 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2005Normal sighted parents who create myopic children
There seems to be this theme running thru families of myopes that i know. The parents want the best for their children. Their opinion on what is best is the ultimate source of what is best for their children. The children are in a home that is essentially a place where the children are well cared for and where the childrens long term needs are considered ahead even of the parents for at least some of the descisions. However when it comes to child versus parent the parent has physical and emotional superiority over the child. Can these parents see the child as an automonous person with rights who will be damaged if the parents use emotional or physical force to alter the childs preferred point of view? It seems these parents opinions of what is right for the child in the parents opinion overcome any notion they may have that the parental behaviour might be injurious to the child. However there is also the childs developing mindset. Those children who give into the parents can either be broken by this or can bounce back and get a sense of their own autonomy within the family. The broken children are the myopes but they have chosen to be broken. They still maintain a relationship of some kind with their parents and still actively seek approval even if they do resent the parental authority. The none myopes are prepared to scream blue murder or have strategies which work to allow the parents themselves to back off the pressure to conform. In the myopes, this resentment of parental authority then further fuels the parent child dynamic that the parent knows best and the child must comply. Whereas the none myopic children may build different parent child relationships that allow for child automony within the family or as in my brothers case they build relationships via friends and parental substitutes. So I am wondering if there are myopes here who really feel they don't fit into this kind of pattern. Andrew > There seems to be this theme running thru families of myopes that i > know. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > within the family or as in my brothers case they build relationships > via friends and parental substitutes. personally, i think myopia correlates better with children who grew up on the south side of a street that contained the letter "L" in the street name. what a load of horsecrap Actually i have already got some interesting new feedback from this post via one woman whos brother became myopic around the time there father died and he was pressurised to take responsibility for the family as oldest boy. The woman herself remembers that she was expected to support her mother during a difficult time and not show her own feelings and she too became myopic. These kinds of things are pretty personal. Attacking me might be an easier alternative to looking at your own behaviour Andrew, my intention isn't to attack you, but your ideas are just plain whacked-out. I literally cannot fathom that people like you, Otis, and Rishi actually exist. I am just being totally honest here. After reading this and another post by Rishi about curing LASIK problems using Bates, I feel like I have entered the twilight zone. Can I ask you a personal question? What is your occupation and educational background? DrG Dear Andrew, I am pleased to see that DrG respects you and your opinions. He also respects the development of scientifc concepts concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye. You should spend your time analyizing the pshchology of DrG, and he defense of an outdated minus-lens theory put in place 400 years ago, and disproven (on a scientific level) effectively in the last 30 years. But business is business -- so consider DrG on that level. But DrG does have a point. Mostly the public expects a minus-lens "quick fix" from DrG, and will not accept a discussion about prevention with the plus -- when that discussion must take place. Equally, DrG "believes" that a minus lens and enviroment have NO EFFECT on the refractive state of the natural eye -- dispite MASSIVE direct experimental data to the contrary. So don't try to confuse DrG with the facts -- his mind is made up. Fortunately, there are OTHER ODs who have woken up to the travesty -- and recognice both the difficulties of true-prevention -- but also the potential of it. This is indeed the way the future will develope. www.chinamyopia.org Best, Otis > Equally, DrG "believes" that a minus lens > and enviroment have NO EFFECT on the > refractive state of the natural eye -- dispite > MASSIVE direct experimental data to > the contrary. So don't try to confuse > DrG with the facts -- his mind is made up. Then why don't people wearing minus get more nearsighted than those who don't? Deceitful, Otis. -MT Mike, Why don't youi read don't your read Dr. Francis Young's report??? Oh, I get it -- you only read reports you "like", and totally ignore everything else -- and say, "trust me", have faith, there is no relationship between the refractive state of the primate eye -- and its average visual environment. You have yet to even prove that the minus lens is even safe -- on a pure scientific level. Best, Otis > Then why don't people wearing minus get more nearsighted than those who > don't? This always happens, at least once. Then people stop complaining because they know it is useless. In some rare cases, like our lady biologist, the nightmare continues, the patient stares into the eyeglasses, and strains always more. The most respectful patients, the ones that believe in your so called science, go to the optometrists or ophthalmologists who are in the business and have the glasses changed (the professionals earn money at each pair changed!!!). In this way they continue to get worse and worse. This is in plain evidence. You may quote studies which may tell different, but the studies are dependent on an abstract theory, they are not the truth. Ask to 100 patients, they will answer all in the same manner: eyeglasses destroy your vision. There are no exceptions! Dear Reader, Before you consider paying attention to anything that Otis Brown writes, I invite you to review all of his previous posts. If you can find a shred of evidence