 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2005Perfect Sight a matter of spontaneous undestanding
Now I am talking with a lady, 60 years old, who knew nothing about Bates treatments, and once I discovered that she wore contacts for myopic condiitons, I asked her to trash them, a thing she did quickly. Then she reported to me that in summer at seaside, without glasses, she had flashes of perfect sight without any knowledge of these things. This means that the eye itself tends to become normal again in favourable conditions. Of course to get these flashes you need to have glasses off. Unless you drop them, only a deepening of the strain will follow. By practicing voluntarily how to replicate these flashes of perfect sight or normal vision, one becomes able to be cured permanently, no matter how difficult the disease can be from the start. Is any ophthalmologist interested in these things? No. so how long does this process usually take? For example, if you're a -6.00 myopic and trash your glasses/contacts a few hours a day - when will the sight become perfect? no. the discarding of the glasses should be permanent, but you need to function - so you need vision to drive, work - etc. no, you need to be cured first. how can you cure yourself with glasses on? you cannot. meditate upon that. a paradigm shift is needed in your understanding. the cure is not difficult: you suspend your job for a few days and try. Dear Rishi, To support your concept of "improving" from -20 diopters of myopia, here is a case of a young woman who "improved" from -10 diopters to -6 diopters in about two months. What do you think? Was is pure "accommodation myopia", or "eye-length myopia", or was it pre-destined by her "heredity" that her visioh would improve in this manner. Please note that I did not "dis-respect" anyone. I simply reported object, scientific facts. Enjoy, Otis Engineer ____________________- AN EXCESSIVELY STRONG PRESCRIPTION? I have retyped this letter from the original and changed the names. Jeanie's daughter started out (at age six) with 20/50. She received a strong minus lens -- even though 20/50 is acceptable for most children. After years of receiving minus lenses stronger than necessary, she received a lens increase from -6.0 to -10.0 diopters. Jeanie's suspicion and response is described in the following paragraphs. JEANIE BRAVE'S LETTER: Here are copies of my daughter's eye records and prescriptions. You will never know how grateful I am for you and Mr. Severson. When I stop and think of what could have happened to Shanna had I not found you -- my blood starts to boil. I have come to realize that people never question eye doctors as they do medical doctors. We are all at their mercy and do not even know it. You have my permission to give my telephone number to anyone who you feel needs it. Check-up before school -- Shanna received the new contacts on August 5. She puts in -10.0 Diopter and is able to see -- she says one mile down the road. I immediately told her to take them out. After begging my optometrist to please give me information to stabilize her vision, he becomes EXTREMELY UPSET. I then went to the libraries and book stores looking for information but I found only William Bates' name. I then ordered his book. Next I found Mr. Severson and finally you in the back of his book. After reading your books I immediately knew I had the wrong optometrist -- so I nicely asked his assistance in obtaining a -6 Diopter lens for studying. The doctor reluctantly gave them to Shanna, telling us to use them for STUDYING ONLY. I then confirmed the focal status of Shanna's eye's, by assisting her in checking her vision against the eye chart -- both inside and outside. 8/05/95 -10 RE -9.5 LE 20/20 (Original -10 diop. prescript) 8/26/95 -8.0 RE -7.5 LE 20/20 (Older prescript 3 weeks later) 8/26/95 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE 20/100 (Low power - provided for reading) 8/31/95 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE 20/40 (One week later) 9/26/95 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE 20/20 (Four weeks later) (For comparison, see the -10.0 D prescription below) Since she was seeing so well on 9/26/95, I told her to remove her contacts and then come back outside. Without ANYTHING on she stood 20 feet away and could focus on the 20/70 and 20/50 line for about 2 or 3 seconds -- then she said it would flash or float away. Patient: Shanna Brave, Birth Date, 3/2/82: Dated 8/5/95: -10 D Prescription by Dr. Bob Smyeth, OD 20/20 -10.0 RE -9.5 LE. In subsequent conversations with Jeanie, she stated that her nine year-old son was just starting into nearsightedness, and that she would do everything in her power to help her son with the proper use of the plus lens -- to avoid the catastrophic situation that had developed with her daughter. Jeanie wondered why this knowledge is not made generally available to the parents of young children. I don't like the approach of the plus lenses. To me it is absurd. The cure is there, without any use of plus. What is the need? Dear Rishi, Subject: Understanding Alternatives Yes, the "Bates" method is indeed to reject ALL GLASSES. An if that method works -- then GREAT. But that is the $64,000 question. The ODs know what works "instantly" -- and that is the minus lens. Given your rejection of the "plus for prevention", then it is up to you to "clear" your vision by your method. In fact my argument it that "optometry" is indeed limited in the