 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2005-20 D under self-treatment, update report
Now our client has reached 17 cm of remote point, reading letters calibrated for 1,25 feet (normal vision) on the white reduced snellen chart. This should be about four tenth of normal vision. For the first time today she was able to read letters of the 5 feet line at about 5 feet distance, indoors, with a 300 watt lamp pointed to the Snellen chart. However the Snellen chart was the black one type, with black background and white letters. With the black chart she is more easily drawn to relaxation and the vision is much better. Those who are interested in the true cure of all vision problems, can visit our website http://TheCentralFixation.com This intelligent girl, who is studying third year of a doctorate in biology, can be an interesting case for all high myopes. The cure exists and it is quite simple, although may be difficult to practice. But it is true. By the way, the eccentric fixation we measured in the first days of self-treatment, stated to be of 2 meters at 2 meters, has now been reduced at 1 meter. Now one question for the learned men here. When she was able to read the 5 feet line at five feet, the eye was emmetropic. Is this correct? Now how can a -20 D myopic eye become again emmetropic? Please explain. accommodative myopia stupid! you are the only person in this newgroup who is dumber than Otis Brown. Do you know anything about the structure of the eye? If so then read about the portion called the ciliary muscle. is there a more idiot than you? please Mister Tyner, explain to this idiot why "pseudo-myopia" cannot account for -20 D. Of course it would be unlikely that a -20D myope is due to accommodation. But how do you know the true refractive state of the patient? Did a qualified person do a manifest and cycloplegic refraction? Do you even understand what I am talking about? What do you think is the prevalence of -20D myopes in the population. I don't think your "patient" is really what you claim her to be, if she exists outside your mind at all. You are a STRONG idiot what is the point to talk with you? You don't even think what is possible to do with our evoluted methods. Just stay silent and try to learn. We are doing a great job. People with high myopia can do very well, if they can escape from your stupid mind, and rotten too. <<Of course it would be unlikely that a -20D myope is due to accomodation.>> You are truly a great idiot. Dear Rishi, "I don't get no respect" Rodney Dangerfield Unlike "Retin..." I show people respect -- both you and others. You have an honest opinion about nearsightednes -- as I do. If we are honest in assessing the behavior of the natural eye as a "sophisticated sytem" we might get closer to the truth about the prevention of nearsighedness. When a person resorts to "name calling" he is acting as a spoild child. It is clear that the prevention of nearsighedness is not easy -- and will require both intelligence and motivation IN THE PERSON to work towards that goal. Calling "names" just diminishes the person who does it. Best, Otis Engineer Otis Brown wrote: > Dear Rishi, [usual Otis crap snipped] > When a person resorts to "name calling" he > is acting as a spoild child. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Calling "names" just diminishes the person > who does it. YOU'RE TRYING TO ALIGN YOURSELF *AGAINST* THE CONCEPT OF NAME CALLING??? ROTFLMAO !!!! > Otis Brown wrote: >> Dear Rishi, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > ROTFLMAO !!!! I'm sorry. I meant to say, "YOU'RE TRYING TO ALIGN YOURSELF . . . WITH *RISHI* . . . *AGAINST* THE CONCEPT OF NAME CALLING???" There. Much better. Otis, you slay me. What a hoot!! Let's align against stupdiity and exploitation of the normal people. You learned men have failed in your true mission but continue to harm people, innocent people, against the truth. Rishi is Otis' only ally. That ought to tell you something. ===== > Otis Brown wrote: >> Dear Rishi, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ROTFLMAO !!!! This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown", "otisbrown@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer". Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is unproven. In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument. Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick psychological needs. No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf. If you have other topics you wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you. Don't waste your time with Otis. Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum. ============= > Dear Rishi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Otis > Engineer Dear Reader, Sinc RM can not face scientific truth concerning the natural eye as a dynamic system -- he resorts to these "broadsides". This is an open forum -- and we should share ideas and concepts. Insisting that the natural eye does not behave as a sophisticated system is not they way to do scientific research. So for RM has presented no scientific evidence to PROVE that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of the natural eye. But then we have no idea who he is. I regret his "closed minded" attitude. I know that other ODs now support your right to an "informed choice" about prevention at the threshold. Why does RM express fear -- about an honest choice you could make in this manner? Please read: www.chinamyopia.org If you doubt the devemopment of the preventive alternative. If RM would stop posting these "blasts" about honest alternatives -- I would stop posting this response. If RM's attitude is wide spread -- then we do have a major problem with technical accuracy and honesty as it concerns the behavior of the natural eye as a competent control system. Enjoy, Otis Engineer Do not read anything this person Otis writes. He is a zealot who argues the same thing over and over again. Eye doctors in this forum constantly disprove his arguments but he won't go away. He offers medical advise without any training. Disregard anything he says. But who are you to counsel people in this way? You are MUCH MORE idiotic that Otis, an old man. Please respect the elders. > Sinc RM can not face scientific truth concerning > the natural eye as a dynamic system -- Where have I ever denied the eye is a dynamic system. Why do you keep trying to misrepresent everyone as saying this? You are the only one who ever talks about this. You must think this is some kind of eloquent concept-- it's actually quite elementary. Right down your alley Otis! Even you can understand it it's so simple. Too bad you don't understand anything about the anatomy and physiology of the eye-- by your own admission. Otis misquotes, and lies! > Insisting that the natural eye does not > behave as a sophisticated system > is not they way to do scientific research. Who ever insisted that? Another Otis misquote and lie! > So for RM has presented no scientific evidence to > PROVE that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on > the refractive state of the natural eye. What? I am supposed to provide scientific evidence that a minus lens has no effect on the refractive state of the eye? Says who? Otis' twisted logic is incredible! Otis proposes concepts that are not proven and have frankly been disproven in numerous studies-- so he turns around and points a finger at eye doctors using a therapy that is the standard of practice and tells us the WE need to prove it's efficacy. No Otis-- you need to prove that what you propose actually helps someone! Others have tried to prove it and it doesn't work, except for accommodative myopes which are the isolated cases you like to beat your drum about. Your logic is twisted indeed! > I know that other ODs now support your right > to an "informed choice" about prevention > at the threshold. Why does RM express > fear -- about an honest choice you > could make in this manner? Where have I ever expressed fear? What a foolish old man you are! Go away troll! Retin... You are calling a person that is -20 diopters myopic -- as having "accommodation myopia". Even the ODs on this site would not stretch the truth that far! They have defined "accommodation myopia" as a person on the threshold who is "squinting" on the 20/50 line, and after a period of wearing a plus for all close work -- clears to pass the DMV-Snellen line. Perhaps YOU are dumber than dirt, and don't have clue? Did you ever think about that? Best, Otis Engineer This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown", "otisbrown@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer". Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is unproven. In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument. Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick psychological needs. No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf. If you have other topics you wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you. Don't waste your time with Otis. Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum. This RM is truly a very very hard-rock true idiot. |
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.