School Children's Eyes

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    SCHOOL CHILDREN'S EYES

    THE cure and prevention of imperfect sight in school children is very
    simple.

    A Snellen Test Card should be placed in the class room where all
    children can see it from their seats. They should read the card at
    least once daily with each eye separately, covering the other eye with
    the palms of the hands, in such a way as to avoid pressing on the
    eyeball. The time required is less than a minute for both eyes. The
    card measures the amount of their vision. They will find from time to
    time that their eyesight varies. Some children are very much disturbed
    when they cannot see so well on account of the light being dim on a
    dark or rainy day and although they usually learn the letters by heart
    they do not always remember or see them. It is well to encour. age the
    children to commit the letters to memory because it is a great help
    for them to see them. When a child can read the Snellen Test Card with
    each eye with perfect sight, even although they do know what the
    letters are, it has been found by numerous observations that their
    eyes are also normal and not nearsighted, farsighted nor do they have
    astigmatism. Many children find that when they have difficulty in
    reading the writing on. the blackboard that they obtain material help
    after glancing at the Snellen Test Card and reading it with perfect
    sight.

    When the eye is at rest, perfect rest, it always has perfect sight. A
    great many teachers and others condemn the method unwisely because
    they say that the children learn, and because they know what the
    letters are, they recite them without actually seeing them. With my
    instrument I have observed many thousands of school children reading
    the Snellen Test Card apparently with perfect sight, the test card
    that they had committed to memory, and in all cases never did I find
    anything wrong with their eyes.

    About ten years ago I challenged a Doctor, a member of the Board of
    Education, to prove that the children deceive themselves or others by
    saying that they see letters when they don't. To me it is very
    interesting that the most wicked child in school no matter how he may
    lie about other things with great facility and gets by with it, was
    never caught lying about his eyesight. I believe that every family
    should have a Snellen Test Card in the home and the children
    encouraged to practice reading it for a few minutes or longer a number
    of times every day. Some children are fond of contests and quite often
    a child who can demonstrate that his vision was the best of any pupil
    in the class had a feeling of pride and satisfaction which every one
    in sporting events can understand.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    - August 1922
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    I wasn't born yet.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #3
  4. Zetsu

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are
    trolls who haunt s.m.v.

    Rishi has published, and is trying to sell worthless books.

    Otis is pathologically dishonest and actually hurts people.
    Following his advice can induce double vision in those
    not working closely with an eye doctor.

    Lena102938 uses anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for ANY
    actual information. It seems she now has to wear glasses and has
    developed a pathological (and ILLOGICAL) resentment toward the
    industry that "foisted these glasses upon her."

    You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the
    caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site.
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 26, 2007
    #4
  5. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    Is it garbage to preserve the perfect sight of children?
    Is it garbage to save them from a lifetime of glasses?
    Is it garbage when it has been proven?

    What worthier cause could there exist, than the happiness of a child?
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #5
  6. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    Deceptive in what way, unfounded in what way?
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #6
  7. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    Well it is proven but you have to search it:

    New York Medical Journal, July 29, 1911, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 237-238
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #7
  8. Zetsu

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Something peer-reviewed ... and maybe from this century ... might be
    more persuasive.
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 26, 2007
    #8
  9. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    It was from this century; less than 100 years ago.

    The journal was very reputable and if they published bullshit crap,
    their reputation would be destroyed. The most pesuasive evidence, now
    we come to that, is in the demonstration itself.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #9
  10. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    Changes, but not always for the better.

    Some of 1911 textbooks were crazy. Some of 2020 medical textbooks will
    be crazy. Lots of textbooks nowadays are crazy. But a reputable
    journal usually isn't crazy, otherwise they wouldn't have reputation.
    Reputation is made by proof.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #10
  11. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    So why can't we find those "demonstrations" in modern journals

    People think the Bates system has already been disproven. No one is
    inspired to bother with such old stuff. They think it must be
    quackery. It goes on in a chain; the more time passes, the less people
    want to conduct studies.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #11
  12. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    I mean, reputation of the medical journals.
    If they publish nonsense, they would go out of business quick.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #12
  13. Zetsu

    Neil Brooks Guest

    X-No-Archive: yes

    I didn't say within 100 years. I said from this century.

    Go grab a dictionary ... or anything else.
    Proof by assertion. Zetsu's only friend.
    Well, you DO serve as a living example of THAT, at least.
    That's really only persuasive if you don't care what's actually going
    on.

    But that's not science. It's anecdote.

    How about moving over to faith.vision ... with Uncle Otie ... and your
    little ongoing circle jerk?
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 26, 2007
    #13
  14. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    So where are the confirming studies from 1920? 1930? 1940?

    The method of using snellen cards in schools was condemed.
    Naturally people thought, it mustn't work if it has been condemed by
    the authorities. But the authorities only didn't like it because it
    seemed so ridiculous; regardless of whether it worked.

    The results are replicable. Put up snellen charts in all classrooms in
    the world; see for yourself.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #14
  15. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    only persuasive if you don't care what's actually going on.

    What do you think is actually going on?
    That the children memorized their snellen cards?
    That it must have been accomodative spasm?
    That the improvements were all faked?

    Which one will it be.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #15
  16. Zetsu

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Improved blur recognition.

    Do you need me to repeat the whole concept?

    You may. I won't. [You are an INCREDIBLY tiring little man.]

    Life isn't a snellen chart, sadly.
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 26, 2007
    #16
  17. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    But, see that's the debate we already went through.
    When you can see the snellen, you can see everything else.
    Take an example, I'll try and explain. Say, a child looks at the
    blackboard and can't read it, but then reads the snellen perfectly,
    and then afterwords reads the blackboard with perfect sight; that's
    the thing that kills your point. Doesn't it make sense, or what. I'm
    trying to be clear as possible, but tell me how it doesn't make sense.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #17
  18. Zetsu

    Neil Brooks Guest

    The real reason that it doesn't make sense is that you're simply
    wrong.

    Go back and read the "Walnut Street" example ... or go do ...
    well .... anything else other than post here, huh?

    I got quite good at recognizing letters. My vision AND visual
    acuity ... suck.

    What I do is a parlor trick. What YOU sell is snake oil.

    That's why I don't try to convince people that I actually SEE any
    better than I really DO see.

    I'd be lying and deceiving them.

    Like you.
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 26, 2007
    #18
  19. Zetsu

    Zetsu Guest

    Forget about street signs.

    It's eyesight, you either know it's better; or you don't.
    You don't go around saying 'hey everyone I've got perfect sight' when
    all you've done is improved blur recognition, now do you? You just
    have perfect sight.
     
    Zetsu, Sep 26, 2007
    #19
  20. Zetsu

    Neil Brooks Guest

    No. This is where you become a bit of a fucking idiot yourself.

    Lena believes that somebody who now wears different pants or a
    different shirt HAS LOST WEIGHT.

    It seems that she believes this no matter WHAT the scale indicates.

    In that sense, she's a bit of a fucking idiot herself. IF she's
    trying to convince people that she can help them change the shape of
    their bodies, then she may be right. But if the topic is losing
    weight, then she's not.

    Science is a way of not fooling ourselves ... and you're a fool.

    My little parlor trick is cute ... but it hasn't improved my eyesight
    at all.

    Now ... WOULD you ... kindly ... **** off?

    Thanks.
     
    Neil Brooks, Sep 26, 2007
    #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.