 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2005Pseudomyopia
Is there an easy way to tell between pseudomyopia and true myopia? Could someone suffering from pseudomyopia develop true myopia upon wearing lenses? > Is there an easy way to tell between pseudomyopia and true myopia? The "gold standard" test uses cycloplegic drops to paralyze the focusing muscles temporarily. Cyclopentolate or homatropine eliminate the effect of accommodation. Pseudomyopia is habitual accommodation. > Could someone suffering from pseudomyopia develop true myopia upon wearing > lenses? Otis is convinced that it happens, but he's relying on his own intuition. Farsighted people accommodate all the time, out of necessity. It doesn't make them nearsighted. -MT >> Is there an easy way to tell between pseudomyopia and true myopia? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Farsighted people accommodate all the time, out of necessity. It doesn't > make them nearsighted. Mostly likely people whose myopia resolves eventually were pseudomyopics anyway. It's too bad that there isn't an easier way to test the condition. It seems to me everyone should be tested for pseudomyopia before being prescribed glasses. A careful dry refraction with frequent "plus to blur" steps can sometimes reveal a pseudomyope. Sometimes you can also "see" them during retinoscopy but they won't accept less minus when you do the subjective refraction. Regardless, even if you did recognize them as an "habitual accommodator" their problem is that they can't see clearly in the distance. Realization of the problem, or stern language, won't make them stop accommodating. The standard of care is to prescribe them only as much minus power as they need to do their distance tasks (driving, reading the board in school, etc.) and educating them not to wear their glasses any more than they need to. Glasses and/or contacts are a hassle but they don't hurt anybody. As you say, their myopia will resolve eventually anyway. Regards ------------- >>> Is there an easy way to tell between pseudomyopia and true myopia? >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It seems to me everyone should be tested for pseudomyopia before being > prescribed glasses. > It seems to me everyone should be tested for pseudomyopia before being > prescribed glasses. Many times we do. People complain about the drugs we use to test for it, and then they don't like the eyeglass prescriptions. When you decide what "everyone should be tested for," whether it's syphilis or pseudomyopia, you have to ask "what are the permanent consequences of NOT testing?" Weigh the benefits of detecting the problem against the cost of performing the test. With pseudomyopia, there are no permanent downsides. Testing everyone is expensive, and the results are generally dissatisfactory. -MT Dear Andrew, Providing we respect the fact that the natural eye is "dyanamic", then the answer is yes to both of your questions. This includes the MDs and ODs who acknowledge the true scientific facts concerning the natural eye's behavior. The answer from the ODs who do not respect the natural eye as "dyanamic" is NO to both of your questions. Best, Otis Engineer > The answer from the ODs who > do not respect the natural eye > as "dyanamic" is NO to > both of your questions. No OD has ever said this Otis. Only you say this. Another example of your misquoting and lying. And so: ----------- 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 Andrew, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > as "dyanamic" is NO to > both of your questions. Funny you should say that Otis, since Mike just answered "yes" to question number one. Dr Judy > Is there an easy way to tell between pseudomyopia and true myopia? > Could someone suffering from pseudomyopia develop true myopia upon wearing > lenses? The answers you will get by the so-called learned men here are all wrong. You just do your own experiment following some rest treatment for a couple of days without the use of any kind of glasses. You will discover quickly that the problem of pseudomyopia is simply FALSE. Dear Andrew, There is no easy way to separate "true myopia" from pseudo myopia. But I would suggest the following. If you enter high school with 20/20, and after two years you are reading the eye chart at 20/40 -- there is a good possibility that you have "pseudo-myopia. "Could someone suffering from pseudomyopia develop true myopia upon wearing lenses? "' This has been the "Bates" concept for the last 80 years. The $64,000 question is this -- can you clear bact to 20/20, if you just got into it? The standard statement "majority opinion" is that it "can't be done". The minority opinion (do your research) that it is possible to clear back to 20/20 (if you previously had 20/20). The rest you must figure out for yourself. Best, Otis Engineer > The standard statement "majority opinion" is that it "can't be done". > The minority opinion (do your