessing when a
    particular blur looks the same as the particular blur that I seek
    ought to look.

    Walnut St., for example, has a certain fairly well-established blur
    pattern that I can recognize before most emmetropes can identify the
    actual characters.

    So ... have I improved my vision in this manner? Not at all. I've
    simply compensated for it with a certain amount of pattern recognition

    Otis? Care to chime in with something like "whether or not you
    believe the fundamental eye to be dynamic...." now (, you fucking

    Why does "Atchoo" post under so many different aliases or allow
    multiple people to post under his/her/its account??
    Neil Brooks, Sep 10, 2007
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.