or scientifically accepted proof of anything that he says, then by all means . . . follow his advice, but do so only under the care of a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist. Otis's posts can be reviewed at: http://snipurl.com/e77s > reading this and another post by Rishi about curing LASIK problems > using Bates, I feel like I have entered the twilight zone. This is what these people reported to me that they want to try to do. I do not know what can happen. Chances are that this may work. I hope for them that they finally find a true end for their nightmares!!! I am not a cruel man like you are. lets not kid ourselves leukoma You are wanting to attack me. You are wanting to imply that you dont know that i have the same science degree subject as you have For some reason, you claim that saying "your ideas are just plain whacked out" and that I and Otis can be compared is not an attack. Or maybe clarity of thought and memory are not one of your strong points? Aggressiveness in myopia can be a way of covering the underlying insecurity. I dont think you are essentially a bad person. I imagine you think you are clever and can somehow be believed to be superior to me via what you assume are witty comments? If you want to be polite then be polite. Be real. Who are you? The dick head who sends mixed messages or Dr Leukoma medicine man? Andrew Andrew andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote: > lets not kid ourselves leukoma > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Andrew I see that you failed to answer my question: What is your occupation and what is your educational background? I don't believe that I am "superior," and I am not trying to be witty. I am merely communicating my honest thoughts rather directly, I suppose. As I said, your ramblings just don't make sense in the context of the discussion of myopia. So, don't try to turn the argument around to make me the subject just to avoid the truth. Please state your occupation and educational background. DrG I am a retired millionaire property developer and former computer programmer. I have a degree in chemistry. Whats your point? > I am a retired millionaire property developer and former computer > programmer. > > I have a degree in chemistry. > > Whats your point? Unsure if that's to me or someone else. Try to quote at least a tiny snip of whatever you're responding to. Could be me, though, so I'll say that your degree in chemistry hardly qualifies you to talk about the science of vision, unless maybe you studied the biochemistry of retinal conversion of light stimulus or some such thing. I never met a chemist who even knew what a diopter, a horopter, a phoropter or a biopter is, so you're not alone. If you didn't go back and study physiological optics formally, then you have some holes in your education, big enough to drive a mac truck through. Not sure what to make of the "retired millionaire...". True or not, it adds NOTHING to your knowledge of vision. Computer programmer? In what language did you develop? As a hobbyist programmer, I'd like to know. w.stacy, o.d. >I am a retired millionaire property developer and former computer > programmer. > > I have a degree in chemistry. > > Whats your point? The point is you've never refracted anyone, nor followed refractions over time, and never seen how obstinately human tissue grows to its own specifications. It's inconceivable that emotions dictate refractive error with the directness and simplicity you propose. Statements such as "astigmatism occurs as a result of conflicting parental messages" sound like you're arguing phlogiston theory. Perhaps you don't like our reactions. Perhaps you think we are fools for overlooking this important principle of human physiognomy. But you'll get the same reaction from any group of people with training in eye science. It isn't just us, you understand. -MT andrew is a person who fears that he is inadequate. he is not accepted by his peers. he feels he is more intelligent than most people but that they just don't recognize it and appreciate his big brain. as you said before, he seeks attention and acceptance. he was overly sheltered by his parents. he still clings to them. andrew is hyperopic with vertical astigmatism. For Andrew: Can I ask you a personal question? What is your occupation and educational background? DrG ____________ DrG, We do have our honest differences -- makes for good conversations. But I have to agree with you about Andrew. He rambles, has no point, and is all over the place. Maybe Andrew should state his "purpose" -- if any. Best, Otis > Actually i have already got some interesting new feedback from this > post via one woman whos brother became myopic around the time there > father died and he was pressurised to take responsibility for the > family as oldest boy. The woman herself remembers that she was > expected to support her mother during a difficult time and not show her > own feelings and she too became myopic. So what? I know a person whose father abandoned the family when she was a teenager and the mother was depressed and alcoholic. My friend raised her siblings, took care of her mother and is not myopic. My grandfather died young, my grandmother moved the family to another province and ruled over it with a iron fist; she bullied her children even as adults and bullied their spouses too. Out of ten children, there were four hyperopes and six emmetropes. For every example you provide that supports your ideas, we can find several that refute it. The only way to answer the question is with a scientific study of a large group of families chosen at random. Dr Judy > These kinds of things are pretty personal. Attacking me might be an > easier alternative to looking at your own behaviour You are taking a far too simplistic view of what i have said. Abandoned children who rise to the task of looking after a depressed mother is different to a situation where family pressure is brought for that child to do the task Hyperopia is associated with anger in the family. Myopia is related to insecurity. First you say: > You are taking a far too simplistic view.. Then you glibly state: > Hyperopia is associated with anger in the family. Myopia is related > to insecurity. Dooh! I can't believe how