research) that it is possible to clear > back to 20/20 (if you previously had 20/20). Help me Otis as I tried doing my research. I cannot find ANYTHING OUTSIDE YOUR WEBSITE and some quacky myopiachina whatever website you claim. Please provide OBJECTIVE medical websites that support your position. I bet you can't as you make up stuff as you go along. I have asked this in the past, and I bet you can't provide it now. I will forward this message on to my imaginary friends so they can enjoy your point of view. Best, Allen Pilot cc Dr Quack Dr Rubby Ducky and other imaginary pilots and subjects The statement was for Andrew -- who can probably figure out some of these issues -- because you obviously can not. Best, Otis What we can all figure out Otis, it that once again someone is asking you to prove your claims. But you cannot! That speaks volumes about the validity of what you say, as well as its "scientific" nature. You don't understand a thing about science. ------- > The statement was for Andrew -- who > can probably figure out some of these [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Otis > What we can all figure out Otis, it that once again someone is asking you to > prove your claims. But you cannot! > > That speaks volumes about the validity of what you say, as well as its > "scientific" nature. You don't understand a thing about science. The truth is very simple and you can test it by yourself. You stay without glasses for a while, in a good light, expecially in the sun, and make a practice, easy practise with no effort, to read small letters at the farthest distance you can without strain. Do this several times a day without ever put your glasses on. Then you will see quickly a FLASH of PERFECT SIGHT, which cannot be explained by any pseudomyopia or other things, EXCEPT WITH THE FACT THAT THE MIND HAS STARTED FOR A SIMPLE LITTLE MOMENT TO WORK IN REST, IN PEACE, and the eyes followed. If you do not try this experiment on yourself, then you are simply a self-quack, a real idiot. >The truth is very simple and you can test it by yourself. > >You stay without glasses for a while, OK assuming that I want to do this test -- please tell me, what is "a while"? Will 3 days be enough? Or do I need 7 days? Or 12 days? Or more? Please provide a guideline. >in a good light, expecially in >the sun, and make a practice, easy practise with no effort, to read [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >If you do not try this experiment on yourself, then you are simply a >self-quack, a real idiot. > OK assuming that I want to do this test -- please tell me, what > is "a while"? A while depends from your intelligence. It may take just few minutes to understand, or more, days or weeks, or years. > Will 3 days be enough? I hope so. > Or do I need 7 days? Or 12 days? Or more? > > Please provide a guideline. The only guideline which is useful you have to provide to yourself by yourself: any mind is different, the treatment is individual. A person with perfect sight may be of help in the beginning. >A while depends from your intelligence. >It may take just few minutes to understand, or more, days or weeks, or >years. > >The only guideline which is useful you have to provide to yourself by >yourself: any mind is different, the treatment is individual. So your "treatment" could take minutes, it could take years, or anything in between, depending on "my intelligence"? Surely you must be capable of seeing that this cannot be of any value in a practical sense. For example, if I try it for any given length of time and it does not work for me, you will just say that I am too stupid to figure out how make it work. How convenient this is for you! You can never be proven wrong. Even if the length of time does depend on intelligence, there is such a thing as "normal" or "average" intelligence, and you have to make your guidelines based upon that. For "a while" I was intending to explain to you how to do that; i.e. gather data, calculate sample mean, sample standard deviation, etc. so that you could come up with a guideline that would be useful and practical. Assuming of course that your "treatment" actually works, which is highly doubtful (and I consider that to be a generous assesment). But given the attitude you have shown in previous posts, I think this would not do any good. You would never listen to anything like that. My Not-identified RM, My remarks were addressed to Andrew -- and not to you. The fact that you must "jump in" and tell Andrew what he "must think" should send a strong message about your arrogance to him. Rishi makes a good point about you. While "prevention" still remains a difficult problem -- your "attitude" is indeed a "block" to progress. You habit of denying objective scientific facts -- and insisting that a minus lens has no effect on the dynamic, or the natural eye, suggest intensive bias on your part. Andrew can factor your bias into his judgment about the experimental