New groups SCI.MED.VISION.VISION and SCI.MED.VISION.EYE

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by andrewedwardjudd, Mar 30, 2005.

  1. Mike we need to be scientific about this.

    If Parents say twins are quite different it might still mean that
    another person is hard pressed to see a difference. Difference is a
    relative thing.

    Since Science says that MZ twins share friends and spend time together
    compared to dz twins then dispite what a parent might say Science says
    that identical twins are more alike behaviourally than DZ twins.

    If identical twins can have different refractions its not that
    meaningful to just pick the identical ones and ignore the ones with
    differences.

    I strongly believe more can be learnt about myopia development by
    looking at twins with differences than those who have identical
    refractions.

    When people here keep saying they are all identical anyway in all
    respects it suggests they are not really interested in the answer.


    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 12, 2005
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. andrewedwardjudd

    LarryDoc Guest

    And you, Andrew, could likewise be made to appear more interesting if
    only you'd be able to know when to leave one discussion (having been
    reasonably, if not completely squashed) and move on to something new.
    You certainly seem reasonably bright and able to learn and clearly you
    know how to type. I'm sure there's more to you than being a one-hit
    zealot, or even a two-hit zealot.

    Cash in your chips while you've still some and try your hand at a new
    game.

    --LB, O.D.
     
    LarryDoc, Apr 12, 2005
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Larry

    If behavioural differences are behind myopia as i suspect they are,
    then of course even twins raised apart would be likely to have
    *similar* refractions. Twins who both like to read and both eat plent
    of sugar or get anxious if these were relevant factors would be likely
    to get *similar* effects due to their similar behaviour.

    However **Identical myopic refractions in identical twins** are
    compelling. But 6 diopter differences in identical twins dilute that
    impact. Unfortunately i dont have access to the exact twin data and
    only have graphs from which big differences can be found.

    Are your identical identical twins the norm or the exception? It
    appears that they must be the exception or no studies of mz and Dz
    twins would be required. It would be nice to get the real data
    used.

    Andrew
     
    andrewedwardjudd, Apr 12, 2005
    #63
  4. Potato eyes?

    Bill
     
    Repeating Rifle, Apr 12, 2005
    #64
  5. andrewedwardjudd

    g.gatti Guest

    LarryDoc wrote:

    Once in a while you are not an idiot, it seems.

    Now please how do you explain a -16 D myopic person that in three weeks
    passes from 1/200 to 2/70 to 4/100???

    How do you explain that a 12-years old child happens to see that her
    left eye can read only 2/3 of the eyechart and after a few minutes of
    "mind games" with the imaginatiotn she could read the whole last line
    of 10/10 letters in a split second?

    It seems her eyes were fine, but her mind was a little bit embarassed
    and could not recognize what the eye was conveying to it.

    A few minutes of relaxation brought the complete cure.

    If she would have been brought to the optometrist, the idiot, being a
    man who earns his living by selling glasses, would have put a minus
    lens over her poor eye and condemned her to a life of misery.

    What to think of such a mainstream practice which is so wrong and
    idiotic?

    Every case is curable like this, there are no exceptions, as Dr. Bates
    challenged your old profession long ago. Nobody accepted the challenge
    because he was right and you all are wrong, and dirty.

    See you later.
     
    g.gatti, Apr 13, 2005
    #65
  6. andrewedwardjudd

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    The explanation is simple: You are a charlatan.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Apr 13, 2005
    #66
  7. andrewedwardjudd

    g.gatti Guest

    There were witnesses of this simple cure-game, more than half a dozen
    people.

    Many cases like these have been replicated many times.

    As I told here, there are no exceptions.

    If you get them at the inception of the disease, the eyes remanin fine
    and get no damage from the brain which commands them wrongly.

    I can quote the names of the witnesses.

    See you later.
     
    g.gatti, Apr 13, 2005
    #67
  8. andrewedwardjudd

    g.gatti Guest

    Please, explain.
     
    g.gatti, Apr 13, 2005
    #68
  9. andrewedwardjudd

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I did not write that, Rishi.
     
    Neil Brooks, Apr 13, 2005
    #69
  10. andrewedwardjudd

    g.gatti Guest

    I know, I wrote it, now you please explain.
     
    g.gatti, Apr 14, 2005
    #70
  11. andrewedwardjudd

    g.gatti Guest

    wrote:

    I've cured myself, I don't need glasses.
     
    g.gatti, Apr 14, 2005
    #71
  12. andrewedwardjudd

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Ok. You're full of $hit.