simple it has been all along! And we've been spending our time investigating genetics and environment while Andrew "the genius" Edward Judd has figured out the true cause of myopia and hyperopia is insecurity and anger. How could we have been so stupid? We are not worthy of you, sir. I genuflect in your presence master! What a freaking nutcase you are! RM said >>And we've been spending our time investigating genetics and environment while Andrew "the genius" Edward Judd has figured out the true cause of myopia and hyperopia is insecurity and anger. I am confused as to why family patterns such as insecurity or anger are not considered by you to be part of the environment a person lives with. > I am confused as to why family patterns such as > insecurity or anger are not considered by you > to be part of the environment a person lives > with. I'm confused why you think cartilage grows this way or that way based on emotion. I would think these family patterns would be as much auditory as visual. Wouldn't you expect protruding ears to be a significant emotional indicator? -MT Its hard to see hearing being affected by for example the autonomic nervous system. So do you think that the autonomic nervous system somehow regulates collagen fiber synthesis and regression? What scientific credible evidence is there for this? Or is this more fanciful thought? Just because you can conceive of a model where psychological function integrates with eye development, and it seems plausible to you, doesn't mean it is so! There are lots of elegant theories that the human mind can dream up that seem reasonable but don't have anything to do with how it actually works. You need to come up with an hypothesis and then test it under scientific conditions. We are not interested in hearing about the fanciful theories that flit through your mind. Prove it, or shut up. Proving it is hard work Andrew. I know you're "retired" so you should have lots of time on your hands. -------------------- > Its hard to see hearing being affected by for example the autonomic > nervous system. what's your favorite episode of X-files? Retinula, you just love to talk about my private life dont you? I dont watch much TV these days. I am 49. TV is mainly for a younger audience. I do know about this program though. I believe you asked me this same question some weeks ago. You and Leukoma might be older than i thought. Both of you repeat yourselfs and dont make much sense. 49 is young to retire don't you think. or are you done selling mummy and daddys land and just waisting time in front of your computer. snip > Hyperopia is associated with anger in the family. Myopia is related > to insecurity. Kindly cite published, peer reviewed, double blind studies confirming this statement. Dr Judy > So I am wondering if there are myopes here who really feel they don't > fit into this kind of pattern. My experience is exactly the opposite of your "theory". I and my 2 siblings were raised in a very permissive family, and we all turned out myopic and completely free and independent of the kind of control you're talking about. My sister became a professional musician, my brother an architect, and me, of course an optometrist. Maybe it was because both our parents were myopic? Interestingly, I married a hyperope whose parents were both hyperopes and none of our 3 kids turned out myopic (1 with hyperopic astigmatism, the other 2 emmetropic). I would say that in contrast to my upbringing, my kids were raised in a more authoritarian manner. So if rishi is right, one counter example destroys a theory, yours is shot. Oh and my documented case of the myope who after a year of bates couldn't reduce her myopia by .25 D., even with $1,000 riding on it certainly must have shattered the bates theory. w.stacy, o.d. >shot. Oh and my documented case of the myope who after a year of bates Hey ! Stop right there ! Stop right there ! Who knows if they actually did what Bates says they should do ? Did they use the sunglass, for example ? Did they try to learn to look (to look not to stare) at the sun ? I suspect that they DID NOT even KNOW what the original Bates' words are. This is a VERY SAD situation. Give them the original words, and my email. Then a year later you will see the difference. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." >>shot. Oh and my documented case of the myope who after a year of bates > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who knows if they actually did what Bates says they should do ? I know. I believed her when she said she did. Am I to call her a liar? It's amazing to me how you guys base your entire belief system on a few outrageous anectdotal testamonials, but refuse to accept one that is completely believable, documentable, and in perfect conformance with scientifically expected outcomes. Hope springs eternal. w.stacy, o.d. >> Who knows if they actually did what Bates says they should do ? > >I know. I believed her when she said she did. Am I to call her a liar? So why you don't believe me or rishi when we say that we used the "methods" successfully ? You are a strange man. It is not a question of her being a liar, the problem is in the fact that what she "practiced" under the name "bates system" is crap. And in this I agree with you. No set of exercises can ever improve vision. The treatment Bates wrote of is based on relieving the idea that to see something better an effort has to be made. So, my question was not made in "bad faith" to "condemn" the poor patient, but was a constructive criticism: maybe if she is made aware of what the original bates' words are she will understand better what has to be done (or, better, not done). >It's amazing to me how you guys base your entire belief system on a few >outrageous anectdotal testamonials, It is not a question of belief. I KNOW that I was an high myopic man and now I am nomore. What can I do ? Should I disregard my own experience because you say so ? Or because all the authorities say so ? You are a very very strange man. >but refuse to accept one that is >completely believable, documentable, and in perfect conformance with >scientifically expected outcomes. I don't accept ANY belief systems. Belief is what cripples intelligence. And yours seems rather crippled because you