 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2005Restoring vision from "School Myopia"
Dear Prevention minded friends, Subject: Current status in the "fight" to clear from a -2.75 diopter "prescription". History: Mike had been given a -1.5 dipoter lens (about 20/70) at age 10. At age 15, he was wearing a -2.75 D contact -- all the time (about 20/200). At that point he read a number of sites on "Bates" and other methods and decided to quit "cold turkey". When he checked his eye sight he found he could read 20/70 or so. After some work -- he could just-pass the 20/40 line. This is his current report. Vision clearing if VERY HARD WORK. It takes consistency and determination. It is not a "medical" process at all -- and can never be prescribed. The purpose of sci.med.vision is to share this type of success so we can learn from it. Obviously opinion vary about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. These results are consistent with studies of the dynamic nature of the adolescent primate eye. (Reference Dr. Francis Young) It is important to remember that the person making the measurement -- is the person who will believe the results of this "vision clearing" work. Enjoy, Otis _______________ Dear otis I have passed the 20/20 line 3 times this week! I do not read 20/20 all of the time. I am happy to report that I have been passing the 20/30 almost every time that I have checked. At about 9:30 to 10:00 at night is when I can read the 20/20. Because I am outside more I have noticed some changes in my vision. Going directly from a sunny bright day to reading my eyechart that is inside produces 20/50 20/60 vision. However going from a dark room to reading my eyechart produces 20/20. I am not sure whats going on. Could you explain why going from an excellent illuminated area (outdoors) to a moderately illuminated room (indoors) produces such bad vision. And why going from a dark room to a moderatly illuminated room produces 20/20 Thanks mike > It is important to remember that the person making > the measurement -- is the person who will believe > the results of this "vision clearing" work. Wow. Here I always thought that the person making the measurement is the person who should not be biased... w.stacy, o.d. > Wow. Here I always thought that the person making the measurement is the > person who should not be biased... Subjective results require subjective methods. -MT Very funny. I feel like I just checked into the Hotel California... such a lovely place... >>Wow. Here I always thought that the person making the measurement is the >>person who should not be biased... > > Subjective results require subjective methods. > > -MT > > Wow. Here I always thought that the person making the measurement is the > > person who should not be biased... > > Subjective results require subjective methods. > > -MT You may already know that a patient is a subjectivity and all the efforts you put in making it an objectivity to fit it into your "scientific" method are wrong and futile. The patient's subjectivity will rebel untill you will kill it. Eyeglasses indeed kill the subjectivity of people. Now let's see this so-called o.d. Mr. Stacy. It is evident he is a great idiot. His subjectivity has been killed by the eyeglasses he is so happy to wear. > You may already know that a patient is a subjectivity and all the > efforts you put in making it an objectivity to fit it into your > "scientific" method are wrong and futile. Will I be assimilated? -MT > -MT Why you go on signing "-MT" in the end of any message? It is not enough what appears in the line above the subject? Dear William, Thanks for your commentary. Are you saying you have no bias? In any event, this man has done more for prevention than you ever will. You treat people like dirt. If you respected this man you would praise him for his successful effort. I think you are profoundly bisaed -- and I would not trust your measurements. At the very minimuim, I would want this man to have a trial-lens kit to verify his refractive status also. You bias is that if the truth ever comes out about this subject, you entire "professional position", that the natural eye is not dynamic, goes "poof". Yes, you will not allow others (with training) to make their own measurements -- because you fear a public that will "wake up" to some of these issues. This man's visual future is now in his hands -- and under HIS (not your) control. Enjoy, Otis Engineer > Yes, you will not allow others (with training) to > make their own measurements -- because > you fear a public that will "wake up" to > some of these issues. Issues... like the risks for adolescent monkeys wearing excess minus? We're still waiting for your published study showing plus therapy prevents myopia in humans. Still waiting... still waiting... -MT >Dear William, > >Thanks for your commentary. > >Are you saying you have no bias? > I certainly have bias, like everyone. As a scientist/eyecare professional I have to fight every day against my own biases to remain as objective as possible. I think the worst observer of all is one who does not admit to being biased at all, or one who believes that they are completely unbiased, or one who simply does not know what bias is. >In any event, this man has done more for prevention >than you ever will. