 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2005-23 D under self-treatment: progress update
Today I helped my young client to read outdoors. After the use of the sun-treatment and the solar glass she was able to read license plates with numbers and letters 9 cm tall at a distance of 15 meters. Also she was able to read a big sign with a number 26 (50 cm tall) at a distance of 50 meters. Very good! http://TheCentralFixation.com Very Roughly: 9 cm at 15 meters 3.6 cm at 6 meters Maybe 20/100 or so on an "day" eye-chart -- if your numbers are correct. Keep us posted. Best, Otis > Keep us posted. I met her at the station this morning and visibly her eyes were quite bulging outside, expecially the weaker one, and quite closed, the upper eyelids covered the upper part of the iris. Then in late afternoon the eyes were more normal, less bulging, and she could see herself in a mirror and praise herself for her nice work. Also the pupils were less dilated. This case is very interesting because the girl (a graduated biologist with a doctorate in genetics) is determined to be cured, and soon, and is willing to cope with the treatment and follow Dr. Bates guidelines in full. She is doing sun-gazing with the HRM protocol, too. She has never worn any kind of eyeglasses anymore since Jan 1st. I don't know why the so-called learned men here do not treat the Bates treatment as scientific. It is truly 100% scientific: if you DO it, you get ALWAYS results. And if you CONTINUE to do it, in the end you will get a cure, always. I mean that science is a collection of reproducible facts. It is quickly and easily reproducible, the fact that after removing the glasses and started treatment, letters come out of the snellen chart with mathematical security, if you follow the directions. See you later. Dear Rishi, Going from -23 diopters to 20/100 seems impossible. But, maybe, as the ODs will tell you, she had "muscle spasm" myopia, or perhaps "pseudo-myopia". It might be that her genetics "pre-programed" her vision to "clear", at the same time she was working to clear her vision. She has the "physics" backgrond for this type of analysis. What does she think of her efforts? Enjoy! Otis Engineer We have researched this case and can now confirm that there was a slight error in the original reporting. Was was written as -23.00 D. was actually -00.23 D. Rishi, who is an astrologist by trade, sends her apologies. > Dear Rishi, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Otis > Engineer > Going from -23 diopters to 20/100 seems impossible. To me is just science applied to intelligence. > But, maybe, as the ODs will tell you, she > had "muscle spasm" myopia, or perhaps > "pseudo-myopia". Yes, I am interested in how much this effect can be. I have read on this board of learned people that 5 dioptres is the limit. > It might be that her genetics "pre-programed" > her vision to "clear", at the same time > she was working to clear her vision. That's may be reasonable, but we know that if she stops treatment and takes glasses again, she will lose her improvements. > She has the "physics" backgrond for this > type of analysis. Of course she truly has it, indeed. > What does she think of her efforts? She was shocked to see the license plates with such an easiness. Now she has to decide if she may devolve the right time to treatment and get a sabbatical semester from her studies or continue her studies full time and neglect the treatment. I hope she will choose the best track, which is --- to me --- quite clear. I have pictures of her practicing with the small chart at one foot, you could see the eyes bulging out so there are no questions about the stupid answer this MASTER IDIOT MR. STACY has just published hereafter. But pictures will be published at the end of the cure. However, auto-refractometer papers are available to be seen. If you are interested, I will post them. She probably was over-prescribed by Rishi's cousin, Rushi, over in Palermo. I have also noticed that Rishi has taught this poor unfortunate how to squint and how to make her pupils tiny in order to improve her sight. DrG > I have also noticed that Rishi has taught this poor unfortunate how to > squint and how to make her pupils tiny in order to improve her sight. I have her not taught anything, she just practised with me the methods Dr. Bates, a lifetime ophthalmologist and discoverer of adrenalin, has written in his book, The Cure of Imperfect Sight by Treatment Without Glasses, which I have reprinted in English and also translated into Italian (this for the first time in the world). By the way, her eyes were partially closed, thanks for your ugly treatment of 23 years which producec just a continue degradation of her vision AND or her eyes. If there was Mussolini alive, you would have been jailed because of your weakeing of the race by the spectacles prescription you so blindily give instead to teach patients what is the problem and its solution. Fast variability in pupils width is just a sign of mental strain. people with perfect sight have not such kind of variability in pupil size. This check anyone