data itself -- and reach his OWN conclusion. Otis Engineer > Rishi makes a good point about you. Rishi is the only one in this forum who is a bigger fool than you. > You habit of denying objective > scientific facts -- and insisting > that a minus lens has no effect > on the dynamic, or the natural eye, > suggest intensive bias on your part. Really? Tell me the objective scientific facts as you have been asked to do multiple times. Why do you keep dodging the questions? Ask your good "friends of the week" Dr. Francis Young, Dr. Ted Grosvenor, Dr. Blah Blah, one of your intelligent pilot engineer buddies, anyone! Perhaps they can help you answer the questions since you are incapable of understanding them yourself. Your knowledge of the eye is zippo! Otis, the pathetic old fool! 1. Please enlighten us on some of the "great deal of direct scientific experimental data" that shows that minus lenses are not safe. Those are your exact words-- tell us what the evidence is. 2. What are the "facts" that prove that plus lens treatment prevents myopia in "the entire population of adolescent natural eyes" as you have stated previously. Those are your exact words-- tell us what the facts are. 3. Please provide some of the "objective scientific facts that the natural eyes 'goes down' when you place a minus lens on it". Those are your exact words. Please show the data. And I don't mean your equation derived from a primate study where the animals were drastically overminused. Where is the proof that when you provide just enough minus lens power on the human eye to focus the image on the retina that it causes the eye to "go down". 4. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and are therefore walking around with net plus power on their eye 24/7 DO NOT become less myopic. This is optically equivalent to wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic? Optometrists have these types of adolescent patients all the time. 5. Why is it that young hyperopes, who very frequently do not wear their plus lens corrections, continue to maintain their hyperopia? They are in fact internally compensating for their hyperopia by accommodation. There eyes are straining all the time. This is the same as being overminused 24/7. Why don't their eyes "go down" (your "scientific" terminology) and become more myopic (meaning less hyperopic)? Why is it that when you check them years later they are just as hyperopic as before, and when they approach age 40 they actually manifest even more hyperopia than before? > > Rishi makes a good point about you. > > Rishi is the only one in this forum who is a bigger fool than you. Hey, you idiot, please, explain to me one way you can use to help people cure their imperfect sight. of course the answer to your question depends on the nature of their "imperfect sight". Are you aware that there are multiple classifications and causes? Anyway, lets assume the cause is simple myopia. This is usually due to anatomical misalignment of the optics of the eye. If is is proven to not be due to ciliary muscle overactivity (using a cycloplegic refraction) then the treatments are: 1. spectacle correction 2. contact lens correction 3. refractive eye surgery Unproven methods that you will likely try to advocate are: 1. Plus lens prevention-- doesn't work except in the case of pseudomyopia. But thats not the example we are discussing here and is relatively uncommon anyway. YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE LENGTH OF THE EYE OR THE SHAPE OF THE CORNEA BY USING PLUS LENSES. The "dynamic" part of the nature eye is the ciliary body, and if that's not the cause of the refractive error then you have zero chance of changing the anatomy of the eye with a plus lens. 2. Sungazing-- this is quackery. This is detrimental to anyones vision. You should be hunted down and prosecuted for recommending this to anyone. Start up another newsgroup (alt.quack.eyes) and propose your theories there. And YOU are replying to a quack because ? Perhaps you haven't noticed that no one cares about "rishi" and he is so clearly wacko that we don't have to make an issue of it. "Otis", our other resident quack has been embarrassed away from here. Please don't feed the trolls. As you wish o' mighty one! Sorry to offend thee so. Didn't mean to break thy self-decreed rules! ;) Perhaps you haven't noticed but Otis is still around. He apparently doesn't embarrass easily. Rishi is such an idiot he doesn't realize how foolish he appears. PS-- is this really our friend Otis http://www.geocities.com/neil0502/Oda_May_Brown.html?1107470227575 Otis is a quack and a zealot. Rishi is a quack and a zealot (and obnoxious). While everything you write about in your post is true and accurate they will never listen. They just like to argue for the sake of argument. Best to ignor them and just warn any unsuspecting layperson who might seem to be listening to their drivel. Nothing else. > of course the answer to your