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > This man? Who is that, the "Mike" of your first post to this thread or who? >I think you are profoundly bisaed -- and I would not >trust your measurements. > > Actually, I'm fastidious in the objectivity of any measurements I make. Your distrust of me, whom you do not know, have never met, and certainly have never seen making any measurments, only reflects your own gigantic bias. >At the very minimuim, I would want this man to have a >trial-lens kit to verify his refractive status also. > > This man? Again, to whom do you refer? >You bias is that if the truth ever comes out about >this subject, you entire "professional position", >that the natural eye is not dynamic, goes "poof". > > I never said the eye is not dynamic. Perhaps your definition of dynamic is different than that of mainstream science??? >Yes, you will not allow others (with training) to >make their own measurements -- because >you fear a public that will "wake up" to >some of these issues. > Wrong again, you strike out. I often allow a patient to "make their own measurments". Very often. And I certainly do not fear the public waking up to anything that is truthful. >This man's visual future is now in his hands -- and under HIS (not >your) >control. > > Not only did you strike out, if you keep referring to this unnamed man in your writing, you're in danger of getting thrown out of the game. Please review this entire thread and tell me if you're not asking me to be a mind-reader, a clairvoyant, or what. w.stacy, o.d. >I never said the eye is not dynamic. Perhaps your definition of dynamic >is different than that of mainstream science??? . . . and now you see the best and only tactic of a truly desperate man. Whatever you say to Otis, he responds with some gibberish about "you not believing in the dynamic nature of the natural eye...." If you were to describe the mechanism of pseudomyopia and the various triggers of accommodation. Otis would respond with, "that's a medical, not scientific position, and you are denying the dynamic nature of the natural eye." Somewhere in his response would also be the term "box camera." Pure red herring crap. I've found some solace in the comments of the "lurkers" on this newsgroup who consistently say, in effect, "Don't worry. We know this guy's a raving kook." I've tried not to engage him of late. I think he's pret-ty far past his sell-by date anyway.... But . . . boy, it'd be nice if he and a couple of others would just form a little commune somewhere and leave s.m.v. alone. I can see it now . . . their little commune. I think I shall call it . . . emmetropia ;-) > The purpose of sci.med.vision is to share this type of > success so we can learn from it. No, you have usurped this newgroup to try to fit your zealot needs. Please repost this in alt.med.vision.improve and discuss it there. The Times newspaper reports that the London Moorfields Eye Hospital, acknowledged to know a thing or two about eyes is giving Lasek surgery to top fighter pilots to improve their night vision. This seems to contradict reports of adverse side effects of laser treatment which lowers night vision. Any comments anyone? Mr Stevens, the eye surgeon at Moorfields has done about 50 Lasek operations but claims that only 1 in 800 gives worse vision. He seems to possess a measure of second sight in making this prediction. The many denigrators of Otis Brown may be surprised to learn of a recent report in the Times newspaper. Professor O'Leary, an optometrist at Anglia Polytechnic University plans to fit five year olds with high tech contact lenses, custom built to iron out imperfections on the cornea and prevent myopia. He claims to be very excited by the prospects of his idea. Significantly the president of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists urges caution about the scheme. O'Leary says the object of his work is to identify myopia-prone children. Robin Parsons > The many denigrators of Otis Brown may be surprised to learn of a > recent report in the Times newspaper. Professor O'Leary, an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > children. > Robin Parsons Can I ask what performing research with proper controls in place has anything to do with Otis? Scott > The Times newspaper reports that the London Moorfields Eye Hospital, >acknowledged to know a thing or two about eyes is giving Lasek surgery >to top fighter pilots to improve their night vision. This seems to >contradict reports of adverse side effects of laser treatment which >lowers night vision. Any comments anyone? I'd like to see the article. It may be they are doing wave front laser which does have the possibility of improving night vision in anyone who has irregular or higher order aberrations. Theoretically, at least, it could provide better than "natural" eyesight, which would be handy for a combat pilot. Wave front can be done even on eyes that have no appreciable "lower order" problems such as myopia, hyperopia and astigmatism, which presumably would include many military pilots. >Mr Stevens, the eye surgeon >at Moorfields has done about 50 Lasek operations but claims that only 1 >in 800 gives worse vision. He seems to possess a measure of second >sight in making this prediction. > > Ha! I'd like to know where those numbers did come from, and what was meant by "worse vision". >The many denigrators of Otis Brown may be surprised to learn of a >recent report in the Times newspaper. Professor O'Leary, an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Sounds good, but I'd hate to be the one training those kids to handle the contacts... (not sure what that has to do with otis brown and his detractors) w.stacy, o.d. The Times newspaper? I would prefer to read it in The Lancet. DrG Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what treatment was available for myopia? Robin Parsons Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what treatment was available for myopia? Robin Parsons Dear Robin, The development of a "lens" has a long history. The first analytic effort was done by Johann Kepler about 1600. This applied "snells" law of refraction, and ASSUMED that the eye was a frozen box-camera. If you ask, what solution works "instantly", as a requirment, then clearly only the plus and minus "work" as currently used. The problem is blindly "accepting" that the box-camera "model" was ever proven -- at all. Best, Otis > The problem is blindly "accepting" that the box-camera "model" was ever > proven -- at all. You're welcome to present your evidence that wearing glasses alters the course of myopia. Instead you simply spout the same dogma over and over. Faith isn't science. -MT > If you ask, what solution works "instantly", as a requirment, then > clearly only the plus and minus "work" as currently used. > The problem is blindly "accepting" that the box-camera "model" was ever > proven -- at all. Dear Robin Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in the position to give any medical advice. Thank you! Allen snip >box-camera. snip >box-camera "model" was ever snip > Best, > Otis ========================== Dredging up the same old phrases again Otis, huh? Don't forget your favorite old bedtime story-- "The Printer's Son" Otis, your mind is static-- not "dynamic". With all the learned "input" that you get from specialists and scientists who have explained things to you in great detail, your only "output" is the same old cliche crap! PS-- and for good times sake, why not post a bunch of eyedocs names whom you claim are your good friends and colleagues (and who really don't know you from Adam or run from you when you're around). Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what treatment was available for myopia? Robin Parsons > Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what > treatment was available for myopia? One of the first records of minus used for nearsightedness was Pope Leo X in the 1500s. Before that, people squinted. "Plus lens therapy" has never been shown to work. Why is it relevant? -MT Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what treatment was available for myopia? Robin Parsons No treatment was available and none was necessary. None is really all that "necessary" today, unless of course the person wants to drive a car, fly a plane, etc. w.stacy, o.d. > Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what > treatment was available for myopia? > Robin Parsons Dear Robin, Before the invention of "reading" there was very little "myopia". Only the "educated" seemed to get into it. One researcher reported that amoung 10,000 soldiers (who could not read) hardly a handful was myopic. No, the natural eye just "moves negative" when: 1. You place it in a more confined visual enviroment and 2. Place a minus lens on it. Very basic, and scientifically confirmed behavior for the natural eye. No surprises there. Best, Otis Engineer > One researcher reported that amoung 10,000 soldiers (who could not > read) hardly a handful was myopic. Did that researcher know the meaning of "self-selecting sample?" > No, the natural eye just "moves negative" when: > > 1. You place it in a more confined visual enviroment and Granted. > 2. Place a minus lens on it. Doesn't happen in humans after puberty. Plus doesn't do anything either. Don't bluster. Find a citation. > Very basic, and scientifically confirmed behavior for the > natural eye. Contradicted by human studies. > No surprises there. It's surprising you can ignore so much research. Faith is not science. -MT Before the invention of minus lenses and plus lens therapy what treatment was available for myopia? Robin Parsons It's all wrong, the same old story. > The Times newspaper reports that the London Moorfields Eye Hospital, > acknowledged to know a thing or two about eyes is giving Lasek surgery [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > children. > Robin Parsons Dear Rishi, The ODs on sci.med.vision, say, show us just ONE case were: 1. The person was nearsighed -- as CONFIRMED by OD measurement. This "Mike" was MEASURED at -2.75 diopters. 2. Mike quit wearing the minus -- as STRONGLY advocated by our friend Dr. W. H. Bates. 3. After a great deal of PERSONAL work he gradually cleared his vision, first to 20/40, passing all legal requirments, and then to 20/20. The response of the OD's? So what -- who cares? This is pure "attitude". If you want to "protect" your vision, obviously you will have to figure out how to do it yourself --sad to day. Please remember that "Mike" had an thorough medical eye exam -- and had no problem. His natural an normal eyes had an "undesired" refractive state. To use the "antequated" term of these ODs, his eyes "emmetropized" in a positive direction, thus clearing his distant vision to 20/20. Enjoy! Otis Engineer > The ODs on sci.med.vision, say, show > us just ONE case were: This is a lie. Unlike you, we believe one-case anecdotes are not acceptable in determining whether a therapy has any value. The ODs on sci.med.vision want you to point to a single study showing a group of humans using your therapy compared to a group of people who didn't. When WE look up those studies, they say your therapy is worthless in humans. Like bluster and rhetoric, single-case studies are not adequate for proving the current medical standard wrong. -MT > To use the "antequated" term of these > ODs, his eyes "emmetropized" in a positive direction, thus clearing his > distant vision to 20/20. Dear vision prevention minded friends, Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and not in the position to give any medical advice. Thank you! Allen Dear Otis, Mike is an accommodative myope. They are out there. Keep looking and you'll find even more of them. If finding some patients like Mike leads you to conclude that therefore ALL MYOPES are accommodative myopes you will be sadly mistaken. But you are, and we already knew that. ============= > Dear Rishi, > The ODs on sci.med.vision, say, show [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Otis > Engineer |
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.