can do. Take a patient with perfect sight and no discomfort from the sunlight and you will see. Please, mind your own business, blacklist me and get lost. Dear Rishi, RM and DrG requested that the Italian "authorities" bring strong measures against the "guilty" party. But I am not certain whether that is you -- or the OD who over-prescribed the woman by -20 or so diopters. The "jury" remains "out". Best, Otis Engineer >Dear Rishi, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Otis >Engineer Check under your pillow, Otis. It's quite possible that the tooth fairly left you money, too. > RM and DrG requested that the Italian "authorities" bring strong > measures against the "guilty" party. If Mussolini was alive, these two strong idiots would have been put in jail long before, due to their stupidity and weakening of the race. > But I am not certain whether that is you -- or the OD who > over-prescribed the woman by -20 or so diopters. The woman was not "over-prescribed". She was just treated according the "law" and got disturbed day after day, the more the prescription, the more the disturb. After removing the 23 D convex glasses, the poor girl could not see anything more far than 5 or 10 cm. Now she walks in the streets 6 km per day to go to work, and I am confident that in a few weeks she will be able to run her bicycle. > The "jury" remains "out". The "jury" is just the intelligence of the readers. We go on here in listening to stories of complaint from the disgrace of this "science". Today I went to another client who told me a story of ophthalmic migraine. She was very precise in telling me that in 30 years of treatments with physicians, NEVER SHE GOT ANY BENEFIT WHATEVER. I explained to her the benefits of true palming (the sue of the mind and memory to silence pain), pinpointing the chapters in the book of Dr. Bates where this is outlined. I am sure she will do fairly well because when she recognized that this was a trick which was never mentioned to her but was sound, she smiled. Then her grandchildren of three years came running in sight and I suggested her to practice the remembrance of the little boy, his smile, his voice, etcetera. The old lady was even more excited to try this "new" technique. I understand that we are doing mostly religious or philosophical work, in fact, I am sorry. It's not medicine nor science. This newsgroup is not fit for my messages. I see. See you later. http://TheCentralFixation.com >> RM and DrG requested that the Italian "authorities" bring strong >> measures against the "guilty" party. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Now she walks in the streets 6 km per day to go to work, and I am >confident that in a few weeks she will be able to run her bicycle. Another chapter in "The Further Episodes of Rishi's Streetwalker Girlfriend...." >We go on here in listening to stories of complaint from the disgrace of >this "science". Rishi, if you could read, you would notice that you *never* read about a commercial airplane flight, filled with passengers, that took off and landed safely. What makes the headlines are the cases where things go wrong. Millions (dare I say probably closer to a billion) have been well served by optometrists, opticians, and ophthalmologist. I'm wondering how many fictitious patients you have swindled in your day..... >Today I went to another client who told me a story of ophthalmic >migraine. I think she was implying that you give her a headache. >She was very precise in telling me that in 30 years of treatments with >physicians, NEVER SHE GOT ANY BENEFIT WHATEVER. Well, it's tough to say whether that amusing little anecdote is longer on credibility or on detail. Hmmmm. >I understand that we are doing mostly religious or philosophical work, >in fact, I am sorry. It's not medicine nor science. This newsgroup is >not fit for my messages. I see. No. Of course it's not. You're the only one that doesn't seem to realize that. Now that you claim to, will you leave? I'll give you a dollar. Or a Euro . . . or some Lira . . . . No, it just turned out to be a clerical error. Those pesky decimal points. I'm sure she will correct it publicly very soon. Rishi also has a very nice selection of pinhole glasses for sale that she also uses to determine progress with Bates. Very stylish. She sells them from her astrology site, along with the Bates reprints. Quite the businesswoman. w.stacy, o.d. > She probably was over-prescribed by Rishi's cousin, Rushi, over in > Palermo. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > DrG The reason we originally suspected the error was the incidence of myopia that high is so rare as not to be believed. I've seen about 10,000 people (20,000 eyes) in my many years of practice, and the highest myope I ever encountered was -19.00, about 20 years ago. From time to time I see -12.00 to -15.00, but never have I personally seen a -23.00. I wonder how many o.d.s on this group have seen -23.00 in their years of practice? If you answer this, please post approx. the # of eyes you've seen along with the highest myopias you've seen. w.stacy, o.d. p.s. the other reason we suspected an error is that a 23 D. myope's eye is about 8 mm too long for its optical system. To achieve emmetropia the eye will have to shrink almost a centemeter, or the cornea will have to be flattenet 8 diopters (can you imagine that?), or a clear lens exchange would be required. Mr. Stacy, please, stop this bullshit. The fact that YOU, out of your ignorance, have not seen a -23 D myopic case does not mean that at least one of your peers could not prescribe it! In fact, the eye of the young girl is manifestly bulging out, but after self-treatment with Dr. Bates' sun-glass, the eye appeared sincerely MUCH better. Today this intelligent girl has phoned me her improvements. She practiced with the big Snellen chart at 10 feet and could see the line of 20 feet (with both eyes together, one eye is less myopic by 4 dioptres than the other, last measurement with the auto-refractometer was -16 and -20). A very great progress indeed. This girl will be cured. I promise my dedicated effort in helping her to overcome your malicious practise. This is for the record. > The reason we originally suspected the error was the incidence of myopia > that high is so rare as not to be believed. I've seen about 10,000 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > p.s. the other reason we suspected an error is that a 23 D. myope's eye > is about 8 mm too long for its optical system. To achieve emmetropia > the eye will have to shrink almost a centemeter, or the cornea will have > to be flattenet 8 diopters (can you imagine that?), or a clear lens > exchange would be required. A while ago I asked if the o.d.s (or o.m.d.s if any are out there) would post their highest myopia corrections, out of approximately how many patients they had seen (not during school, residency, etc. where the most outrageous Rx come) in practice. Haven't seen any reports. Reiterating my -19.00 (it was approximately O.U.) out of over 10,000 patients. Or have all the docs been scared off by that pinhole pusher? w.stacy, o.d. > A while ago I asked if the o.d.s (or o.m.d.s if any are out there) would > post their highest myopia corrections, out of approximately how many > patients they had seen (not during school, residency, etc. where the > most outrageous Rx come) in practice. Haven't seen any reports. > Reiterating my -19.00 (it was approximately O.U.) out of over 10,000 > patients. Or have all the docs been scared off by that pinhole pusher? I am glad that nobody was so injured by your malicious practice, except this poor intelligent young lady. This, however, does not negate her disease. She is curing herself and she will succeed. This is for the record. Dear Rishi, It boggles my mind to find that this 28 year-old woman has a -23 diopter prescription -- and can read in the reange of 20/100 to 20/70. The rough translation between visual acuity and a "correcting" lens is about 70 (feet) to 1 diopter, or the power (average) used to clear from 20/70 to 20/20 is about 1 diopter. Thus -23 diopters is about 20/1600. WOW! What happened. What when wrong with the "prescription" process. Why was her vision not checked under "room" illumination. The ODs sneer at your statements -- but I think they don't what to know about these "situations". You should protect this woman's privacy -- but it would be interesting to see the "refractive" history you posted for her. I am very pleased that she can see 20/100 -- almost clear enough to work with out glasses. Best, Otis Hmmm...interesting that Otis believes Rishi. Speaks volumes about you, Otis. DrG Dear DrG, I believe what I see in print. That is what I suggest. In fact one man, a Mr. Romish, had a "prescription" of -4.5 and -4.25 diopters. He has overheard me talking about true-prevention and attempted to "clear" on his own -- with out talking to me! In a way -- I am glad he did -- because I did not believe he could clear from that "level" of a prescription. He obtained a strong plus lens -- and begin working with it --as well as PERSONLLY checking his own eye chart. His eye chart reading was FAR BETTER that this "prescription". After some work (intensive) he began to read the 20/40 line (close) on the eye chart. I suggested he go to the DMV and attempt to pass the required LEGAL line. He failed. He continued working and "pushing print" after a few more weeks he went back and PASSED the DMV! I was so shocked, I asked him to give me BOTH his prescription AND his driver license test. I have both. Those are the fact. I am certain you will figure out some way to "spin" the for your own benifit. Whether Rishi has these records -- I do not know. But from the above -- I will give him the benifit of the doubt. Enjoy, Otis Do you not also take advantage of those who believe what they see in print? How are your motives any different? I know enough to know what I cannot believe when I see it in print, and I cannot believe anything that comes from Rishi. I give you a little more credit for at least paying attention to science. DrG > I cannot believe when I see it in print, and I cannot believe anything > that comes from Rishi. First of all, your