sense that you (an many others) will REJECT the plus when it must be used for prevention. So we come to a "Mexican standoff". We are "frozen" in this state of "bad-mouthing" these ODs -- but we will not listen to those ODs who WILL promote true-prevention with the plus. If you listen carefully -- I am in fact promoting "change", in both the OD -- and "us" also. For the pilots and (students of science) who "push" very hard in the use of the plus, then vision-clearing is possible. So let us continue to analyize the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye -- and help those -- who can learn to help themselves. Let us also offer to help those ODs who are not helping the public with the plus. That would be a major "leanring" step in the right direction. That would be a better future. Best, Otis Engineer > Let us also offer to help those ODs who > are not helping the public with the plus. Let's see if I can make Otis's day. I'm going to admit right here in this newsgroup that my wife wears a plus, AT THE URGING OF HER OD! How's that?  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >> Let us also offer to help those ODs who >> are not helping the public with the plus. > > Let's see if I can make Otis's day. I'm going to admit right here in > this newsgroup that my wife wears a plus, AT THE URGING OF HER OD! > How's that? I wear a plus, too, Dan . . . but then I'm farsighted. > >> Let us also offer to help those ODs who > >> are not helping the public with the plus. > > Let's see if I can make Otis's day. I'm going to admit right here in > > this newsgroup that my wife wears a plus, AT THE URGING OF HER OD! > > How's that? > I wear a plus, too, Dan . . . but then I'm farsighted. What a coincidence! So is my wife! SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > > >> Let us also offer to help those ODs who > > >> are not helping the public with the plus. > > > Let's see if I can make Otis's day. I'm going to admit right here in > > > this newsgroup that my wife wears a plus, AT THE URGING OF HER OD! > > > How's that? > > I wear a plus, too, Dan . . . but then I'm farsighted. > What a coincidence! So is my wife! I had a big laugh a few minutes ago. I sent a copy of the above post to my wife, since I was talking about her. I got a very confused call from her, asking what the heck "wearing a plus" meant. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net Dear Dan, Indeed -- in some respects (i.e., Jacob Raphaelson, "the printer's son") it is not the "OD", but rather the public's resistance to accepting this recommendation to use the plus at the "threshold". But there are now some ODs who are going to make this "recommendation" more "forceful" -- and that is the type of change I advocate. The mother and child who wish to "turn down" the preventive approach should understand that the "bifocal" stududies show a steady "down" rate of -1/2 diopter per year. If then don't take this fact seriously -- then of course, just wear the minus lens. I am not going ot argue with them about that issue. Best, Otis Engineer I "felt the need" to check the optics of my contact lenses. (I'm "testing" four plastics/four RGP lenses each of the identical parameters, for surface wetting, deposits, end of day comfort, not to mention stability of optics. But I digress. That's too scientific for this thread.) Well I just can't believe it! I need more of "the plus!" Hallelujua! I'm almost cured! My eyes must be "a sophisticated system." Oooops. I'm farsighted. Getting worse, not cured. But I sure do like "the plus!" Gimmme more of that "plus" please! I love "the plus." Now will you people PLEASE stop hounding poor old Otis. Even making fun of his absurdity, although there is a certain satisfaction, still wastes space on our machines. --BlInK-- > I "felt the need" to check the optics of my contact lenses. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > fun of his absurdity, although there is a certain satisfaction, still > wastes space on our machines. I will, but I have to post this link /first/: http://snipurl.com/ciwh > Now will you people PLEASE stop hounding poor old Otis. Even making fun > of his absurdity, although there is a certain satisfaction, still wastes > space on our machines. > > --BlInK-- For anyone who enjoys hounding Otis, consider the Yahoo i-see group instead of sci.med.vision -- you can be the resident troll there instead of vice versa! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/ Dr Judy That was a mistake-- seriously! Now you've called the troll out from under his bridge. I guess we are in for a long diatribe from Otis now. Best to leave him alone! ============ >> Let us also offer to help those ODs who >> are not helping the public with the plus. > > Let's see if I can make Otis's day. I'm going to admit right here in this > newsgroup that my wife wears a plus, AT THE URGING OF HER OD! How's that? > That was a mistake-- seriously! Sorry, but I just couldn't resist it. Obviously *all* ODs help people out with the plus, either because they are farsighted or presbyopic. > >> Let us also offer to help those ODs who > >> are not helping the public with the plus. > > Let's see if I can make Otis's day. I'm going to admit right here in this > > newsgroup that my wife wears a plus, AT THE URGING OF HER OD! How's that? SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net I suppose its OK to drive without your glasses even though you can't see a lick. When the ancient manuscripts that Gatti