 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2005Shut the hell up and give babies plus lenses
I believe that this test has been proven; when they gave chicks 10 diopters of plus lenses to one group and 10 diopters of minus lenses to another group. Thus this plan cannot fail. Now all you need to do, Otis, is to make this federal law. As soon as the child is born, and it is evident that child has a familial history of myopia the family can be offered a choice to make their child farsighted, because the myopes all know how horrible it is not to be able to see far distances. Thus instead of children growing up in a world where they're vision is always in danger of becoming myopic, they will be growing up in a world where they're vision will always be in danger of becoming hyperopic. While I believe that this will make the optometry industry seem ill-willed at first, it will become apparrent that they will still the same amount of business, if not more. The only problem is that the Lasik industry will wane, except for the need of cataract operations. This is what life was supposed to be. Then no school child will be betrayed by their teachers. The school child who was told to study but did it in excess will no longer develop myopia simply for "doing what his teacher says to his utmost ability and following the rules". Any parent who requests that their child be farsighted will fix plus lenses on their child once they are about one week old. Although this idea seems radical, it is a much better future for the betterment of mankind, and in the end, we all win. But since this was not done for me i guess it's suicide. > I believe Absolutely. Indeterminate tomatoes ripen continuosly. Unless you are going to can them. An idiot asian male troll-hole wrote: > But since this was not done for me i guess it's suicide. promises, promises... >I believe that this test has been proven; when they gave chicks 10 >diopters of plus lenses to one group and 10 diopters of minus lenses to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >But since this was not done for me i guess it's suicide. Why do I see you as Vito Scotti, who played the Jap on Gilligan's Island? -Rich Learn about newsgroups and their topics, you insane troll. > Absolutely nothing at all. Farsightedness has a higher association with amblyopia (lazy eye) and strabismus (crossed-eyes) in children. Farsightedness is the only refractive condition that has a statistically significant association with reading-related learning disorders as documented by Jerome Rosner of the University of Houston College of Optometry. Nearsightedness, on the other hand, has a higher association with intelligence and academic achievement. Choose your poison. DrG > Farsightedness has a higher association with amblyopia (lazy eye) and > strabismus (crossed-eyes) in children. Farsightedness is the only [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > DrG The poison has been chosen. You're post has really stayed with me throughout the day. Still, I think it would be better to be farsighted. I am nearsighted as well. I don't know what it is like to be farsighted, but I don't care. I think I would adapt to the situation as best I could. The problem with farsightedness is that it is detected too late. By that time, it has already worked its subtle and nefarious damage on the visual system. If it were caught early by a professional during an eye examination, much of the damage could be reversed. A nearsighted child, on the other hand, is quite easily picked up in a visual screening. And should they not be caught during a screening, there is typically little or no permanent damage to the visual system such as amblyopia or strabismus. DrG I'm sorry Doctor Leukemia, I know nothing is this strombosis or amblyopia please define them >And should they not be caught during a screening, >there is typically little or no permanent damage to the visual >system such as amblyopia meaning? >or strabismus. meaning? Strabismus is eye misalignment, i.e. crossed-eyes. Hyperopia can cause accommodative esotropia, which is why you sometimes see infants and very young children wearing very thick eyeglasses to keep their eyes from crossing. People who's eyes cross are usually very, very, very self-conscious of it. Amblyopia means "lazy eye," or an eye that does not develop normal visual acuity. DrG >Amblyopia means "lazy eye," or an eye that does not develop >normal visual acuity. I know myopic people with lazy eye, it's sad. >People who's eyes cross are usually very, very, very >self-conscious of it. But, we're not supposed to care about our image when it comes to glasses are we? That's what the government says. That's what the TV says. The TV says that if you care about your image, then there's something wrong with YOU. I think that any advocate of this "policy" should go marry someone they think is disgusting and ugly and then their children can be disgusting and ugly; and they have to pick the ugliest person they know. But what do they care, image doesn't matter. I think that you have a problem with your own image, which Otis has fully exploited. Sorry. DrG > A nearsighted child, on the other hand, is quite easily picked up in a > visual screening. And should they not be caught during a screening, > there is typically little or no permanent damage to the visual system > such as amblyopia or strabismus. My husband didn't find out about his myopia (-5, -3.75, probably worse 50 years ago) until he was required to take an eye exam when he entered Caltech. I'm not sure what that shows, except that even smart kids are dumb about some things :-(  SignatureCheers, Bev ---------------------------------------------------------------- "The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners." --Ernst Jan Plugge > My husband didn't find out about his myopia (-5, -3.75, probably worse 50 > years ago) until he was required to take an eye exam when he entered Caltech. > I'm not sure what that shows, except that even smart kids are dumb about some > things :-( I seriously doubt that his myopia was that bad at that point in time! How could he get a driver's license -- even in California? Otis' formula should supply the answer. DrG > The problem with farsightedness is that it is detected too late. By > that time, it has already worked its subtle and nefarious damage on the > visual system. If it were caught early by a professional during an eye > examination, much of the damage could be reversed. Really? How? I'd quite like to find that out.... +.75 in one eye, +.50 in the other. not major I know, but is it too late? Depends on whether you have amblyopia, and /or strabismus, and/or a reading disability. DrG Dear Friend, Since the time of Rapahelson's statement, "The Printer's Son" it was clear to me that event the most gifted and motivated OD could not help -- until you FIRST determined to "accept" agressive use of the plus for prevention -- at the THRESHOLD. Most people reject WITH ANGER ANY suggestion that their kids begin wearing a plus when they are at the threshold, i.e., 20/20 with a refractive state of zero. You have read our friend, Steve Leung OD, website: www.chinamyopia.org I intend to build up his clientel -- as I did for Raphaelson. Clearly, you are owed a discsssion and a choice. If you turne it down AND DEMAND A FULL-STRENGTH minus, then you can say bye-bye to your clear distant vision -- for life. We need to understand this "second opinion" and be prepared to work WITH the ODs who have THEIR OWN CHILDEREN wearing the plus. This is how "new methods" develope in a given field. Some people finally recognize the dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- for what it is. The realize that the public is intollerant of "prevention" but their own children (which they can control) they use the plus -- continuously. This is why "Mike" had to do it himself -- because he had to PERSONALLY see the results -- if he were to believe them. Stirling Colgate went through this same process -- and you can see the reaction against this world-class scientist. You are free to draw your own SCIENTIFIC conclusions about this understanding of the natural eye as a proven dynamic system. Best, Otis <snipppp> Are you: 1. A dumb gook? 2. Just a gook? or 3. Just dumb? <snipppp> Are you: 1. A dumb gook? >2. Just a gook? or >3. Just dumb? Gook? meaning... > <snipppp> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Gook? meaning... Shut the hell up, you insane Gook troll. Aristotle Testicockle Stephanopoulus said: Shut the hell up, you insane Gook troll. You're name sounds like Spiros Antonopolous, from "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter", a sh.t-book. Please do not call gook; I am a chink Dear Friend, You can judge the "quality" of these ODs by the "quality" of their remarks. As least SOME ODs have compassion for the second-opinion. It is obvious that these ODs are so full of themselves that they can't think straight. But there is always "give and take" of this nature on these "coversational" sites. Also take note of the "Wanring" posted by Niel. Ask youself -- who is he "protecting"? Your long-term visual welfare -- or his "professional position"? So much for "warnings". No wonder you never get "straight answers" on this site. Enjoy, Otis >Also take note of the "Wanring" posted >by Niel. Ask youself -- who is he >"protecting"? Your long-term visual >welfare -- or his "professional position"? Asking you to provide proof of the efficacy of what you so *passionately* believe *is* attempting to protect the general public. Come on: Prove it, Otis. It won't kill you. The studies should be relatively easy to conduct. What's stopping you? Is it the phalanx of heavily-armed optometrists at the end of your driveway, preventing your egress?? Nasty little bunch, those eye doctors. > So much for "warnings". No wonder > you never get "straight answers" on > this site. Yes, we repeatedly ask you for data showing that minus accellerates human myopia and plus prevents it. We never get a straight answer. Granted, human infants might indeed respond the way young chickens and some young monkeys do. But nearsighted human infants are rare. If we make them all farsighted, how would that be beneficial? -MT >But nearsighted human infants are rare. If we make them all farsighted, how >would that be beneficial? It's beneficial to make all Americans farsighted because nearsightedness is the worst kind of disease that exists to date. >Yes, we repeatedly ask you for data showing that minus accellerates human >myopia and plus prevents it. >We never get a straight answer. Granted, human infants might indeed respond >the way young chickens and some young monkeys do. We do not need evidence that plus prevents it and minus accelerates; all we need to do is make everyone farsighted by law, and those who wish of their children to become nearsighted must purchase a 26 dollar license to do so. Anyone not caught wearing their plus lenses will be thrown in jail. The people who were nearsighted before all these laws were instated must carry liscenses that they are nearsighted. They will be subject to higher taxes and, if caught without their glasses they will be executed via assisted suicide; and they will be greatful because their lives are horrible anyway. Yes it is true that human eyes will act like chicken and