John Sheridan Plus Lens Study Discussion

Discussion in 'Optometry Archives' started by vistrainer, Aug 7, 2009.

  1. vistrainer

    vistrainer Guest

    For those of you following the discussion from the thread "A Question
    for Otis and Lelouch", John Sheridan mentioned a study regarding plus
    lenses that showed an "increase in the progression into myopia". Here
    is the reference to the study that I believe that he was referring to
    (although he refused to name it).

    http://www.i-see.org/oleary_critique.html

    Given this study, is it clear that plus lenses actually showed a
    progression into myopia? I welcome your analysis...

    Regards,

    Fred
     
    vistrainer, Aug 7, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. vistrainer

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Fred,

    What a different picture it would present, and what a move toward
    objectivity it would represent, if Alex Eulenberg were EVER to
    critique a study WHOSE RESULT AGREED WITH HIS PRE-CONCEIVED NOTIONS as
    thoroughly and aggressively as he critiques studies like O'Leary.

    But ... like you and Uncle Scrotis ... Alex's mind is made up, and he
    is thoroughly annoyed by facts, reason, science, and logic.

    Moo.
     
    Neil Brooks, Aug 7, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. vistrainer

    Jan Guest

    vistrainer schreef:
    You better provide an hyperlink towards a study that proofs a pluslens
    works in preventing becoming myopic in human eyes sir.
    I have never seen one, neither from you or Otis.
    I suppose there isn't any?

    BTW, still in posses of your license to fly an airliner?
    So you did put on your glasses as ordered to an airline pilot to
    achieve best correct vision acuity when flying.

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Jan, Aug 7, 2009
    #3
  4. vistrainer

    Otis Guest

    Dear Mike,

    Subject: YOUR conspiracy "theory" is FALSE. There is just a majority
    and second-opinion.


    The issue is more like this:



    Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately
    explained by stupidity.

    Hanlon's Razor



    It isn't that they can't see the solution.
    It is that they can't see the problem.

    G. K. Chesterson



    Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the
    limits of the world.

    Arthur Schopenhauer


    Preventive second-opinion best,
     
    Otis, Aug 7, 2009
    #4
  5. vistrainer

    vistrainer Guest

    Neil,

    Would you care to comment on the study? To what facts, reason,
    science, and logic are you referring?

    Fred
     
    vistrainer, Aug 8, 2009
    #5
  6. vistrainer

    vistrainer Guest

    Jan,

    Your "normally Dutch spoken" is very difficult to understand. Are you
    threatening me?

    You are way off topic for this thread. Please go elsewhere to ask for
    a "proofs a pluslens
    works in preventing becoming myopic in human eyes sir".

    This thread is a discussion of the study to which John Sheridan
    implies that the use of plus lenses actually caused the progression of
    myopia to become "worse". I am looking at the science and reason
    behind this particular study.

    Fred
     
    vistrainer, Aug 8, 2009
    #6
  7. vistrainer

    vistrainer Guest

    Mike,

    I appreciate your reply, but I believe that this is the study to which
    John Sheridan claimed that the plus lens was shown to actually cause
    progression of myopia. I can tell that you are quite familiar with
    this study. If it is not the right one to which John was referring,
    please show me which one he was writing about.

    Here's what John Sheridan said:

    "The plus lens has been tried and found to have no significant effect
    upon myopia. And in at least one study, it was found to make eyesight
    *worse*."

    Regards,

    Fred
     
    vistrainer, Aug 8, 2009
    #7
  8. vistrainer

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Paranoid, much?
    Gee. Directing traffic, now, are you?

    Why not answer direct questions ... whether or not YOU feel they
    belong in a given thread.

    Hm.

    Moo, Fred.

    Ask your wife.
     
    Neil Brooks, Aug 8, 2009
    #8
  9. vistrainer

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Undercorrecting myopia is functionally the same as using a plus lens.

    You're welcome.
     
    Neil Brooks, Aug 8, 2009
    #9
  10. vistrainer

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I'll probably get to it at about the same time as YOU present the RCCT
    evidence that your commercially-sold, for-profit vision improvement
    program ... does anything for anybody, better than placebo/control.

    [crickets]
     
    Neil Brooks, Aug 8, 2009
    #10
  11. "Normally Dutch spoken" is a very simple clause in plain English that
    tells you that the poster normally speaks the Dutch language.

    How you could possibly find such a clear statement "very difficult to
    understand" or [mis]construe it as threatening you in some way, says more
    about you and your understanding and comprehension of plain English, than it
    says about Jan - whose generally very good English is far more easily
    understood than that of some native English/American speakers who frequent
    this newsgroup.
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Aug 8, 2009
    #11
  12. vistrainer

    Jan Guest

    vistrainer schreef:
    Not at all, should there be a reason?

    Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
     
    Jan, Aug 8, 2009
    #12
  13. vistrainer

    Dan Abel Guest

    I can't believe he would last three sentences. As soon as he started to
    lecture them that they should stop using the words and phrases that they
    always used, and should instead use the ones he invented, they would be
    finished.
     
    Dan Abel, Aug 8, 2009
    #13
  14. vistrainer

    Otis Guest

    Dan,

    Subject: Putting second-opinion ODs OUT OF BUSINESS.