follows to practice his "art" were originally written (middle ages), there were no cars so I suppose he doesn't know how to handle this problem. Quack Why this idiot goes on to reply? Please, f.ck off! Your stupidity is already published in the whole world, so there is no need for you to continue. You are believing in an ancient and surpassed theory about vision defects to be incurable. Then stick to your ridicule assumption. Let intelligent peole learn for themselves what is the truth! Dear Rishi, Subject: Historic orgin of the minus-lens "quick fix". If these ODs made the arguement that the public was "dense" and had no motivation to "accept" preventive work -- I could accept that. But when they get on their "high hourse" and caim that "quicik fix" method have more general support in engineering-science -- I choke. It would take small skill to instruct a person in the use of a "trial lens" kit to prescribe a minus lens. It takes real skill to learn that a "knee-jerk" response may not be a "good idea". It is very clear that Dr. Bates got "beat up" because he objected to that minus lens. And there are some very strong scientific (not medical) reasons to support Dr. Bates "objection" to the minus. We can agree to THAT idea --while we still do not agree on the "correct" method of prevention. But that is what a scientific (not medical) approach would require. Enjoy, 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. Dear "retin.." It is nice you signed off as "Quack". You obviously have not paid attention to anything I have presented. I stated that a person should have a MEDICAL check -- to verify no MEDICAL problems. I state that the person must PASS the required legal standard REQUIRED of him, which is the reading of 1.8 cm letters at 6 meters. I insist that thei individual PERSONALLY verify that he meets AND EXCEEDS this standard when he drives a car. The only issue is his ability to "clear" to 20/20 -- by his own efforts. Indeed Dan Abel's wife is using the plus -- for various reasons. Furhter -- I agree that most people lack the motivation to do this work -- but that is their choice. Other than that -- I enjoy technical analysis of the behavior of the eye as a sophisticated system. Best, Otis Engineer Go away troll. =============== > Dear "retin.." > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Otis > Engineer > Dear "retin.." > > It is nice you signed off as "Quack". Yes, IMHO both Gatti and you are both Quacks > You obviously have not paid attention to anything > I have presented. I can assure you that, after reading your posts for some time, I have decided DEFINITELY not to listen to anything you present. You keep stating the same phrases over and over again while NUMEROUS experts present strong arguments against your position. You never acknowledge their logic even though it is obvious to everyone else, and then ultimately you stomp off mad as if you have been wronged somehow. You're just wrong Otis. There's nothing wrong in admitting it and growing as a result of the experience. > Indeed Dan Abel's wife is using the plus -- for > various reasons. Now you are about to start misquoting Dan Abel's statement that his wife is using a plus lens. You are going to claim this is some kind of proof for your wacky ideas. Just like you stretched the truth when you stated that MT "recommends using +3.00 lenses". You argue like an adolescent child Otis. > Other than that -- I enjoy technical analysis > of the behavior of the eye as a sophisticated > system. And you enjoy reading your own posts and the arguments they provoke too. Sick old Otis gets a thrill thinking about what an intellectual he is, at least in his own mind. > Best, > > Otis > Engineer Dear "Retin..." As usual, you, like Rishi resort to name-calling and other insults. Sad! If you kept an "open mind" you would learn new ideas and concepts -- as other more "open" optometrists and medical doctors have done. We ALL agree that prevention is difficult -- but under the right circumstances -- possible. The "method of the minus" was put in place 400 years ago -- and anlyized initially by J. Kepler. That analysis was carried forward and became the Gullistrand "schematic eye". Not bad work -- but required that the natural eye be ASSUMED to be "frozen" for purposes of analysis. I certainly understand "mathematical" idealizations such as this. The problem it that this "model" no longer reflects scientific truth (results of REPEATABLE scinetific experiments.) But of course you are never going to "see" the need for change -- and will continue the "dead" concepts of the past. Best, Otis Engineer > > Indeed Dan Abel's wife is using the plus -- for > > various reasons. > > Now you are about to start misquoting Dan Abel's statement that his > wife is using a plus lens. You are going to claim this is some kind of > proof for your wacky ideas. I'm a little flabbergasted, frankly. I didn't think that even Otis was stupid enough not to get my little trick. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >Yes, IMHO both Gatti and you are both Quacks Lol. Ok, now go back to play with your toys. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." >I suppose its OK to drive without your glasses even though you can't >see a lick. I don't have a car but I'd be killed crossing the road the first morning I walked to the bus station without my glasses. Death is a bit of a drastic way to cure myopia I think. Ann Your death will be a blessing to the world because you will stop the contagiousness of your myopic refraction, but more so, your stupidity. >Your death will be a blessing to the world because you will stop the >contagiousness of your myopic refraction, but more so, your stupidity. Incredible. Whenever I think you have reached the lowest low possible, I am always proved wrong as you attain a yet lower new low. I wonder what you will come up with next. You have put me in great suspense. :-) It's very easy: discard your glasses and start your treatment as quick as possible AND YOU WILL SEE HOW MUCH YOUR STUPIDITY AND DUMBNESS WAS GONE DEEPER INTO YOUR DIRTY MIND. >Your death will be a blessing to the world because you will stop the >contagiousness of your myopic refraction, but more so, your stupidity. You are a rude and disgusting old man. To say such a thing about another person who has done you no wrong is appalling. Ann I'm not an old man, just 35. >You are a rude and disgusting old man. >I'm not an old man, just 35. This one is just too good to be true. :-) I'm glad to see that you only contested one of Ann's three accusations. If this were an http message board, I would make this a sticky. :-) Please gatti don't stop posting, you are providing good entertainment. >>I suppose its OK to drive without your glasses even though you can't >>see a lick. > > I don't have a car but I'd be killed crossing the road the first > morning I walked to the bus station without my glasses. Death is a > bit of a drastic way to cure myopia I think. I can go about without my glasses but when it comes to work in front of a computer, I'd have to get rather close to the screen to see clearly and expose myself to the radiation. That's the reason I made a pair of reading glasses with are undercorrected for distance vision. >>>I suppose its OK to drive without your glasses even though you can't >>>see a lick. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >expose myself to the radiation. That's the reason I made a pair of reading >glasses with are undercorrected for distance vision. I too have glasses that are undercorrected so that I can read more easily. That's one reason why I know that Otis's theories are unworkable. Wearing a 1 doptre plus over my prescription has made no difference to my vision at all. Ann You don't understand what the poor Otis is saying. He says to start to wear the plus AT THE INCEPTION OF THE IMPERFECT SIGHT, instead of using minus lense. This approach may work for some, because to STRAIN through a plus lens may creat a counter-balancing effect in the brain so when you remove the strain of the plus, you relax and the brain starts to work efficiently again commanding the eye muscles to work properly. This kind of cure is to be realized MUCH MORE EASILY without any use of the plus but just learning how to use a Snellen Chart every day. In your case, which is a hard one, given your stupidity, it is not enough to wear a weaker pair of glasses. This just shows that the theories of your doctors are wrong, because do not provide for a cure but just a harmful treatment that AS ALL KNOW just puts more strain on an even super-strained mind. BY THE WAY, PLEASE, DO NOT BOTHER TO ANSWER TO MY POST OR READ MY THREADS, I DO NOT WANT TO TALK WITH YOU STUPID MEN, JUST LEAVE SOME TRACES TO THOSE INTELLIGENT WHO WANT TO CURE THEMSELVES BY SELF-TREATMENTS OF REST. Get lost! > I too have glasses that are undercorrected so that I can read more > easily. That's one reason why I know that Otis's theories are > unworkable. Wearing a 1 doptre plus over my prescription has made no > difference to my vision at all. How long have you been using your reading glasses? >> I too have glasses that are undercorrected so that I can read more >> easily. That's one reason why I know that Otis's theories are >> unworkable. Wearing a 1 doptre plus over my prescription has made no >> difference to my vision at all. > >How long have you been using your reading glasses? For years I have been wearing undercorrected glasses.. something like 20 years but only purposely for the past 5 years. Before that I just never bothered to get new glasses. The only time I use the properly corrected glasses is when I am travelling by plane because I need to be able to read the display screens. Apart from that I never bother. Ann >>> I too have glasses that are undercorrected so that I can read more >>> easily. That's one reason why I know that Otis's theories are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > travelling by plane because I need to be able to read the display > screens. Apart from that I never bother. Actually going around with some blur isn't necessarily bad. Sometimes the world can be more beautiful when not everything is in focus. >I too have glasses that are undercorrected so that I can read more Actually using undercorrected glasses is WORSE than using the right ones that is WORSE than not using them at all that is WORSE than being under treatment that is WORSE than be cured without glasses. So, you are on the lower step of the ladder, climb up ! -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." > Actually using undercorrected glasses is WORSE than using > the right ones that is WORSE than not using them at all that > is WORSE than being under treatment that is WORSE than > be cured without glasses. > > So, you are on the lower step of the ladder, climb up ! So you have a real problem with Otis too? That's simply shows your stupidity regarding matters of vision. The cure is there since 