monkeys. Since the optical community is unwilling to participate in prevention, and the general public is angered by the concept of prevention, it is in the best interest of the general public to make it federal law to institute the mandatory wear of plus lenses. Now to find a lawyer/political activist to headstrong the cause; we already have websites: that's a good start. >>But nearsighted human infants are rare. If we make them all farsighted, how >>would that be beneficial? > > It's beneficial to make all Americans farsighted because > nearsightedness is the worst kind of disease that exists to date. Only Americans? > >But nearsighted human infants are rare. If we make them all farsighted, how > >would that be beneficial? > > It's beneficial to make all Americans farsighted because > nearsightedness is the worst kind of disease that exists to date. Worse than cancer, diabetes, AIDS, cardiovascular disease? I think you need to rethink this. Let us know if you still feel this way in about 20 years.... > Also take note of the "Wanring" posted > by Niel. Ask youself -- who is he > "protecting"? Your long-term visual > welfare -- or his "professional position"? I thought my professional position was the visual welfare of my patients, which I have broadened to include warning them against clever charlatans. DrG > Dear Friend, > > You can judge the "quality" of these > ODs by the "quality" of their remarks. You overdose? > As least SOME ODs have compassion > for the second-opinion. It is obvious [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > this nature on these "coversational" > sites. This is usenet...it's not a site. > Also take note of the "Wanring" posted > by Niel. Ask youself -- who is he [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Otis > it is evident that child has a familial history of myopia the family > can be offered a choice to make their child farsighted, because the > myopes all know how horrible it is not to be able to see far distances. > Although this idea seems radical, it is a much better future for the > betterment of mankind, and in the end, we all win. I was going to tell a long story about my work here, but it's really OT. Let's just say that "the grass is greener on the other side" is not a new concept for humankind. I dare say that many hyperopes think that being a myope would be much better. I know that I would have been really happy to have AsianMale's vision when I was younger. Being able to see 4 inches away without correction would at least open up the possibility of reading without correction, whereas my maximum (and minimum) distance of 1 inch made reading almost impossible. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net >I know that I would have been really happy to have AsianMale's vision when I was younger. >Being able to see 4 inches away without correction would at least open up >the possibility of reading without correction, whereas my maximum (and >minimum) distance of 1 inch made reading almost impossible. Hey, hey, hey. You = crazy. I'm not sure I can even see four inches. I also think that statement is a little strange because 4 inches is sort of ambiguous, someone might have a brow ridge and might measure their focal distance starting from their brow ridge. I'm asian, so I don't have much brow ridge like the russians. Maybe you're just exaggerating that you can only see 1 inch. I just got 4 inches off the "chinamyopia.com" website from Otis. If you can only see one inch, you must have like 20 diopter glasses; you have my condolences. I would also like to add that I cannot read with glasses. I wish I could, you should know that one would need like 12 inches of focal accomodation to see that well. > >I know that I would have been really happy to > have AsianMale's vision when I was younger. >Being able to see 4 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Hey, hey, hey. You = crazy. I'm not sure I can even see four inches. I'm sorry, I thought that when you posted a number it was because you thought it was correct. I won't assume that any more. If you post something in the future, I'll assume that you pulled it out of thin air. > I also think that statement is a little strange because 4 inches is > sort of ambiguous, someone might have a brow ridge and might measure > their focal distance starting from their brow ridge. I don't measure such things from my brow, the end of my finger, the end of my toe or from my father's nose. It's the distance from the cornea to the object. > Maybe you're just > exaggerating that you can only see 1 inch. No, I measured it. Why in the hell would I lie about something like that? Do you think I enjoyed being nearly blind without my glasses on? I don't think so! > I just got 4 inches off the > "chinamyopia.com" website from Otis. I see, the very picture of credibility. It would take five seconds to measure this. Take your glasses off, hold an object in front of one eye and move it back and forth to see when it is in focus. When in focus, hold your thumb next to your eye about where the cornea is and touch the object with your first finger. Hold your thumb and finger steady and move them to where they are in focus. Estimate how many inches they are apart. Not exactly rocket science, is it? If you can't estimate inches, find a ruler. Then the measurement will take how ever long it takes to find a ruler plus five seconds. If you can only see one inch, you > must have like 20 diopter glasses; you have my condolences. Thanks for the condolences. I'm guessing that you pulled the 20D out of thin air as well. I have already posted that my eye at their worst were -10D and -12D. > I would also like to add that I cannot read with glasses. I wish I > could, you should know that one would need like 12 inches of focal > accomodation to see that well. To read normally, yes. SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net Dan Abel I'm real sorry. <I'm sorry, I thought that when you posted a number it was because you thought it was correct. I won't assume that any more. If you post something in the future, I'll assume that you pulled it out of thin air. No, I measured it. Why in the hell would I lie about something like that? Do you think I enjoyed being nearly blind without my glasses on? I don't think so! Thanks for the condolences. I'm guessing that you pulled the 20D out of thin air as well. I have already posted that my eye at their worst were -10D and -12D.