 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2005What do I do to get paid for my knowledge?
Did someone write something on this forum about a way to make money by posting info on a discussion. Is that true? Do you know anything about that? I'd make a ton... thanks for any info in advance. Dear Mitcheleh, This is a "free" news group. No one "makes money" by posting here. A number of ODs and MDs respond to requests for various medical and optical advice. Their time is valuable -- but they do not get paid for it. Some one is kidding you. Best, Otis > Did someone write something on this forum about a way to make money by > posting info on a discussion. Is that true? Do you know anything about > that? I'd make a ton... thanks for any info in advance. No, no, Mitch... has valid information. It's a new concept they were talking about on the other forum. Too bad I don't remember the name of the site. I'll try to find that. > A number of ODs and MDs respond to requests for various > medical and optical advice. Their time is valuable -- but > they do not get paid for it. and of course, Otis fails to mention he is NOT one of them... > Some one is kidding you. Seems you do your fair of kidding Otis. I am still waiting for you to provide UNBIASED websites substantiating your claims. Something tells me, I would be safe to bet you still won't provide it. Allen Dear Friends, I was not correct. Allen wants to be paid for his posts. Best, Otis Engineer > Dear Friends, > > I was not correct. Allen wants to be paid for his > posts. WRONG AGAIN OTIS. Please provide proof. I bet you can't! Allen Allen, Are you brain-dead or something. I just made a statement PRAISING these ODs and one MD for their SUPPORT for various questions. And you ATTACK me -- for honoring them for their support? Get real. Otis > And you ATTACK me -- for honoring them for > their support? Otis, You really must have attention deficit disorder. Please re-read my post. Better yet, I will re-post my question here, since you seem to avoid my direct question. Please give me a direct answer. I asked in my prior post.... > Seems you do your fair of kidding Otis. I am still waiting for you to > provide UNBIASED websites substantiating your claims. READ CAREFULLY OTIS. It really is not a complicated question above. Thank you! Allen >> And you ATTACK me -- for honoring them for >> their support? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >READ CAREFULLY OTIS. It really is not a complicated question above. I have never seen anybody twist other people's words, ascribe things to people that they never said, or fail to acknowledge and respond to people's direct questions (other than a politician, that is) the way that Otis does. I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that Otis is either senile, stupid, or evil (read Webster's definition. It fits). There comes a point where ad hominem is *exactly* what's merited. I got to that point a long time ago..... How about tilting at windmills as a "Don Quixote" response? DrG Dear Neil, Subject: Your "ad hominem" attack agains me. Re: Respecting the dynamic behavior of the eye -- as a sophtisticated system. Re: Testing a population of such eyes on an "input" versus "output" basis. Re: Scientific verification -- by repeated experiment. Neil, what I said was that the natural eye can be expected to be dynamic -- on the basis of pure science -- not your version of "medicine". This type of testing (using the term "refractive state") proves that a population of natural eye will "move negative" when you place a minus lens on them. Do you deny this? And if so why? In the above statement I have not "attacked" you but you attack me. I do not think you have an abstract understanding of pure scientific tests to prove the expected dynamic behavior of the natural eye. Best, Otis Engineer > >> And you ATTACK me -- for honoring them for > >> their support? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > There comes a point where ad hominem is *exactly* what's merited. I > got to that point a long time ago..... >Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >Otis >Engineer Dear Otis, What the hell are you talking about? Best, Neil Niel, The problem is that you accuse me of "mis-representing" the natural eye as a dynamic system, using basic measurements -- and then claim I am "twisting" words I use to describe EXACTLY with is measured, i.e., refractive states, not "organic defects" as you like to infer about the proven behavior of the natural eye. Best, Otis >Niel, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Otis Once again, you misquote, so let me quote myself: "I have never seen anybody twist other people's words, ascribe things to people that they never said, or fail to acknowledge and respond to people's direct questions (other than a politician, that is) the way that Otis does." There. Now the record's straight. You're welcome, BestOtisEngineer. Time for your meds, dear boy. > Re: Testing a population of such eyes on an > "input" versus "output" basis. > > Re: Scientific verification -- by repeated experiment. Please show us where those experiments have been performed on humans. When you find the five or six studies that are most applicable, tally up the ones that show plus lenses prevent myopia. Then get back to us so we can advertise this therapy to our patients. -MT Subject: The proven behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system. Re: Repeat -- this is NOT MEDICAL. The test is only done to establish the essential characteristics of a population of natural eye. The fact that "Neil" does not "get is" explains a lot. Use absolutly neutral languate to describe the natural eye in this why, and you: 1. Respect this proven behavior. 2. An can draw your own conclusions at to if a negative refractive state of the natural eye CAN BE PREVENTED. 3. I guess is must be up to the person himself to review these objective facts -- if he wishes to apply "preventive methods". Best, Otis >The fact that "Neil" does not "get is" explains a lot. It explains what exactly? And . . . I thought you didn't *make* attacks. There goes another one of Otis's claims, disproven. Sigh. > 2. An can draw your own conclusions at > to if a negative refractive state of the > natural eye CAN BE PREVENTED. Please tell us where you find human studies showing that myopia can be prevented. I am very interested in offering prevention to my patients. If only you'd publish your evidence, we can convince the FDA and the boards of optometry. I'm sure the vision insurance plans will be interested too - prevention would be cheaper than a lifetime of glasses. -MT You guys should put your knowledge and experience to good use: www.iPlim.com is the answer to Mitch... original question. Dear Djenyak, Interesting site, my friend. Re: If only you'd publish your evidence, we can convince the FDA and the boards of optometry. I'm sure the vision insurance plans will be interested too - prevention would be cheaper than a lifetime of glasses. Mike Tyner Mike thinks that EVERYTHING can be reduced to a "magic pill" that he can PRESCIRBE, i.e., pure "medicine" -- if that is what it is. In fact, prevention requires that the person (highly motivated) look at what "Mike" has to present (i.e., the neither visual enviroment NOR minus lens has any effect on the refractive state of the natural eye. That is pure science. Unil the person himself recognizes the necessity of using the plus at the threshold (which has been done) prevention is indeed difficult. The issue is whether the person is prepared to make that commitment to clearing with the plus -- before that minus lens is applied. So it must be the person himself (after _MEDICAL_ issues are elliminated) the personally does the work of "vision clearing". When the person does this work (under his own control -- his eyes belong to him after all) and verifies clering to 20/20, then the issue is no longer a "OD" issue, now is it? Best, Otis > Mike thinks that EVERYTHING can be reduced to a > "magic pill" that he can PRESCIRBE, i.e., pure "medicine" -- if > that is what it is. I won't speak for Mike, as he can speak for himself on what he thinks. Please prove on a website OUTSIDE your website that supports your position. I bet you don't and won't do this Otis. It is a very simple request. Don't side step this, ANSWER MY QUESTION DIRECTLY. i BET YOU WON'T AS USUAL. > That is pure science. Unil the person himself > recognizes the necessity of using the plus at the > threshold (which has been done) prevention is > indeed difficult. Please prove on a website OUTSIDE your website that supports your position. I bet you don't and won't do this Otis. Is it because you make up things as you go Otis..... Inquiring minds want to know. Best Allen |
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.