talk in these terms. Why don't you ask to your patient if she practiced the things that I stated in the previous post (sunglass, sungazing, etc.) ? It is very simple: just ask her. An intelligent person would have said "Tell me what I have to ask her, and we will see if she did.". Instead you, being biased toward YOUR BELIEF, skipped on this and assumed that she did what Bates wrote one should do, where probably you and her NEVER read the original Bates writings. Jesus Christ, how can you be so biased ??? And you paint yourself as a man of science ? Go eat an apple !!! -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." > So why you don't believe me or rishi when we say that we used > the "methods" successfully ? Because you have presented no credible evidence of that. > So, my question was not made in "bad faith" to "condemn" > the poor patient, but was a constructive criticism: maybe if > she is made aware of what the original bates' words are she > will understand better what has to be done (or, better, not done). Read my lips. She DID READ, STUDY AND FOLLOW BATES! How can I make it any clearer? >>It's amazing to me how you guys base your entire belief system on a few >>outrageous anectdotal testamonials, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > my own experience because you say so ? Or because all the > authorities say so ? You are a very very strange man. Why don't you prove it? Just get your medical records from all the optometrists or ophthalmologists you have been to, copy them to this news group, so we can see for ourselves. It's a simple thing to do. Why won't you do it? (I think I know the answer to that one...) > Why don't you ask to your patient if she practiced the things > that I stated in the previous post (sunglass, sungazing, etc.) ? > It is very simple: just ask her. I did and she did. where probably > you and her NEVER read the original Bates writings. I have not read the entire manuscript, BUT SHE DID! She was so sure it would work, she bet $1,000 on it (and in those days $1K was worth more than today, at least double). The outcome was predictable, correct, and precise, which is why I won the bet. w.stacy, o.d. > > Why don't you ask to your patient if she practiced the things > > that I stated in the previous post (sunglass, sungazing, etc.) ? > > It is very simple: just ask her. > > I did and she did. I will give to you 1,000 US $ if you grant me opportunity to interview this person. I am even able to fly to the States and meet the person. It is impossible what you say she did. Also, I do not believe that she practised the sun treatment, because this is one thing we rediscovered one year ago, and was not known in the so called "Bates world" of fraudolent practitioners. I accept. Please send it to: William Stacy, O.D. 1366 Prairie City Rd Folsom CA 95630 USA Within 30 days of receipt of your check, I will contact her and arrange it. I also take VISA, MasterCard and Discover Cards thanks w.stacy, o.d. >>>Why don't you ask to your patient if she practiced the things >>>that I stated in the previous post (sunglass, sungazing, etc.) ? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > this is one thing we rediscovered one year ago, and was not known in > the so called "Bates world" of fraudolent practitioners. > I accept. Please send it to: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Within 30 days of receipt of your check, I will contact her and arrange it. Please, do thing in the right way: first you make me be in contact with the woman, then I will send you the money. >> So why you don't believe me or rishi when we say that we used >> the "methods" successfully ? > >Because you have presented no credible evidence of that. You too have presented no credible evidence that she did all the original Bates words said to do. So ? You can and I cannot ? It seems not so fair to me. >> So, my question was not made in "bad faith" to "condemn" >> the poor patient, but was a constructive criticism: maybe if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Read my lips. She DID READ, STUDY AND FOLLOW BATES! >How can I make it any clearer? LOL. I'm starting to think you have some difficulties in awareness and comprehension of this exchange. Jesus Christ. Re-read what you wrote and what I wrote. Call your mom or your teacher if you cannot understand what you and I are saying. My god. >>>It's amazing to me how you guys base your entire belief system on a few >>>outrageous anectdotal testamonials, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >news group, so we can see for ourselves. It's a simple thing to do. >Why won't you do it? (I think I know the answer to that one...) LOL. I'm pretty sure by know that you really are some kind of glasses wearing weirdo. Read my lips: the reason why is futile to post anything here is because you can always say that it is false documentation. The point of this debate is NOT to prove who is right by any document or number. The point is to AWAKE people to the possibility that the professionals are wrong and to say to them that if THEY get to the RIGHT INFORMATION they can UNDERSTAND that crippled versions of Bates are all around and that his ORIGINAL words are way different from the "eye exercises" that people believe Bates' work is. And that there are important pieces left out because of superstitions. The most important are: learning to look at the sun is not dangerous and imagination is key to vision. >> Why don't you ask to your patient if she practiced the things >> that I stated in the previous post (sunglass, sungazing, etc.) ? >> It is very simple: just ask her. > >I did and she did. She did the sun glass ? She learnt to look at the sun without benefit ? I doubt she did, I doubt you asked. Tell this person to write on this newsgroup about her experience. >I have not read the entire manuscript, And you criticize it. Talk about biased judgement. I wish I were like you: a professional science man. 'nuff said. >BUT SHE DID! She was so sure it >would work, she bet $1,000 on it (and in those days $1K was worth more >than today, at least double). The outcome was predictable, correct, and >precise, which is why I won the bet. Obviously: she read the crippled version. It is like learning math without learning about division: yes you can do some aritmethics, but you'll soon fall short when real problems have to be solved. Tell her to write here, she will get the right information to take back her money. Are you willing to do this ? I'm sure you aren't because WE ALL KNOW how money makes you feel. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." >>>It is not a question of belief. I KNOW that I was an high myopic >>>man and now I am nomore. What can I do ? Should I disregard [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Read my lips: the reason why is futile to post anything here is > because you can always say that it is false documentation. No, I will recognize proper documentation for what it is and what it is not. As a former member of the California State Board of Optometry, I've been involved in reviewing other doctors' records for legal and licensing issues and it would be pretty easy to determine veracity, especially if it were written in english (but we can get translators if not). Just scan the records and let us all see the miracle. What are you afraid of? w.stacy, o.d. >No, I will recognize proper documentation for what it is and what it is >not. As a former member of the California State Board of Optometry, I've [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >not). Just scan the records and let us all see the miracle. What are >you afraid of? Nothing. Do you think it is not possible to digitally falsify such documents ? Or otherwise say that it is "only anecdotal evidence" or "they were wrong measurements in the first place" , etc. Simply don't try to get me in your stupid trap. Do you think The Pope listened to or read or believed what Galileo has to say about the calculations that lead him to the reason why he had his ideas about the solar system ? The point of me posting here is NOT to prove anything about me or anyone else. The point is about getting people to read and understand what ORIGINAL Bates' words are, then the truth can find his way in the mind of intelligent people. I'm not interested in stupid people, or maybe only as a mean to reach intelligent ones. I'm sure they are the majority. The success of the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses depends EXCLUSIVELY on the patient intelligence in understanding how imperfect vision is produced. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." >>No, I will recognize proper documentation for what it is and what it is >>not. As a former member of the California State Board of Optometry, I've [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Simply don't try to get me in your stupid trap. It would be difficult indeed to falsify such documents successfully, even by one who is educated in the field. The easiest way to uncover false documents is to contact the doc who did the original for a quick comparison to the originals. > Do you think The Pope listened to or read or believed what Galileo > has to say about the calculations that lead him to the reason > why he had his ideas about the solar system ? Galileo was educated in SCIENCE. The pope was probably not. Kind of like you and me. I was educated in physical and biological science (University of Calfiornia, Berkeley.) In what field was YOUR education? It is common for even very intellegent people to not understand information from fields in which they were not trained. For example, I have a tough time understanding electronics. > The point of me posting here is NOT to prove anything about > me or anyone else. The point is about getting people to read and > understand what ORIGINAL Bates' words are, then the truth can > find his way in the mind of intelligent people. Most intelligent people who read bates can see plainly that it is pseudoscience. Some will fall for it, but ever since it was written, few do. > I'm not interested in stupid people, or maybe only as a mean > to reach intelligent ones. I'm sure they are the majority. No doubt. That's why so few copies of bates were ever sold. Most people know better. Give me simple proof or give me nothing. Put up or shut up. > No doubt. That's why so few copies of bates were ever sold. Most people > know better. I don't think that 50,000 copies was a small number in the Twenties. >Galileo was educated in SCIENCE. The pope was probably not. Kind of >like you and me. I was educated in physical and biological science >(University of Calfiornia, Berkeley.) In what field was YOUR education? My education has nothing to do with the common sense needed to understand and verify if the things written are true or not. Just for example: is it true or not that unaided vision gets better when glasses are not worn for some time ? Is some PhD needed to understand and try simple facts like this ? Is it needed to understand and TRY to get accustomed to strong lights by gradually learning how ? Only PhDs can do that ? Talking about something you haven't read is not in favour of your Berkeley education. I think your professors would shake their heads. Lol. More than that, we all know that very few so called educated people have some intelligence. They may be knowledgeable, they may know a lots of data and names, but intelligence ? > It is common for even very intellegent people to not understand >information from fields in which they were not trained. For example, I >have a tough time understanding electronics. This assumption of yours, that Bates book is difficult is again against your own (crippled) intelligence. THIS very thought that the matter of vision are difficult like electronics is what makes imperfect sighted people to TRY HARD to see better, when all that is needed is the exact opposite. Perfect vision is easy, imperfect vision is difficult and needs effort. Ask to any person with normal vision to try to see worse, and they will say that a lot of effort is needed and it makes them uncomfortable. (That is the same uneasiness that you carry along together with your eyeglasses, guess why.) >Most intelligent people who read bates can see plainly that it is >pseudoscience. Some will fall for it, but ever since it was written, few >do. It is NOT a matter of "see plainly" and discard it. This is what ignorant and superstitious people do. An intelligent man would TRY to understand and VERIFY with his own means if what