    You are correct.

    If you are an OD you paid about $100,000 for your "degree".

    But let us suppose you even SUGGEST the use of a plus (rather than a
    STRONG MINUS) when the kid is at 20/40 to 20/50, and about -1.25
    diopters (measured with Snellen and trial-lens set.)

    So the mother says OK.

    Now then kid does not "like" wearing the plus, so he comlains about
    (headache, double-vision, sty, pink eye -- anyting).

    Now th mother finds out that "plus prevention" is NOT STANDARD.

    So she contacts the "Optometry board" or the N.E.I. and files a mal-
    practice suite against this "prevention minded" OD.

    What happens next?

    The OD must hire a lawyer to "defend" his "mal-practice".

    The majority-opinion ODs "pile on" as "friend of the court" and state
    that the "plus" DESTROYED THE CHILD'S VISION PERMANENTLY.

    The mother wins the suit.

    The prevention minded OD is OUT OF WORK.

    His $100,000 degree is a total loss.

    So, yes you are right.

    There is no "percentage" in helping anyone with true-prevention.

    Medical "politics" best,
     
    Otis, Aug 8, 2009
    #14
  15. vistrainer

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Or ... maybe ... as was the case with your niece (and SO many others
    who tried it) ... it simply doesn't work.

    Then what?

    Do you have any evidence that plus lenses DO prevent myopia?

    If you do, then one can only wonder why you don't present it.

    One must conclude that you're naught but an idiot....
     
    Neil Brooks, Aug 8, 2009
    #15
  16. vistrainer

    Dan Abel Guest

    Fred has a point here. There is a big difference between "cause and
    effect" and "correlation". To be perfectly correct, the study didn't
    find that the plus lens "caused" myopia, just that it failed to fix it.
    The participants in the study got worse myopia even with plus lens
    treatment. I attempted to verify the quote above. There are no longer
    any posts from "sheridan" on my newserver. They are gone.

    I should also mention, maybe a couple of times, that Mike is pretty
    clear about the same thing. "Paper tiger". "Nobody...is claiming".
     
    Dan Abel, Aug 8, 2009
    #16
  17. vistrainer

    Otis Guest

    Dan,

    I posted Sheridan's deleted remarks under a new title.

    Second-opinion best,
     
    Otis, Aug 9, 2009
    #17
  18. vistrainer

    vistrainer Guest

    Fred
    Again, Neil...I've posted my beliefs and the supporting evidence that
    they are based upon. You have yet to address any of the evidence that
    I have pointed to, nor have you indicated why that evidence is not
    correct. You have posted much here, but again, have failed to make an
    educated comment regarding the study, which is the topic of this
    thread. Instead, you have simply laid blame and called people names.
    Where are YOUR facts, reason, science, and logic behind your
    (unstated) beliefs? You have no apparent reason to be here except a
    poor attempt at inciting conflict and anger. What have you
    contributed?

    Curious how you translate your behaviors on everybody else in this
    forum (i.e., name calling, vulgar language, demanding impossible
    proofs and providing none of your own). I don't think that anybody
    (and certainly not me) have done any of those things to you here.

    You clearly cannot distinguish between me being your enemy and my
    beliefs being your enemy. Since you seem to not be able to attack my
    beliefs with your own set of supporting data, you instead attack me.
    This is the childish behavior that I was referring to earlier. We all
    used to do this back in the 4th grade. Some of us have moved beyond
    that...

    What is it again that you do, Neil? Just curious what your
    experiential background is. I don't understand why you will not answer
    this question....

    Fred
     
    vistrainer, Aug 11, 2009
    #18
  19. vistrainer

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I'm looking for valid evidence that the $40 product YOU SELL works any
    better than placebo.

    You STILL haven't presented it.

    I'll keep looking.
    Anger?

    Nah. Contempt and disdain. THOSE are the feelings that I have toward
    you and Otis.

    I've TOLD you my theory: I don't know exactly what causes myopia.

    Any questions??
    "Everybody else??"

    Boy, you really DO have a tenuous connection with the truth, don't
    you.

    "Everybody" is you, Otis, and The Artist Formerly Known as Zetsu.
    Actually, as Dan Abel so correctly pointed out, you LEAD with an
    insult, and have yet ANOTHER in THIS post (below).

    Hypocrite?

    Of course you are....
    How little you know about the scientific method is astounding.

    You propose a theory. It is incumbent upon YOU to provide the
    evidence for it.

    I have contradicted and pointed out the gaping, cavernous holes IN
    your theory on numerous occasions.

    And this is just ONE MORE example of the constant ad hominem attacks
    that you seem to enjoy.
    Annnnnd another.

    It's irrelevant, Fred, but ... I guess ... if you can't communicate
    with me directly on the facts ... you MIGHT need to try a personal
    attack.

    I, for one, would rather stay on point and factual.

    As in ... where's the evidence that you're doing ANYTHING for people,
    for their forty bucks, that time and nature wouldn't do for them for
    free??

    Still waiting.....
     
    Neil Brooks, Aug 11, 2009
    #19
  20. vistrainer

    vistrainer Guest

    Dan Abel
    Dan,

    This study did not use any plus lenses.

    Fred
     
    vistrainer, Aug 11, 2009
    #20
    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.