    I guarantee that my explanation is both scientifically valid and 100%
    correct.

    Now . . . if you'd care to prove me wrong . . . go conduct trials with
    an OD or MD (though you hate them all) to rule out pseudomyopia and
    validate your so-called results.

    Until then, can't you just migrate over to alt.med.vision.improve?
    You may not like the science that's discussed here. You may
    wholeheartedly (and certainly passionately) disagree with it. You may
    decry and denounce it vehemently.

    But it's still science, and that's the point of this ng.

    Con tutto l'amore si è meritato da qualcuno che dimostrasse
    continuamente che cosa un incubo italiano è,

    Neil
     
    Neil Brooks, Apr 14, 2005
    #72
  13. andrewedwardjudd

    g.gatti Guest

    Now please how do you explain a -16 D myopic person that in
    three
    I am happy you guarantee it.

    Please explain how a -16 D myopic refraction person can see in three
    weeks as follows: (under the same indoors light conditions)

    1/200
    2/70
    4/100.
    Do you think this is pseudomyopia?
    Do you know what is a lens of -16 D?
    What is the maximum amount of pseudomyopia you know of?
    I don't like anything called ALT neither IMPROVE.

    We are here to HEAL.
    Please, do not cheat me again: I want you to explain how and why these
    things are possible.
    Ok, your science should explain this.

    How a -23 D myopic refraction person can see consistently indoors a
    7/15 letter on a snellen chart. Do you know what is meant by 7/15?
    Please explain if in this case you can talk about pseudomyopia.
    Esiste uno più idiota di te?
     
    g.gatti, Apr 14, 2005
    #73
  14. andrewedwardjudd

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Why would anybody here believe or respect the words of a charlatan?
    You may as well be talking about -100 diopter myopes. You have
    presented nothing in a format that is believable, and -- excuse me when
    I say this -- I don't believe a word you say.

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Apr 14, 2005
    #74
  15. andrewedwardjudd

    Neil Brooks Guest

    I already explained it, Rishi: you are 100% full of $hit.

    Go away, little boy. There's work to be done....
     
    Neil Brooks, Apr 14, 2005
    #75
  16. andrewedwardjudd

    g.gatti Guest

    The books are free and downloadable very easily.

    It is not a great trading, you know.

    The money you make destroying people's sight is really very serious.

    You are here again and again to diffuse and manipulate people and data
    so that you can cheat them selling glasses and bad treatments which
    have never helped anybody in the whole world, only injury.

    You add insults to injury, in fact.
     
    g.gatti, Apr 15, 2005
    #76
  17. andrewedwardjudd

    g.gatti Guest

    I'm asking these two people I quoted, my clients, to start writing
    here.

    The fact that you do not believe what I say simply shows that you
    believe these things are IMPOSSIBLE.

    Now I am mostly happy because we are building impossible things!

    We are wizards...

    I am happy that all these messages are kept in the archives, one day
    you will change your mind before the evidence.


    By the way, have you ever met a patient of yours recovering from -23 D?

    Or -16 D?

    Thank you.
     
    g.gatti, Apr 15, 2005
    #77
  18. andrewedwardjudd

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Well, that'll seal the deal.... :-/

    Actually, Rishi, I think the vast majority of us would prefer that
    neither you *nor* Otis have your chimerical clients post here.

    Again, if you wish to have your claims verified by qualified eyecare
    professionals, we'd be interested in hearing from *them*, including
    their qualifications and significant information about the test
    protocols used.
     
    Neil Brooks, Apr 15, 2005
    #78
  19. andrewedwardjudd

    g.gatti Guest

    Neil Brooks wrote:

    Excuse me, you first should ask yourself why you do not even imagine
    these things to be possible.

    I'm I wrong?

    Can you imagine these things may be possible?

    I summarize:

    -16 D myopic person now reads without glasses 4/100 indoors.

    -23 D myopic person now reads without glasses 7/15 indoors.

    If you cannot imagine these things possible, what is the point to see a
    "qualified" doctor?

    I'm awaiting your answer to proceed.
     
    g.gatti, Apr 15, 2005
    #79
  20. andrewedwardjudd

    Dr. Leukoma Guest

    Have you seen a psychiatrist lately?

    DrG
     
    Dr. Leukoma, Apr 15, 2005
    #80
    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.