is written as something to do with truth or not. You again show that your professors have failed in improving your intelligence. I'm sorry... for them ! >No doubt. That's why so few copies of bates were ever sold. Most people >know better. Have you counted them ? Your bias is working against you. >Give me simple proof or give me nothing. Put up or shut up. Here is your simple proof: take an original 20ies bates' book. Read the very first page. Try it for some time and give it to try to your patients, just for research. Just the first page. Make some copies of it and tell them to try it, without glasses, for as much time in the day as possible for them. Then ask them if they are interested in knowing more about it. Give it to patients that wear glasses as well as to patients that come for glasses. You'll notice that the latter will respond more rapidly to it and the former will have some more difficulties. Report here, if you are a serious professional. [by the way, I have a master degree in engineering at polytechnic, milan] -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." Actually, research shows that myopic children who do not wear their glasses do get WORSE at a faster rate than those who do. To this day, my father refuses to believe in the viral theory for the common cold. So much for common sense. DrG >Actually, research shows that myopic children who do not wear their >glasses do get WORSE at a faster rate than those who do. So what ? How can you tell that the same child would have got better with the glasses on ? HOW CAN YOU TELL !?!?!?! And that the boy with glasses would have got better without them ? HOW CAN YOU TELL !?!?!? What kind of science is yours ???? Jesus Christ! If this is your scientific method of looking at facts I'm now SURE you are NOT a scientific man. Go eat your apple ! >So much for common sense. Gulp ! -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." > How can you tell that the same child would have > got better with the glasses on ? HOW CAN > YOU TELL !?!?!?! > > What kind of science is yours ???? The kind they don't teach in Italy? C'mon, surely you know this. You choose two big groups, closely matched for age, gender, refraction, and lifestyle. You treat one group and don't treat the other. After treatment, you measure both groups and compare them. If the treatment works, the treated group will be better. If the treatment doesn't work, the two groups remain the same. Sometimes you get a surprise and find the treated group got WORSE. It's absurd to criticise the method used by _every_ scientific study, simply because you don't understand. Perhaps one day the scientific method will be taught in your country, too. -MT Perhaps one day the scientific method will be > taught in your country, too. > > -MT How about your own fellow- countryman Otis? Grins..........................  SignatureJan (normally Dutch spoken) >> How can you tell that the same child would have >> got better with the glasses on ? HOW CAN [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >The kind they don't teach in Italy? What nationality has to do with ANYTHING ? You are a fascist. >C'mon, surely you know this. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If the treatment doesn't work, the two groups remain the same. >Sometimes you get a surprise and find the treated group got WORSE. Pay attention, you two ignorant men: "Actually, research shows that myopic children who do not wear their glasses do get WORSE at a faster rate than those who do." He said that they get worse at a faster rate, worse than what ? than who? Faster than who ? Faster than what ? Who's unaided vision is better at the end ? After how long ? Are then those children tested when they are 20 ? 30 ? 40 ? 50 ? How is their sight after a life of glasses wearing ? How is after other treatments ? There is no honesty in these research. That generic quote means nothing to intelligent people. Is it true that when someone who wears glasses breaks them and goes without them for a few days his sight gets better ? Why is this ? Did they take two groups of glasses-wearing people and took the glasses off form one group and measured the unaided vision after some times ? What kind of studies are they conducting ? Simple: biased studies. Intellectual frauds. >It's absurd to criticise the method used by _every_ scientific study, simply >because you don't understand. I asked simple questions, you didn't answer, but pontificated. >Perhaps one day the scientific method will be >taught in your country, too. My country is WHERE scientific method was BORN. You nazi. Do you know who LEONARDO DA VINCI is ? You nazi. Go eat your apple too ! Pontificating POPE ! -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." > "Actually, research shows that myopic children who do not wear their > glasses do get WORSE at a faster rate than those who do." > > He said that they get worse at a faster rate, worse than what ? than > who? Faster than who ? Faster than what ? I told you... two groups, one wearing and one not wearing glasses. The ones NOT wearing glasses sometimes get WORSE. Which word don't you understand? > honesty in these research. That generic quote means nothing to > intelligent people. You're "intelligent" but ignorant of the scientific method? > Is it true that when someone who wears glasses breaks them and > goes without them for a few days his sight gets better ? Why is this ? It's absurd to depend on indirect measurements and subjective personal assessments. Measure refraction and the mystery goes away. > Did they take two groups of glasses-wearing people and took > the glasses off form one group and measured the unaided vision > after some times ? Exactly. You will be shocked by the results. > What kind of studies are they conducting ? Simple: biased studies. > Intellectual frauds. Again demonstrating your ignorance of scientific method. > My country is WHERE scientific method was BORN. So why didn't you learn about controlled studies and statistical significance? Did you sleep though that semester? How do you dismiss all the published studies about myopia? Never mind. The point is you're embarrassing yourself and your country by spouting your pseudoscience in a science newsgroup. Take it to alt.med.vision.improve. -MT > The point is you're embarrassing yourself and your country by spouting > your pseudoscience in a science newsgroup. Take it to > alt.med.vision.improve. > > -MT Mike, this one Italian does not represent what Italy stands for as Otis does not stands for real science in your country either. ( thinking of great Italians like Galileo, Da Vince, Volta, Venturi, Fermi etc....) IMHO these persons, the Italian and your country-man Otis and in a way that weirdo Andrew, are only embarrassing themselves and certainly not there fellow country man. 