eyesight is defective. So if you were really scientific, would have admitted your inaccuracy in the first place, your perception are altered by the imperfect sight you suffer from. This deranges your mind against the truth: the world you see behind your glasses is an illusion, it is not "true", it is optically distorted. > I give you a little more credit for at least paying attention to > science. Good. > In fact one man, a Mr. Romish, had a "prescription" of > -4.5 and -4.25 diopters. Dear prevention minded friends. Please disregard Otis's postings. He is not in the medical profession and in no position to evaluate a patients vision acuity. In addition it appears that he makes up subjects or patients names as he goes along. Thank you! Allen [Bull$hit snipped] >Those are the fact. I am certain you will figure out >some way to "spin" the for your own benifit. Naw. That's just you spinning yarns again. Your spelling really sucks these days, Otis. Wearing a little too much of the ol' plus lens, are we? > You should protect this woman's privacy -- but it would be > interesting to see the "refractive" history you posted for her. I will erase her surname, but the prescription are there. She is very well known in her little town. > I am very pleased that she can see 20/100 -- almost clear > enough to work with out glasses. She can see 10/20 in flashes indoors with a good electring light on the eyechart. Outdoors in the sun, she has seen in flashes a 50 meters distant big sign we have in the Fiera Milano to mark pavillons. The sign was at least half a meter big and was a white "26" on a black background. She works and does everything without glasses since almost four months now. She testifies that computer work is very tiring and her vision deteriorates easily. But if she practices rest methods she recovers quickly a degree of better vision quite easily. I will send you a small picture privately, please do not divulgate it. Dear Rishi, Notice how these ODs attack ANYONE who asks questions -- they do not like? The questioned the Ph.D. ability to read a prescription of -23 diopters? The questioned her ability to read 20/100 in daylight. The totally ignored the "stair-case" prescriptions she received starting at the age of five. While we may disagree on some points (hell everyone does) we do agree that steps must be taken to institute "change". Clearly, a method put in use 400 years ago could not have had much "science" behind it. And that fact has not changed since then. So I believe in the data points you have supplied. I only wish she had received information on "preventive methods" at age five, rather that being put through all this. Also, please remember that Dr. Bates was a scientist. So respect science (verus medicine) on that basis. At least David DeAnglis, Stirling Colgate, Steve Leung, Fred Deakins are working towards a clearer "second opinion" when these methods can be effective. In fact, I only care that you are informed of these preventive methods -- and the FINAL choice made by the individual himself, or the parents if the child is young. A scientist with an open-mind will agree this this is wise -- under the circumstances. Best, Otis > > You should protect this woman's privacy -- but it would be > > interesting to see the "refractive" history you posted for her. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > I will send you a small picture privately, please do not divulgate it. > The questioned the Ph.D. ability to read a prescription > of -23 diopters? Today she has discovered her FIRST vision acuity test at age 5: one tenth of vision. Corrected with -3 D and -2 D minus lenses. We will see what is the development of her self-treatment. >Dear Rishi, > >Notice how these ODs attack ANYONE who asks questions -- they >do not like? Actually, they question assertions that seem totally incredible, or that go against all that has been studied, accepted, and proven. In other words: if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. If it actually *was* true, it would be easy to prove using scientifically (there ya' go, Otis: science!) accepted methods. Some have termed this (catchy, too) the "Scientific Method." Here: I'll post a link to its explanation again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Now you have no excuse to continue to simply come on here and spin silly yarns. I have provide you, a self-proclaimed scientist, with a road map for proving out your hypotheses. >The questioned the Ph.D. ability to read a prescription >of -23 diopters? The did? >The questioned her ability to read 20/100 in daylight. The did?? >The totally ignored the "stair-case" prescriptions >she received starting at the age of five. The DID??? >While we may disagree on some points (hell everyone >does) we do agree that steps must be taken to >institute "change". Change . . . from something proven to help people to something that has *not* been proven to help people? They'll be beating a path to your door.... >Clearly, a method put in use 400 years ago could >not have had much "science" behind it. >And that fact has not changed since then. Yeah, like