 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / January 2005Otis Brown Log, Wednesday, 12 Jan
This day: 1. As slow day for old Otis: 6 of 53 posts. Still greater than 10% of newsgroup traffic. 2. Same old posts and same old inability to provide even the smallest, most simple proof or evidence for anything he writes. Lies and mis-information. Beware. Actually Otis graduated to a new low yesterday. Instead of just pushing his same old unfounded claims about myopia prevention with plus lenses, he also suggested to someone that they sue their eye doctor for treating their iritis with cyclopentolate (which Otis believes is equivalent to atropine). ----------------- > This day: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Beware. > Actually Otis graduated to a new low yesterday. > > Instead of just pushing his same old unfounded claims about myopia > prevention with plus lenses, Otis> If a person makes strong use of a plus a the threshold (i.e., -1.5 diopter, 20/60) and is young, then it is possible to "clear" to better-than the 20/40 line. Further work (under the young man's control) can produce clearing to 20/20 -- although this takes longer. Since you state that this preventive method, "...must be destroyed", you necessarily force the person to learn how to do this under his own control. It is tragic that you can not "open up" your mind and learn new ideas and methods of prevention. Otis> It is a matter that if your are not part of the solution ... then you become part of the problem. Think about it. Otis> I certainly acknowledge that prevention as I described it is difficult. It takes a lot of personal motivation to implement it. Otis> But in fact -- some ODs are now starting this work on a PROFESSIONAL level -- as the second opintion. It is these ODs that I support TOTALLY. Otis> But you only want to impress a person with that "immediate" sharpness of vison produced by that minus lens. I can understand the "bias" of that sitution, and anyone needing to "clear" their vision must understand that type of bias. he also suggested to someone that they sue > their eye doctor for treating their iritis with cyclopentolate (which Otis > believes is equivalent to atropine). Otis> I suggested that the due-care be conducted with the man in question -- and that he be informed of possible side-effect. I think that position is completely ethical. Best, Otis Engineer > ----------------- > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > > Beware. > Otis> I suggested that the due-care be conducted > with the man in question -- and that he be > informed of possible side-effect. I think > that position is completely ethical. You never did answer - how often does cyclopentolate cause loss of distant vision? -MT Otis Brown wrote: > If a person makes strong use of a plus a > the threshold (i.e., -1.5 diopter, 20/60) and is young, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this takes longer. Since you state that this > preventive method, "...must be destroyed", Jan's words. Nobody elses. Your grasp of the "facts" is tenuous at best. Your ability to follow any semblance of Usenet quoting etiquette is non-existent, but that's neither here nor there. > you > necessarily force the person to learn how > to do this under his own control. It is tragic > that you can not "open up" your mind and > learn new ideas and methods of prevention. Optometrists teach accommodative exercises all the time, Otis. From what I gather, that's all you're toying with. > It is a matter that if your are not > part of the solution ... then you become > part of the problem. Think about it. What about that other case--your case--where you actually /are/ the problem? > I certainly acknowledge that prevention > as I described it is difficult. It takes a > lot of personal motivation to implement it. And, apparently, an even greater amount of motivation and integrity--both of which you seem to lack--to prove its efficacy. > But in fact -- some ODs are now starting > this work on a PROFESSIONAL level -- as the > second opintion. It is these ODs that > I support TOTALLY. Shocked, I am. > But you only want to impress a person > with that "immediate" sharpness of vison > produced by that minus lens. Is that all eye doctors are doing? Trying to "impress a person?" > I can > understand the "bias" of that sitution, > and anyone needing to "clear" their vision > must understand that type of bias. And anyone trying to figure out Otis must understand his bias/pathology as well. > I suggested that the due-care be conducted > with the man in question -- and that he be > informed of possible side-effect. I think > that position is completely ethical. And you've deduced that no such information was given to the patient . . . how?? Otis, I sincerely hope--though I sincerely doubt--that you're a better electrical engineer than you are either a researcher or a logician. Your approach is that of a snake-oil salesperson: while it may offer appeal to the desperate--because /they/ want what they want badly enough to eschew facts, research, and proof--it is never backed up by anything approaching sound science or convincing evidence. You really /could/ have the key to myopia prevention in your hot little hands, but you're too weak a thinker to get it proved out and accepted. If you really wanted to do this, you'd consult attorneys, then enlist qualified faculty at a research/teaching institution (Southern California/Pennsylvania (near you!)/New England College of Optometry, et al) to aid you in constructing *valid* tests to prove out your hypothesis. What do you have to lose? Certainly not credibility . . . or are they part of the vast ocular conspiracy that really doesn't want to help anyone . . . . LD> 1. As slow day for old Otis: 6 of 53 posts. Still greater than 10% of newsgroup traffic. Otis> Thanks for your interest. This is an open form, and all are free to post. I don't thing that "Google" is worried about "disk space". Why do you worry about it? We are here to learn new scientific ideas concerning the natural eye as a sophisticated system. You keep insisting that it is not. I object to that attitude. 2. Same old posts and same old inability to provide even the smallest, most simple proof Otis> The engineering-scientific proof has been supplied in detail. You a. Require proof that the natural eye is dynamic. b. Proof is supplied indication that the natural eye "follows" its average visual enviroment, with the e ^ (-t/TAU) function c. Then you sweep all scientific proof off the table and insist that all engineering-scientific data and analysis does not "count". d. The issue will become who "judges" the behavior of the natural eye based on objective experiments concerning the natural eye's behavior as a testable "entity". or evidence for anything he writes. Otis> You totally ignore everything you do not like. That my friend is professional bias -- whether you like it or not. Lies and mis-information. Otis> More of your self-serving ignorance about what the objective, scientific data tells us about the behavior of the natural eye as a sophisticated system. Best, Otis Engineer > 2. Same old posts and same old inability to provide even the smallest, > most simple proof > > Otis> The engineering-scientific proof has been supplied > in detail. You I would like to advertise a preventive method. Please tell us where you find proof that plus prevents myopia. -MT |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.