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) > So if rishi is right, one counter example destroys a theory, yours is > shot. Oh and my documented case of the myope who after a year of bates > couldn't reduce her myopia by .25 D., even with $1,000 riding on it > certainly must have shattered the bates theory. Yes, one counter example shatters any theory. This is plain logic. The person you quote simply did not do any Bates work. To reduce one quarter prescription is very easy: just do not wear any glasses for one week before the examination. That's all. Bill Stacey wrote >>My experience is exactly the opposite of your "theory". Not necessarily if both your parents are myopes. Or is that irrelevant? >> and I and my 2 siblings were raised in a very permissive family, and we all turned out myopic and completely free and independent of the kind of control you're talking about. My sister became a professional musician, my brother an architect, and me, of course an optometrist. Maybe it was because both our parents were myopic? I have honestly not yet met any exceptions to the **underlying** pattern in myopia. So if you are an exception i am genuinely interested to know more. What do you mean by permissive? Children can feel insecure if there are no limits or boundaries. > I have honestly not yet met any exceptions to the **underlying** > pattern in myopia. So if you are an exception i am genuinely > interested to know more. Are you trying to psychoanalyze, categorize personalities, or predict behavior based on refractive error, or what? If so, I don't think it works. I've seen lots of myopes, hyperopes, astigmats and emmetropes and don't see any patterns there. All four refractive states are well represented among doctors, students, computer programmers, farmers, athletes, monks and murderers. And among introverts, extroverts, psychotics and comatose people. And among healthy people, sick people, endomorphs, mesomorphs and ectomorphs. w.stacy, o.d. http://www.obase.net Bill If these patterns were so obvious then you and every other Optometrist would have noticed them by now. However many optometrists have noticed them. Many studies have shown these patterns. If you think i am wrong about your particular case. Then that is your opinion. Am i wrong? Well to decide that we need to look at the data case by case. Andrew > Bill > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > However many optometrists have noticed them. Many studies have shown > these patterns. could you list a few of these many studies, especially any that are recent enough to be found on the internet? I dont think you will find much of this stuff available on the internet. The internet has its limitations. I have had a go at collecting references as they have become known to me. I have many more but they say more or less the same thing. Amongst the following the latest is a PHd of 1997. http://www.geocities.com/andrewedwardjudd/evidence.htm Meanwhile looking at the data by a case by case basis is usually the simplest method. I was wondering what you meant by "permissive" in your family upbringing. Andrew > http://www.geocities.com/andrewedwardjudd/evidence.htm I went there and checked out Kaplan, with whom you seem impressed. I think his stuff is fringe and would not be acceptible to mainstream science. > Meanwhile looking at the data by a case by case basis is usually the > simplest method. Maybe, so long as you don't try to generalize from a small sampling. > I was wondering what you meant by "permissive" in your family > upbringing. Probably the wrong term; I mean't to contrast my own upbringing with how you described it earlier: "Can these parents see the child as an automonous person with rights who will be damaged if the parents use emotional or physical force to alter the childs preferred point of view? It seems these parents opinions of what is right for the child in the parents opinion overcome any notion they may have that the parental behaviour might be injurious to the child. However there is also the childs developing mindset. Those children who give into the parents can either be broken by this or can bounce back and get a sense of their own autonomy within the family. " I meant to say that, on the contrary, my parents gave me permission to explore and develop without such "force". For example I recall lively discussions on the theory of evolution around the dinner table. Even though both parents disbelieved Darwin for religious reasons, they allowed me to voice opposing views freely. I just don't know anyone who fits your mold. w.stacy, o.d. Bill Stacey said >>Even though both parents disbelieved Darwin for religious reasons, they allowed me to voice opposing views freely. Well i know it is quite personal to you but if your parents were fundamentalist Christians many people would consider that to be a rigid and inflexible belief system. And you were raised within such a system. So from permissive we appear to be going to something that is a bit hard to live with *in my view* unless you tended to be compliant with the wishes of your parents. In a relationship where fundamental beliefs are different it tends to create tensions. You are saying you were free to voice opposing opinions but i wonder how free you were to have opposing actions? Did you go to church and so forth? Were you free to chose your own church? Are you also a christian? Andrew > Bill Stacey said > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > fundamentalist Christians many people would consider that to be a rigid > and inflexible belief system. Fundamentalist? I think not. What gave you that idea? Presbyterian, actually. And you were raised within such a > system. So from permissive we appear