Newton's Laws of Motion. A bunch of hooey that the plus lens could reverse in a New York minute. Old science is *always* wrong, right? >So I believe in the data points you have supplied. And, incidentally, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy. All patients of Otis's and Rishi's. Don't be surprised, kids, if they can't find your house next time.... >So respect science (verus medicine) on that basis. What does that mean? Anything?? >At least David DeAnglis, Stirling Colgate, Steve Leung, >Fred Deakins are working towards a clearer "second >opinion" when these methods can be effective. And if/when they get there, people will use it. You, OTOH, are working toward nothing. You just continue to use blind faith to push an untested hypothesis on the unsuspecting. >In fact, I only care that you are informed of these >preventive methods -- and the FINAL choice made >by the individual himself, or the parents if >the child is young. A scientist with an >open-mind will agree this this is wise -- under >the circumstances. So, if you are diagnosed with wet AMD, are you going to seek out the advice of an electrical engineer? If children that you knew were diagnosed with end-stage leukemia, would you advise that they disregard the advice of the oncologist, and instead seek out a retired COBOL programmer for help? People should be empowered to make decisions regarding their own medical care. Empowerment comes in the form of accurate information and "proof" (see "Scientific Method" above). Those who take their kids to exorcists and faith healers to cure cancer bury their kids. Right now, those who listen to you are negligent . . . and could conceivably be deemed so by the courts if any medical harm arose to their kids. It is incumbent on *you* to offer proof, according to the generally accepted scientific method. Until then . . . charlatan . . . snake-oil salesman . . . bad, bad man. You are hurting people here with your uninformed tripe. Please stop. I'll send you a dollar. Really. Enjoying our conversation about the dynamic nature of the natural eye (what the he** does that mean??) Neil >So, if you are diagnosed with wet AMD, are you going to seek out the >advice of an electrical engineer? > > These guys would avoid real doctors to the bitter end, unless they are true charlatans and *know* they are selling snake oil. If the first case is true, they are probably going to eventually do themselves harm in their own medical care. If the second is true, they will seek out real docs when it comes to themselves, but eventually they burn in hell for what they've knowingly done to innocent victims. Kind of reminds me of Linus Pauling. A great man in his own field. He figured if he were great in nuclear physics, he could do well in the medical field with his mega-vitamin ideas. I think Otis is another Pauling; means well but his education was too narrow to extend beyond his field without complete re-education in the biological sciences. Gatti, on the other hand, is a complete fraud in everything he's done, and most certainly is heading for a hot time... w.stacy, o.d. > Gatti, on the other hand, is a complete fraud in everything he's done, > and most certainly is heading for a hot time... I am. Just today or "Garante Privacy" has ruled that I have all the favour of the law in communicating the existence of my edition of the book of Dr. Bates. The judgement was started in 2002, when an idiot filed complaint against me because I had e-mailed him the fact that the book was just published and he finally would have found there the exact procedures to do for curing his -8 D myopic condition. After 2 years and a half, the council ruled against him, affirming that I did well in informing him about the publishing of the book of Dr. Bates. But the time is getting hot indeed. If this lady succeeds, as it will happen, you are out. >> Gatti, on the other hand, is a complete fraud in everything he's >done, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I did well in informing him about the publishing of the book of Dr. >Bates. Please point us to a link for that ruling. Since it's public information, that shouldn't be too difficult. I'd be quite interested in the specifics. I have a sneaking suspicion that--if there *was* *any* such ruling at all, you've -- what's the word? -- lied -- about the facts. Just a hunch.... > Actually, they question assertions that seem totally incredible, or > that go against all that has been studied, accepted, and proven. But what do you DIRECTLY know about what has been studied, accepted and proven??? What has been proven? In the book published by Dr. Bates in 1920, which I have translated into Italian and reprinted into English since 3 years now, there are SCIENTIFIC references to many cases observed of afakic eyes which could accomodate for near and distant vision. This in different parts of the world. Now, ONE simple case is what shatters your old theories. Since your theories are shattered, and wrong, there is no logical nor scientific nor medical hindrance to the fact that this girl is curing herself. There is no need of any argument: the facts are facts. >> Actually, they question assertions that seem totally incredible, or >> that go against all that has been studied, accepted, and proven. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >What has been proven? I *love* sitting on *this* side of the fence. Watch how easy it is when you believe in facts, not fiction: You tell me, Rishi: what *has* been *proven*, especially about the Bates book? I'll wait here. You go make up some more stories.... >>> Actually, they question assertions that seem totally incredible, or >>> that go against all that has been studied, accepted, and proven. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I'll wait here. You go make up some more stories.... You think you are smart, but you don't realize that your limiting belief are what makes you suffer and cripples your natural intelligence. Think about it: why in the hell it could not be that curing your eyes requires yourself to be involved ? Have you some inferiority complex ? Aren't you able to think with your head and you prefer to stay at ease with the conclusion of the so called professionals, so that your ego (and theirs) are safe ? Wake up! What if you try and fail ? It means that Bates was wrong or that you cannot do it ? How could be possible that someone like you doesn't understand something ? It cannot be. You are such an intelligent person, in fact, you are the most intelligent amongst people, you secretly know it, but it is not good to say it out loud. I think you are very fortunate to be so intelligent. I wish I were like you. Evaristo. PS: do you know how black is black ? It's very very black. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." I'm also reminded of the $1000 bet placed right here on this news group several years ago. The scientific minded person who *believed* she could reduce her 4.0 D. of myopia by Bates and every other holistic method she could find, and accepted the bet, lost because she couldn't reduce her myopia even by 0.50 D. in over a year of serious effort, and up 'til the moment of the second refraction, she *thought* she had improved "at least a little". Like someone, somewhere said, "the facts are facts", and her refraction was, as expected, THE SAME, UNCHANGED. I'll be glad to sponsor another such bet. All the subject has to do is obtain a cycloplegic refraction by me or by someone I trust (really any legally practicing o.d. or o.m.d.). Then a year later, have it done again. Any meaningful reduction will be nicely rewarded. Any failure will cost the subject and/or their sponsor. It's time to put up or shut up. Money talks, bullshit walks. w.stacy, o.d. >I'm also reminded of the $1000 bet placed right here on this news group >several years ago. The scientific minded person who *believed* she [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >will cost the subject and/or their sponsor. It's time to put up or shut >up. Money talks, bullshit walks. WHOA! RISHI . . . do you understand this? The words are relatively small, so there *is a chance* that you do. This is like 765 Euros on the line here, Pal. This should be a strong-side layup for you, pal. Hop to it! Think of all the ouija boards you could buy with that kind of scratch.... I am not interested in 765 eur, it is not even enough to pay for my flat monthly rent. But if the girl succeeds, and she will do it, we will have to open an Institute, then there will be the need of big money to assist seriously people willing to learn for themselves the true science behind the cure of imperfect sight. It wont' be a medical institution, of course. Given the absolute failure of medical men in this kind of cure, we don't need them anymore. > will cost the subject and/or their sponsor. It's time to put up or shut > up. Money talks, bullshit walks. It'd be worth a couple hundred to find an aphake who can accommodate. -MT > It'd be worth a couple hundred to find an aphake who can accommodate. > > -MT Dr. Bates' book is on pdf for free, and perhaps it is rendered so that you can read the notes with references to many cases of aphakic eyes in the whole world who could accomodate without changing the glasses. Why don't you take a look? > Dr. Bates' book is on pdf for free, and perhaps it is rendered so that > you can read the notes with references to many cases of aphakic eyes in > the whole world who could accomodate without changing the glasses. > > Why don't you take a look? Because I've seen more aphakes than Dr. Bates. -MT > Because I've seen more aphakes than Dr. Bates. I was referring not to the aphakes seen by Dr. Bates, but of those seen by other O.D. in the whole world, reported by Dr. Bates as of printed on scientific literature. Anyway, A SINGLE CASE shatters your theories. This single case was presented in several cities in America, read Dr. Bates book and then disprove the facts if you are able. Do you agree with me that A SINGLE CASE shatters??? > Do you agree with me that A SINGLE CASE shatters??? No. -MT > > Do you agree with me that A SINGLE CASE shatters??? > > No. You are against logic, then, and you say you are scientific??? >> > Do