question depends on the nature of their > "imperfect sight". Are you aware that there are multiple [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Start up another newsgroup (alt.quack.eyes) and propose your theories > there. > 1. spectacle correction it's not a cure in the true medical sense of the term. > 2. contact lens correction see above > 3. refractive eye surgery see above, this is particularly harmful as every operated people KNOW WELL. > 2. Sungazing-- this is quackery. This is detrimental to anyones > vision. You should be hunted down and prosecuted for recommending this > to anyone. sungazing is effective in 100% of the cases. you have to learn how to do it, however. "Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.gatti@agora.it> > sungazing is effective in 100% of the cases. > you have to learn how to do it, however. You personally guarantee that sungazing is effective for macular degeneration, glaucoma, retinitis pigmentosa, myopia and presbyopia? Italy and Nigeria have that in common.. the liability laws have no teeth. -MT > "Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.gatti@agora.it> The cure for everything ocular! > > sungazing is effective in 100% of the cases. > > you have to learn how to do it, however. Please, please tell me: is there anyone out there that believes "Rishi" is worth even a millisecond of your time? Does anyone believe that staring at the sun can do anything other than cause blindness? Geez! I trust that people are not that gullible! Otis' stuff is crap, but Rishi's is outright dangerous. Let's have a poll! Right here in this thread! Select the appropriate answer from the list below: (Copy and past the appropriate line or lines into your message:) _________I believe Otis is The One who will cure my vision! _________I believe Rishi Knows All and sun gazing will cure my vision! _________I believe that optometrists and ophthalmologist engage in a conspiracy to make people optically dependent upon lenses to fix vision. _________I believe everything I read in the newspaper. _________"I gather all the news I need on the weather report." (Courtesy Paul Simon, 1964) > _________I believe everything I read in the newspaper. Now this Larry The Idiot... What is he bringing to the world? >> "Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.gatti@agora.it> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >is worth even a millisecond of your time? Does anyone believe that >staring at the sun can do anything other than cause blindness? How can you tell ? Have you made experiments in which people have become blind after sungazing ? You cannot tell. The truth is that sungazing may blind you only temporarily and never permanently. People with imperfect sight should learn to look at the sun gradually while practicing the methods of the normal eye in the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses. People with perfect sight can look at the sun without any disconfort whatsoever. How does this reconcile with your fallacious belief that the sun causes blindness ? >Geez! I trust that people are not that gullible! Otis' stuff is crap, >but Rishi's is outright dangerous. Please read some Leonardo Da Vinci about scientific method. He would have no respect for you, so I can tell that you are a man before reinassance. You belong to MiddleAge. >I believe Otis is The One who will cure my vision! Otis is as ignorant as you, no more no less. >I believe Rishi Knows All and sun gazing will cure my vision! Obviously Rishi doesn't know all, BUT sungazing CURES. >I believe that optometrists and ophthalmologist engage in a >conspiracy to make people optically dependent upon lenses to fix vision. No, I believe that optometrists are WORSE than that. They dwell in their ignorance because it's so cozy and pays well. >I believe everything I read in the newspaper. You believe everything that you read in something with "Textbook" on the front page. Just like popes in the MiddleAge believed in everything written in the Bible without the proof of the facts of observation and study like scientific method prescribe. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." > Obviously Rishi doesn't know all, BUT sungazing CURES. Cures what? >> Obviously Rishi doesn't know all, BUT sungazing CURES. > > Cures what? Everything, idiot. Rishi guarantees it personally and agrees to reimburse medical expenses to anyone who loses vision from sungazing. -MT > >> Obviously Rishi doesn't know all, BUT sungazing CURES. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT You cannot lose vision with sungazing. Try it for 5 seconds at sunrise or sunset, and you will see your eyes improve instantly, although temporarily. Of course you have to do it without glasses. NOW, SOME INTELLIGENT READER WILL TRY THIS EXPERIMENT, and find GREAT BENEFIT just after 5 seconds. He may then try again with 10 seconds. And so on. When he finds discomfort, then he has to stop and wait one day and restart the process of becoming accustomed. I am now at 920 seconds of continuous gazing the sun at midday, blinking as usual. I may film myself and put on the web, I will do it. But now the sun is quite shallow, I'm waiting the real sun of summer. More information on sun cures: http://TheCentralFixation.com http://SolarHealing.com Unintelligent people like ALL the dirty oculists should avoid my posts, thanks. > >> Obviously Rishi doesn't know all, BUT sungazing CURES. > > > > Cures what? > > Everything, idiot. Give it a little thought: sungazing will eliminate the need for glasses. Why would blind people need glasses? :-( Actually, there is strong scientific proof that staring at a bright light will lessen the need for glasses to focus. Bright lights cause the pupil to contract, extending the depth of field. There's a reason that mommy and daddy yelled at us to turn on a light when we read. Of course, it's not nice to fool Mother Nature, and our eyes automatically make the pupil smaller and larger to match the available light.  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >> Obviously Rishi doesn't know all, BUT sungazing CURES. > >Cures what? Becoming accustomed again to strong light, gradually learning to look at the sun, helps tremendously in applying the methods of the normal eye and relieves from the strain to see better that is the cause of imperfect sight. Avoiding the strong light of the sun or "protecting" your eyes from it harms them and causes a lot of vision problems, organic diseases included. Find me ONE welder of shipyards that has problems with his eyes. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." >>>Obviously Rishi doesn't know all, BUT sungazing CURES. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Find me ONE welder of shipyards that has problems > with his eyes. Looking at the sun, relieves strain, Aha, but what does it cure? But can you expand on "imperfect sight"? Welders use Welding Masks. To protect their eyes. Cya Simon >Looking at the sun, relieves strain, Aha, but what does it cure? But can >you expand on "imperfect sight"? Imperfect sight is the opposite of perfect sight. When you can read a letter at 20/10 or more you have perfect sight. Learning to look at the sun helps A LOT in the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses. >Welders use Welding Masks. To protect their eyes. Welders work in an environment where flashes of strong light are all around them. This keeps their eyes healthy. The masks are there to avoid harm from splinters. The fact that the masks are darkened is only because some ignorant doctor told them that strong light could harm them. It is a fact that I can look at railway welding at a distance of about a couple of meters (to avoid splinters) without disconfort. Strong light is not dangerous once you learn how to look at it. And if some disfunction or disease come out after looking at strong light it is not due to the light but to the mental strain in looking at it. Relieved the strain - relieved the disease, it is only temporary. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." >How can you tell ? >Have you made experiments in which people have become >blind after sungazing ? >You cannot tell. There are many documented cases of people who have damaged their eyesight by looking at the sun. A lot of these are people who were looking at solar eclipses without proper eye protection. Many of these people had perfect vision beforehand. There are other cases too. >You believe everything that you read in something with >"Textbook" on the front page. Just like popes in the MiddleAge >believed in everything written in the Bible without the proof of >the facts of observation and study like scientific method prescribe. Nothing makes it into a textbook unless there are well documented scientific experiments which support it. Anyone can look up these experiments, which are documented to precise detail so that others can repeat the experiment and verify the result. This is basic scientific method. You Bates people, on the other hand, have never produced any kind of controlled experimental proof that any of your techniques actually work. It's amazing how you fanatics can manage to turn the facts upside down and (seemingly) not even be aware that you are doing it. >>How can you tell ? >>Have you made experiments in which people have become [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >eye protection. Many of these people had perfect vision >beforehand. There are other cases too. Please show those documents. Please show that they were "damaged" permanently. >Nothing makes it into a textbook unless there are well >documented scientific experiments which support it. Yes, like the ones about candlelight reflections that Helmoltz claimed to have done. >Anyone >can look up these experiments, which are documented to >precise detail so that others can repeat the experiment >and verify the result. This is basic