100 years. Why don't you cure yourself instead of following the wrong advice of a rotten so-called science? >That's simply shows your stupidity regarding matters of vision. > >The cure is there since 100 years. > >Why don't you cure yourself instead of following the wrong advice of a >rotten so-called science? Why does it matter to you if we wear glasses at all? It's not like you're a kindly person who wants others to do better. You're a nasty person who is just plain rude. Why do you bother? Ann > Why does it matter to you if we wear glasses at all? It's not like > you're a kindly person who wants others to do better. You're a nasty > person who is just plain rude. Why do you bother? Please get lost, I do not want to talk with you anymore, please, I beg you. >> Why does it matter to you if we wear glasses at all? It's not like >> you're a kindly person who wants others to do better. You're a >> nasty person who is just plain rude. Why do you bother? > > Please get lost, I do not want to talk with you anymore, please, I > beg you. Then why do you continue to talk to her? you should go and relax your mind otherwise you'll stop seeing so well in sub 300W conditions. >>> Why does it matter to you if we wear glasses at all? It's not like >>> you're a kindly person who wants others to do better. You're a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Then why do you continue to talk to her? you should go and relax your > mind otherwise you'll stop seeing so well in sub 300W conditions. I have long conjectured that his public spontaneous combustion would be infinitely preferable to his bogus spontaneous [mis]understanding. SignatureRegards, Nicolaas. 2005 Pricelessware CD now available. Pricelessware - the best of the best in freeware, as determined by the readers of alt.comp.freeware. E-Mail me for details: raptor@top.net.nz - mention CD in subject. ... Ever stop to think ... and forget to start again? > >>> Why does it matter to you if we wear glasses at all? It's not like > >>> you're a kindly person who wants others to do better. You're a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I have long conjectured that his public spontaneous combustion would be > infinitely preferable to his bogus spontaneous [mis]understanding. Regards? >> I have long conjectured that his public spontaneous combustion would be >> infinitely preferable to his bogus spontaneous [mis]understanding. > > Regards? I wasn't talking TO you, Sunshine, I was talking ABOUT you. Now, SHOO! SignatureNo regards, Nicolaas. > I wasn't talking TO you, Sunshine, I was talking ABOUT you. > Now, SHOO! Awww. Don't be like that towards Rishi. He doesn't know any better. It's not his fault. :-) Regards, ;-) Simon >>> Why does it matter to you if we wear glasses at all? It's not like >>> you're a kindly person who wants others to do better. You're a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Then why do you continue to talk to her? you should go and relax your >mind otherwise you'll stop seeing so well in sub 300W conditions. Look better: he replied to another post. And she talked to him again. The mind of imperfect sighted people is really out of control, both of you (Ann and Simon) show the symptoms. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." >>>>Why does it matter to you if we wear glasses at all? It's not like >>>> you're a kindly person who wants others to do better. You're a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Look better: he replied to another post. > And she talked to him again. So? If you don't want to talk to someone then you don't talk to them, you ignore them, you don't respond to their messages. It's like sticking your fingers in your ears when someone is talking to you. Its an easy thing to understand. > The mind of imperfect sighted people is really out of control, > both of you (Ann and Simon) show the symptoms. Hahaha. I have perfect sight, thank you for being ignorant and assuming. 20/20 - no glasses, no bates, no preventative medicine, much time in front of the computer and close up work, I just have perfect vision. I browse this newsgroup because I like a good laugh every now and again. Thanks for that Evaristo. When can I see you on the worlds stand up circuit? You're too funny. >>>>>Why does it matter to you if we wear glasses at all? It's not like >>>>> you're a kindly person who wants others to do better. You're a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Hahaha. I have perfect sight, thank you for being ignorant and assuming. Yeah, right. LOL. People with perfect vision can easily demonstrate and validate all that Rishi and myself are continuosuly talking about. The only people that laugh at these things are people with impefect sight. For example, ask a person with perfect sight if looking at the sun makes him unconfortable, he will be puzzled and answer with something like"why should it make me unconfortable?" >20/20 - no glasses, no bates, no preventative medicine, much time in >front of the computer and close up work, I just have perfect vision. Perfect vision is 20/10 at least. 20/20 is normal vision. >I browse this newsgroup because I like a good laugh every now and >again. >Thanks for that Evaristo. When can I see you on the worlds stand up >circuit? You're too funny. Glad you are enjoying my writings. When can I see you buying the tickets ? Thanks for coming. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." |
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.