you agree with me that A SINGLE CASE shatters??? >> >> No. > >You are against logic, then, and you say you are scientific??? Well, there is such a thing as the "Scientific Method," Rishi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method Sigh. There's so much you have to learn. Maybe I should give you information about the term "sample size." (OTIS: take note) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size Here's a good way to calculate the needed sample size to produce a given confidence level for a given population size: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm Now remember, Rishi: even with an adequate sample size, lying *always* violates the scientific method . . . so you're going to have to stop that. I hope that doesn't cause too much cognitive dissonance for you. Ciao for now.... > You are against logic, then, and you say you are scientific??? We don't believe you. -MT If you get the case published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal, I might actually read it. However, the chances of that happening are negligible. In order for it to happen, your case would be subject to real scientific scrutiny. Your work falls outside of the work of science (along with the work of Otis, I might add). Is there a journal for faith healers? DrG >Do you agree with me that A SINGLE CASE shatters??? > > It certainly would call generally accepted science into question. But like all single case testamonials, it would have to be carefully scrutinized under scientific conditions to be acceptable to anyone. Everyone can make a mistake, even bates. w.stacy, o.d. > > It'd be worth a couple hundred to find an aphake who can accommodate. > Dr. Bates' book is on pdf for free, and perhaps it is rendered so that > you can read the notes with references to many cases of aphakic eyes in > the whole world who could accomodate without changing the glasses. Let me guess. They can only "accomodate" under very bright light?  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net > I'll be glad to sponsor another such bet. All the subject has to do is > obtain a cycloplegic refraction by me or by someone I trust (really any > legally practicing o.d. or o.m.d.). Then a year later, have it done > again. Any meaningful reduction will be nicely rewarded. Any failure > will cost the subject and/or their sponsor. It's time to put up or shut > up. Money talks, bullshit walks. I don't understand how you could do this bet. My myopia spontaneously improved during some period of my life, by a significant amount. If we had this bet going during that period, you would have lost. I have completely eliminated my myopia, which is pretty amazing since I was -12D and -10D at the worst. I am now plano in both eyes. How did I do it? I got cataract in both eyes, and when they fixed it, they eliminated the myopia as a side benefit. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote in news:dabel-2104051524290001@ssu- 64en129.sonoma.edu: > I don't understand how you could do this bet. My myopia spontaneously > improved during some period of my life, by a significant amount. If we > had this bet going during that period, you would have lost. To win, you would have had to predict your improvement a year in advance. Scott I'm not going to lay out every single detail of the wager unless someone gets serious about it; someone who wants to research dejanews could probably find them. My biggest worry was that somone would take the bet, have PRK and try to collect. This time around I would want orbscans done and they'd lose the bet if their corneas showed the characteristic postop pattern of lasik or prk. Obviously cataract surgery, clear lens exchange, or phakic iols would be easily detectable and would cost them the bet. The wager is all about the non surgical, non spectacle, and non contact lens treatments of structural myopia. w.stacy, o.d. >dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote in news:dabel-2104051524290001@ssu- >64en129.sonoma.edu: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Scott > > dabel@sonic.net (Dan Abel) wrote in news:dabel-2104051524290001@ssu- > 64en129.sonoma.edu: > > I don't understand how you could do this bet. My myopia spontaneously > > improved during some period of my life, by a significant amount. If we > > had this bet going during that period, you would have lost. > To win, you would have had to predict your improvement a year in advance. True, but my point was that all you need to do to lose (for the OD) is to be unlucky. I can't see why the OD would make the bet. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >True, but my point was that all you need to do to lose (for the OD) is to >be unlucky. I can't see why the OD would make the bet. > Because it's a sure thing. After 35 years in this business, I just don't see much structural myopia change for the better. The sole exception is the diabetic who's sugar is high at the first exam, then more in line at the second. I will require normal blood glucose tests before and after, and any major variation between the two will nullify the bet. We are talking complete cycloplegia on these refractions, so that accommodative tonus is ruled out. I'd also want only people between the age of 21 and 35 as subjects, as there is commonly some slight reduction in myopia in early presbyopia, and kids shouldn't bet. w.stacy, o.d. > Because it's a sure thing. After 35 years in this business, I just So, despite your 35 years on business, you was never aware to help anybody cure their eye troubles? What business is yours? I'm going to break my promise and respond directly, since you broke your habit momentarily in your last post and actually acknowledged some error in your reports being possible. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thousands of them. Of course our definitions of cure are different. I figure if the patient comes to me with a complaint, and when I'm done with them the complaint(s) are gone or satisfied, it's a cure. It's what I do, along with trying to prevent blindness, which still unfortunately is not being done everywhere. >What business is yours? > to find out, click on http://www.obase.net or http://www.folsomeye.com w.stacy, o.d. > I'm going to break my promise and respond directly, since you broke your > habit momentarily in your last post and actually acknowledged some error > in your reports being possible. Saying this, you show just your idiot-ness, nothing else. > Thousands of them. Of course our definitions of cure are different. I Please, don't lie. You know perfectly well that you have NOTHING IN YOUR HANDS to help people overcome their imperfect sight. > figure if the patient comes to me with a complaint, and when I'm done > with them the complaint(s) are gone or satisfied, it's a cure. It's Please, again, don't lie. A patient comes to you with imperfect sight. You, instead of teaching him how to restore his normal vision, give him a pair of eyeglasses. These eyeglasses appear to fix the problem but they instead aggravate it. Because when the patient removes the eyeglasses, his vision is MUCH WORSE than before. This is true in 100% of cases. > what I do, along with trying to prevent blindness, which still > unfortunately is not being done everywhere. This again shows your ignorance. Dr. Bates cured many cases of blindness. Not all, he said that only MOST cases are curable. A friend of mine who overcame her +3,5 hypermetropic condition helped a girl of 12 with blindness to see half the four meters chart at one foot distance, and recognize the presence of people in a room and the color of the bigger objects in the room, in just half an hour of mental treatment into imaginations. So you may be a "learned" man, but you are very ignorant about what you can do with mind and vision. Please, don't bother, I am not here to talk with you, only to offer an alternative, scientific, to interested people. You have your 35 years in the business to defend. 35 years are an heavy burden on your own intelligence to be accepted. Don't bother. Just watch in silence. Perhaps one day you will start some kind of understanding in how the natural eye works. Excuse me. > Please, don't bother, I am not here to talk with you, only to offer an > alternative, scientific, to interested people. Please, there is a newsgroup for that. It's called alt.med.vision.improve. Your therapy is an alternative treatment. Nobody with training in science or medicine will believe organic problems can all be cured by imagining a small black dot. -MT > Your therapy is an alternative treatment. Please, it is not my therapy! > Nobody with training in science or medicine will believe organic problems > can all be cured by imagining a small black dot. Problem is that these things are true and scientific and reproducible. There are no exceptions. You should study this. Why should I go into the getto of the idiots of the "new agers"? Those people are mostly frauds! But perhaps your science and your medicine are frauds too? I will continue to post the progress of people I meet. What you say it's absurd. >> Your therapy is an alternative treatment. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Those people are mostly frauds! Uh, yeah. That's *exactly* why. We have a saying, Rishi: Birds of a feather flock together. >You know perfectly well that you have NOTHING IN YOUR HANDS to help >people overcome their imperfect sight. Oh, Rishi . . . We ALL know what *you* have in *your* hands . . . and if you don't stop it, you'll go blind. > We ALL know what *you* have in *your* hands . . . and if you don't > stop it, you'll go blind. You talk? > >True, but my point was that all you need to do to lose (for the OD) is to > >be unlucky. I can't see why the OD would make the bet. > Because it's a sure thing. > I'd also want only people between > the age of 21 and 35 as subjects, as there is commonly some slight > reduction in myopia in early presbyopia, and kids shouldn't bet. Well, that explains that! My spontaneous myopia improvement was about age 40, and was right before I started needing reading glasses. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net |
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.