scientific method. Yes, then why the experiments described in precise detail documented in Bates book have never been reproduced to prove them wrong ? Why his discoveries are labeled quackery by the so called scientist on the basis of their superstitions like the one that this one claimed about looking at the sun ? Why many people with perfect vision can look at the sun without discomfort? If only one can do that, you cannot say that lookin at the sun causes blindness. THIS is scientific method. If there were NOONE that could look at the sun then you could have an hint, but if a lot of people can there must be something about the ones that get temporarily blinded that causes it. The truth is that it is mental strain that causes blindness not the strong light of the sun per se. >You Bates people, on the other hand, have never produced >any kind of controlled experimental proof that any of >your techniques actually work. The reason is that the so called scientific man that you like so much have never been willing to do that. And never will be, because they cannot stand even the remote (in their mind) possibility of being wrong. As I said before, their ignorance is cozy and pays well, and more than that they like to play with technology toys to get a place in history for having found "the solution". Problem is that they are looking in the wrong direction. Their premises and their theories are fallacious. >It's amazing how you fanatics can manage to turn the >facts upside down and (seemingly) not even be aware that >you are doing it. I don't understand this statement of yours. I could say the exact same thing about you. Why should you be right and I wrong ? You are not speaking scientifically now. You are speking like they did with Galileo Galilei, and I will answer to you like he did: If you prefer, I will say what you want, but the fact remains that the earth is going round the sun, not the other way around. Take care, and cure your eyes problem learning how the eyes should be used. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." I am not interested in starting a long discussion about this. I have seen many such arguments go on and on in these newsgroups and neither side ever convinces the other. I have neither the time nor the inclination to engage in that. I'm just going to make one more reply here and then you can have the last word. On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 Joe Stella wrote: >>You Bates people, on the other hand, have never produced >>any kind of controlled experimental proof that any of >>your techniques actually work. >The reason is that the so called scientific man that you >like so much have never been willing to do that. And never >will be, because they cannot stand even the remote (in their >mind) possibility of being wrong. It is not the responsibilty of science to prove or disprove everything that may be advanced by anyone. The burden of proof is upon the proponent of the theory. This requires a great deal of work, and most people either cannot or will not do this work. For example, in your case, you would have to do the following: 1) Find a number of people with various eye diseases. Their problems must be observable and measureable, i.e. like cataracts, refraction problems, etc. 2) Send these people to various eye doctors who can independently verify their eye problems. Don't worry about the doctors being "prejudiced" against you. You need not tell them what you are doing. In fact, it's better if you do not tell them, because then they are more objective. 3) Now you begin treating your patients. Since your techniques are so miraculous, they will begin improving in no time. 4) As soon as improvment starts, you bring them back to the doctors who will measure the improvement. They will wonder what is going on, they will ask how you are doing it. You don't have to tell them a thing. Just keep on going. 5) After all your patients now have perfect sight, and the doctors have verified this, you tell the doctors that you are going to publish your results and you would like to use their name in your paper. They will of course say yes; if some miracle cure is being discovered, of course they will want to be a part of it. 6) You can now publish your results, and because you have independent verification, science will be forced to take notice. This is how a controlled experiment is done. Bates' book has been out for what, 80 years now? Why has no one done this? Could it be that the "treatment" does not really work? Now please do not answer me by saying that I can find many people who will testify that Bates method cured their vision problem. That sort of thing means nothing. I can find many people who claim lots of things. Many people claim that they have been abducted by space aliens. Many people claim that Elvis is still alive and they have seen him and talked to him. Many people 25 years ago thought Jim Jones was a great man, a saviour, and all he