 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2005Myopia prevention
I found this information about myopia prevention very interresting Th Prevention of Myopia in School There's a lot more info about similar things in th library a the same [url=http://www.central-fixation.com/]web site[/url] Any comments anyone >I found this information about myopia prevention very interresting: > Any comments anyone? Yes, the not working Bates idea.  SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) PS, search in this newsgroup for Bates an discover why. >I found this information about myopia prevention very interresting: > > The Prevention of Myopia in Schools If it worked, it'd be more popular. -MT Dear HH078, Subject: Fine -- but do they work. There are three basis methods to deal with nearsighedness (a negative refractive state of the natural eye). 1. Put a minus lens on it. That is the method that was put in place 400 years ago. It great apeal is that is works instantly, and ALMOST everyone is happy with it. Who can argue with success? 2. However there were some "objectors". They are the "Bates" people, who argue that the situation is PREVENTABLE through "relaxation" or other methods. However, no consistent study has been run -- even under "best case" conditions. But if you can use it successfully -- do so, and let us know that you cleared your 20/50 vision to 20/20 -- in about three months or so. (We trust you to report accurately.) 3. The plus lens method. This method has a similary history to the "Bates" method. Since the plus produces no "obvious" result, it is discarded by "main stream" ODs and MDs, for the simple reason that it can never produce a "solution" in the 10 to 20 minutes an OD or MD can spend with you. Most are very dubious about anything that does not have an IMMEDIATE effect. The current situation remains unchanged for the last 70 years -- except a massive number of students are now nearsighed. In Taiwan, about 93 percent of the medical students are myopic. This suggests that "something must be done" -- except no one can figure out "what", except to add more minus. What are your thoughts on the subject? Enjoy, Otis Engineer > 3. The plus lens method. This method has a similary history to the > "Bates" method. Since the plus produces no "obvious" result, it is > discarded by "main stream" ODs and MDs, for the simple reason that it > can never produce a "solution" in the 10 to 20 minutes an OD or MD can > spend with you. Most are very dubious about anything that does not > have an IMMEDIATE effect. No-- you keep getting it wrong Otis. The plus lens method has been discarded by mainstream ODs and MDs because it has NOT BEEN PROVEN TO WORK. Quit trying to spin it any other way. If it doesn't work-- we won't do it! If you want us to start using it, prove that it works. Otherwise go away. >No-- you keep getting it wrong Otis. The plus lens method has been >discarded by mainstream ODs and MDs because it has NOT BEEN PROVEN TO WORK. >Quit trying to spin it any other way. If it doesn't work-- we won't do it! >If you want us to start using it, prove that it works. Otherwise go away. A similar lack of efficacy has consistently been noted in repeated, rational attempts to reason with, or enlighten, Otis ;-) Dear RM, No, you keep on getting it wrong. I agree that if you put a strong minus lens on a person, and his refractive states "stair-cases" downward, then indeed, when the person is falling though -3, -4, -5, -6, detached retina -- THEN the plus is not effective. If the plus is to be effective the person himself must decide to FORCEFULLY use it to clear his distant vision -- and stay out of it. But this is more a matter of a person's engineering and scientific judgment -- than it is a "medical" judgment. Best, Otis Engineer > I agree that if you put a strong minus lens on a > person, and his refractive states "stair-cases" downward, > then indeed, when the person is falling though > -3, -4, -5, -6, detached retina -- THEN the > plus is not effective. I don't believe this. Are you trying to claim that use of the plus lens will prevent a detached retina? SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >> I agree that if you put a strong minus lens on a >> person, and his refractive states "stair-cases" downward, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I don't believe this. Are you trying to claim that use of the plus lens >will prevent a detached retina? Dan, IIRC, your wife is now wearing the plus lens. Does she have a detached retina? I rest my case. Neil > >I don't believe this. Are you trying to claim that use of the plus lens > >will prevent a detached retina? > > Dan, > > IIRC, your wife is now wearing the plus lens. yes > Does she have a detached retina? no > I rest my case. You win. I concede. :-) SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > I don't believe this. Are you trying to claim that use of the plus lens > will prevent a detached retina? Nobody can claim anything because once you choose to follow one line of treatment, you cannot do any counter-proof in the future because the variable are changed so you cannot say anything. When you do double-blind, you may see some kind of effectiveness in any method you use, if you trick your data well, but you cannot say WITH WHOM the method will be effective or not. So this is tricky business. The ODs know this very well and prosperate on the gullibility of people. So what? > I agree that if you put a strong minus lens on a > person, and his refractive states "stair-cases" downward, Not proven nor even remotely supported by any evidence anywhere > then indeed, when the person is falling though > -3, -4, -5, -6, detached retina -- THEN the > plus is not effective. So you believe this is the logical course of using a plus lens? Gee- then about 30% of the US populations should have detached retinas. 70% in the far east. > But this is more a matter of a person's engineering > and scientific judgment -- than it is a "medical" judgment. You have one bizarre brain there Otis! > I found this information about myopia prevention very interresting: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Any comments anyone? Please, pay attention. The idiot that designed that software was here on this list for some time. The software he has devised is absolutely bogus, if not injurious. The swing is to be learned by the reader by means of his own mental work with the imagination. If you use his software, chances are that you become more staring, since the work it is done by the software and not by the reader. Pay attention to the false teachers who are all around. Poor dr. Bates has been destroyed in life and now even in death, thanks to these idiots who put his name near their outrageous and dirty work. I suspect also that the quotes he reports from the website are false and abused. The very mind of the writer of that website is against the principles of the true cure. It's really absurd what the wickend minds out there may invent... > I found this information about myopia prevention very interresting: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Any comments anyone? This group will only discourage you.There are better groups on yahoo. Yahoo Groups...LINKS - Focus On...Vision Training Yahoo Group...PerfectSight Yahoo groups...Bates Method Yahoo groups...I See Yahoo Group...Visionsenz Yahoo Group...NVI-Natural Vision Improvement > This group will only discourage you.There are better groups on yahoo. > Yahoo Groups...LINKS - Focus On...Vision Training [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yahoo Group...Visionsenz > Yahoo Group...NVI-Natural Vision Improvement Yes and please follow your own advise Bye.......................... SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Dear Jan, Please do not be offended -- but I must respond to your commentary. In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) In conclusion, I say, "...forgive them ... for they know not what they do". Rishi does have his "point" about this 400 year-old traditional method -- that claims that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of a population of natural eyes. Just run the test (under scientific, not medical) conditions -- and verify the results youself -- if you don't believe them. Otis (normally engineering common-sense spoken) > Dear Jan, > > Please do not be offended By you? Must be a joke..... > In conclusion, I say, "...forgive them ... for they know not what they > do". Better, you do not know what you are talking about Otis. Nor scientificaly either medical speaking. > Otis (normally engineering common-sense spoken) A one way story teller Otis, that's what you really are. SignatureFree to Marcus Porcius Cato: ''Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" In conclusion, I think that the "Otis therapy" should be destroyed Jan (normally Dutch spoken) |
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.