Incipient detached retina information.

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.

http://www.sightwise.org/

Best,

Otis

 

too bad there isn't a myopia prevention scheme that works.

 

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.
Likewise.

If, on the other hand, you mean one that actually prevents myopia,
that seems true.

 

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

But, no, they must post their inane commentary.

Q.E.D.

Otis

 

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.

QED

[There's that world famous Otis Brown reasoning again....]

 

Hi,

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!

 

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 sci.med.vision 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
surfact.

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

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.

Otis

 

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

Dr Judy

 

Exactly. If you memorize everything you need to see, myopia is much less
important.

 

Hello,

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
Medicine

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.

 

Hi,

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.

 

Hi,

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.

 

Dear Absolutlely Bashed,

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


Otis

 

Hi,

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.

 

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.

Really.

 

X-No-Archive: Yes

You and science could not HAVE less in common.

You're naught but a tired, demented, old snake oil salesman.

 

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

Lena

 

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.

QED.

 

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!

 

Ah, yes: proof by assertion. It's true because some MPD guy SAYS it's
true.

Actually, we all SHOULD be rude to you. SCIENCE newsgroups are for
discussing science-based things. "Proof by Assertion" ... just ain't
science.

Please visit: faith.vision. 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
enhancement.

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

Why does "Atchoo" post under so many different aliases or allow
multiple people to post under his/her/its account??