to be going to something that is > a bit hard to live with *in my view* unless you tended to be compliant > with the wishes of your parents. Not at all. I really enjoyed my childhood. And I was NOT particularly compliant. > > In a relationship where fundamental beliefs are different it tends to > create tensions. Tensions? You mean like here on s.m.v? > You are saying you were free to voice opposing opinions but i wonder > how free you were to have opposing actions? Totally. My dad was a genius. He ENCOURAGED free thought and open discourse on any subject. Did you go to church and > so forth? Yes. It's where all the cute girls were. Were you free to chose your own church? Of course. Are you also a > christian? I am now. Went through a period in high school and college where I was sort of agnostic. But eventually figured it out. This is pretty far off topic, but I couldn't exactly not address that particular set of questions. Do you suppose there are more myopes in the Presbyterian church, in the Catholic church, or in Islam? w.stacy, o.d. Thank your for your answers. > There seems to be this theme running thru families of myopes that i > know. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > So I am wondering if there are myopes here who really feel they don't > fit into this kind of pattern. Andrew, basing your opinion on "families you know" is worthless as far as establishing whether or not a particular parent child dynamic "causes" myopia. It is anecdotal evidence which any scientist will tell you is not evidence. To answer that question, you need to look at a large number of families over a long period of time with someone determining the parent/child relationship and someone else determining whether myopia exists, neither knowing the other's results. You can then statistically measure whether the myopes, as a group, have a different parent/child relationship than the non myopes. Until this is done, all else is speculation. Dr Judy Dr Judy In the past you have shown quaint ideas as to what is evidence and what is not. Previously you have claimed that empirical evidence is not valid scientific evidence. Observation of patterns is the basis of science. Andrew >In the past you have shown quaint ideas as to what is evidence and what >is not. Previously you have claimed that empirical evidence is not >valid scientific evidence. Observation of patterns is the basis of >science. No, the basis of science is their theories. Lol ! -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." > In the past you have shown quaint ideas as to what is evidence and what > is not. Wow Andrew. You are really showing your a.s now. Your ideas are way more than "quaint". They are frankly psychotic and delusional. RM said >>Your ideas are way more than "quaint". They are frankly psychotic and delusional. Its a shame you are not right in front of me and then we could find out who the psycho really is once and for all. My ideas are based on observation. Your comments are just childish and offensive. Presumably you are a myope. Immaturity and myopia go hand in hand. >>>Your ideas are way more than "quaint". They are frankly psychotic > and > delusional. > > Its a shame you are not right in front of me and then we could find out > who the psycho really is once and for all. Calm down Andrew. With so much stress and anxiety, your corneal curvature is almost certainly changing moment by moment. Immaturity and myopia go > hand in hand. There you go again. I've examined thousands of people, from newborn preemies to 100 year olds, from 10 diopter hyperopes to 19 diopter myopes. Myopia is far more prevalent in mature and intelligent people. Hyperopia is far more prevalent in immature and underdeveloped people. How long must we endure these hysterical comments? w.stacy, o.d. once again your limited understanding of this subject leads you to make erroneous assumptions about what i have said. And you are of course an intelligent myope. Immaturity in myopia is not related to age. Its related to an excessively logical IQ type 'intelligent' way of thinking that ignores emmotional intelligence. > once again your limited understanding of this subject leads you to make > erroneous assumptions about what i have said. I see. So a "retired" property developer with a degree in chemistry has a greater understanding of ammetropias than an eye doctor who has seen thousands of patients over their career? Andrew, you are delusional, egotistical, and irrational. > Dr Judy > > In the past you have shown quaint ideas as to what is evidence and what > is not. Previously you have claimed that empirical evidence is not > valid scientific evidence. Observation of patterns is the basis of > science. Quaint? Observation of patterns gives ideas for hypothesis and then studies are designed to TEST the hypothesis. Valid evidence is not in the observation of the patterns, but in the results of the testing. How is asking for tested evidence "quaint" Empirical evidence is valid, anecdotal evidence is not. There is a difference. Empirical evidence is based on observation and experiment, it does not suggest cause and effect, only association. If randomly selected, matched groups are scientifically observed, empirical evidence can tell us useful things about what conditions are associated with one another. Further study is needed to attribute cause and effect. Anecdotal evidence is report of association in of one or two cases, with the observations done in an unscientific, uncontrolled manner. Anecdotal evidence may provide a reason to conduct a controlled study to collect empirical evidence to confirm the association, but anecdotal evidence is not, in itself, valid science. Your personal observations of a few people is anecdotal. I suggested that you: "look at a large number of families over a long period of time with someone determining the parent/child relationship and someone else determining whether myopia exists, neither knowing the other's results. You can then statistically measure whether the myopes, as a group, have a ifferent parent/child relationship than the non myopes." That would be empirical evidence of an association between emotions and myopia and that would be scientific. Dr Judy |
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.