gave them was a miserable life and a horrible death. On and on it goes. OK that's all I have to say about this. You and your friend Rishi can have the last word. Have fun. > 1) Find a number of people with various eye diseases. Their > problems must be observable and measureable, i.e. like cataracts, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > independent verification, science will be forced to take notice. > This is how a controlled experiment is done. Well said, Joe. Hear that, "Best, Otis, Engineer?" So logical! Too bad they won't listen! It's easier to criticize and complain than make the effort and take the risk that they are wrong. Otis likes to take the poor underdog position. Dear Joe, Subject: Science proof versus medical operations I am willing to accept the idea that the great mass of the population want there vision "sharpened" instantly -- and nothing else. Equally, I have spend a lot ot time reviewing that issue with the optometrists and medical doctors themselves. They explain that they do not have time to "support" prevention witht the plus because it takes time and effort of the person involved with it. THE "Bates" people In fact, I suggested on "i-see" that, the ones at -1/2 to -1.0 diopter do their own experiment -- under THEIR CONTROL. I suggest that they get their own eye-chart, and start reading it. The ones at 20/50 to 20/70 (about -3/4 dipoters) should "push" very hard with the "Bates" method and report their vision "clearing" by looking at that eye chart. Guess what? Not one of the "Bates" people would take that challenge seriously. This would be an "easy" case for them -- but I have no understanding of why they would not do it. Further, they could be supplied with a "trial-lens" kit so that THEY could measure their own refractive status (with some monitoring). Again, no interest. That is why I don't have much confidence in the "Bates" method. Indeed "Rishi" rejects the preventive method with the plus -- which separates his method from our advocacy for prevention. The "independent" minded people who have "pushed" witht the plus have in fact looked at their own eye chart -- and cleared to pass the required visual-standard -- under their own control. That is the difference. Best, Otis Engineer >Bates' book has been out for what, 80 years now? Why has >no one done this? Could it be that the "treatment" does not >really work? Look: you are again being not scientific. Have they proven that it doesn't work ? Where are the papers ? The methods and the scientifc work done to get to the treatment are all there to be verified. Nobody did that, so you cannot deduce that they don't work only because nobody proved them wrong nor right. >Now please do not answer me by saying that I can find many >people who will testify that Bates method cured their vision >problem. I'm not answering like that. I'm ansering that real scientific men should investigate the facts and not label it as quackery which is not. In fact they are wandering in the dark and in the long run they will turn to look at bates' discovery out of desperation. Man cannot stand too much suffering and when it will be really too much (and the current eye practice is really very wrong: everyone wears glasses, dark glasses are dangerous to eyesight and everybody wears them) the shift will happen. In the meantime a lot of time is being wasted. Except for few intelligent daring people that gambled on the methods and fully tried them without judging or crampling them and succeded. I'm one of them. I used the sun glass, I learned to look at the sun (It was absurd to me that such a thing could be done, I couldn't even stand looking at the bright sky near the sun, then I said "f.ck, this situation of not seeing things clearly has to end, it causes too much disconfort in the eyes and in the soul, I will do whatever is necessary" and looked at the sun, it was really too much to stand, it was really strong, then I was going to do it again when I said "what the f.ck, let's try the sun glass that is the exact thing that should relieve this problem, and ...wonder of wonders: the very first thing that happened was that my field of vision went blank, then blue, then I had perfect vision for a couple of seconds and understood the whole thing. The rest is history.) I did everything was described in the uncrippled original writings with an open mind (and not that idiotic though that goes like "If noone did this then it doesn't work"). >OK that's all I have to say about this. You and your friend >Rishi can have the last word. Have fun. You'd better listen to what we have to say if you care about your fisical and spiritual health. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." > There are many documented cases of people who have damaged > their eyesight by looking at the sun. A lot of these are > people who were looking at solar eclipses without proper > eye protection. Many of these people had perfect vision > beforehand. There are other cases too. This is simply not true. The fact that they had perfect sight is questionable. By the way there is a narticle in the Cincinnati Enquirer which reports a case of a person who was looking at the solare eclipse and cured her cataracts, after four operations did fail. You can look in the archives of the newspaper and read it. > You Bates people, on the other hand, have never produced > any kind of controlled experimental proof that any of > your techniques actually work. It is irrelevant, anybody can discard glasses and cure himself without the need of any controlled study (controlled by whom?) > It's amazing how you fanatics can manage to turn the > facts upside down and (seemingly) not even be aware that > you are doing it. You are doing this since 400 hundred years. And people is in misery. On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 Joe Stella wrote: > You Bates people, on the other hand, have never produced > any kind of controlled experimental proof that any of > your techniques actually work. >It is irrelevant, anybody can discard glasses and cure himself without >the need of any controlled study (controlled by whom?) Controlled by the person who is performing the experiment. The fact that you have to ask shows that you do not understand. See my most recent answer to your friend Evaristo for more explanation. Like I told your friend, I don't have the time or the inclination to carry this discussion on ad infinitum. Have fun with your last word. >Like I told your friend, I don't have the time or the inclination >to carry this discussion on ad infinitum. Have fun with your last >word. Then why did you spit your sentence ? You feel so much better with this holier-than-thou attitude ? You'd feel much much better with a clear vision ! Duh. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." > "Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.gatti@agora.it> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You personally guarantee that sungazing is effective for macular > degeneration, glaucoma, retinitis pigmentosa, myopia and presbyopia? Yes, there are many cases reported now. People is waking up. Sungazing is the medicine of this millennium. You are still in the past millennium, of course, given your retrograde conceptions about health, not only eye-health. The mass of stupidities you sell in your profession is really so much that it is unbelievable why people, your clients, do not kill you out of thier contempt. They come to you to get help, and what they get? Drugs, lenses, disrespectulf treatments, and their vision withers away in helplessness. WHAT is YOUR cure for "macular degeneration, glaucoma, retinitis pigmentosa, myopia and presbyopia?" NONE, NIL, ZERO. Perhaps you suggest prayers. You all are just criminals, who play not only with spectacles and patches, but also with drugs and lasers, and destroy people's life. Amazing! Rishi guarantees 100% cures for ARMD, macular degen, glaucoma, RP,presbyopia! The secret is out! Reports of success are busting out everywhere! We are lucky to be alive during this age of enlightenment. And to think the cure has been sungazing all along! Rishi-- what is the cause of solar retinitis? Is it the rath of the sun god Ra upon disbelievers? Can it be cured by sungazing "in the proper way". Exactly which combination of street drugs are you taking? Otis, please cut the B.S. Show that your method of myopia prevention works, or just respect those of us who actually understand these concepts. You have a website, you have a (mythical) study group, and you have some patients. Certainly, you have some concrete results by now. If so, then go along and get them published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific -- heck, even and engineering journal will suffice. It shouldn't be all that difficult. Or, is perhaps it is just easier be an armchair critic who can engage is intellectual sophistry from the safe confines of his living room without having to prove a thing..... DrG > Or, is perhaps it is just easier be an armchair critic who can engage > is intellectual sophistry from the safe confines of his living room > without having to prove a thing..... Yes, I think it is this and also something else. Otis has some deeper psychological issues as well. I believe Otis views himself as some kind of "knight-in-shining armour who is going to fight a crusade against the current medical paradigm and issue in a new age of myopia prevention where all children wear plus reading glasses in school." Perhaps he envisions his name being listed in the future pages of medical history as someone who "fought the good fight in order the improve the lives of the masses." Perhaps Otis' inadequacy, or nonacceptance by his peers, in his chosen career as an engineer is causing him to dabble in something else?? I also think Otis just likes to stir up some arguing. |
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.