> Dan Abel my response is: okay I did what you said. My left eye is 4.5 inches. My right eye is 5 inches but it has an astigmatism. And I m not sure that at those distances they were clear. And I measured from the bottom of my cornea not from the pupil. Also I must note that I have no broken into the super strong glasses, maybe if I did I would be just as bad as you. My apologies. >I believe that this test has been proven; when they gave chicks 10 > diopters of plus lenses to one group and 10 diopters of minus lenses to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can be offered a choice to make their child farsighted, because the > myopes all know how horrible it is not to be able to see far distances. Your plan will fail, as the high plus lenses will create high hyperopia only for children under 4 yrs of age. Since most myopia develops after the age of 4, and plus lenses do not create hyperopia after age 4, myopia will not be prevented. High hyperopia is associated with strabismus, amblyopia and learning problems. Further 10D of hyperopia requires glasses for correction so the child will still need glasses. > This is what life was supposed to be. Then no school child will be > betrayed by their teachers. The school child who was told to study but > did it in excess will no longer develop myopia simply for "doing what > his teacher says to his utmost ability and following the rules". There is no evidence that studying causes high myopia. > Any parent who requests that their child be farsighted will fix plus > lenses on their child once they are about one week old. > > Although this idea seems radical, it is a much better future for the > betterment of mankind, and in the end, we all win. Since high myopes can see clearly up close but blurred in distance without glasses and high hyperopes are blurred at near and far without glasses, the hyperopic child will be even more dependant upon glasses than the myopic child -- ie worse off. dr judy In this episode; Doctor Judy claims that myopes have it better off than hyperopes: >Since high myopes can see clearly up close but blurred in distance without glasses and high hyperopes are blurred at near and far without glasses, the >hyperopic child will be even more dependant upon glasses than the myopic child -- ie worse off. Doctor Judy, are not myopic children highly dependant upon glasses? Also, myopic children never get the guarantee of permanent clear vision, as opposed to the hyperope. Emmetropes find that trying on minus lenses are very painful, while trying on plus lenses provide pleasure, I think our eyes are trying to tell us something... Doctor Judy claims that: >There is no evidence that studying causes high myopia. Well there is evidence that the human eye must accomodate to anything close, which is evidence enough. You are starting to act like myopia is a natural part of life; which is wrong. Doctor Judy begins to mention that farsightedness causes diseases: >High hyperopia is associated with strabismus, amblyopia and learning problems. Further 10D of hyperopia requires glasses for correction so the >child will still need glasses. Again, I do not know what strabismus and amblyopia are. But I do know that detached retina and break-in period are associated with myopia. I also know that minus lenses cause a lot of tension and headaches. Doctor Judy says children over four will be too old. >Your plan will fail, as the high plus lenses will create high hyperopia only for children under 4 yrs of age. Since most myopia develops after the age >of 4, and plus lenses do not create hyperopia after age 4, myopia will not be prevented. Well, then I guess the solution is simple. Give plus lenses to children when they are born. The risk of retinal detachment in myopes is about 3%. There is no such thing as a "break-in" period for myopes. Most young myopes are unaware that they are myopic, and most enjoy wearing their eyeglasses because of the pleasure of seeing well. The enjoyment begins to wear off in teenage years, when they become more self-conscious about appearance. Emmetropes should not be wearing minus lenses. If wearing plus lenses was so pleasurable, all emmetropes would be doing it. Why give plus lenses to children when they are born? We've already described the visual morbidity associated with hyperopia. In fact, even at the age of 4 years, most children are still very slightly hyperopic. This message is not being cross-posted. DrG >Emmetropes should not be wearing minus lenses. If wearing plus lenses >was so pleasurable, all emmetropes would be doing it. They are, what do you think people's fascination with magnifying glasses are and dislike of telescopes and binoculars demonstrates? Well Said Doctor Leukemia: >The enjoyment begins to wear off in teenage years, when they become more >self-conscious about appearance. I couldn't have said it better myself. All of a sudden people start calling you ugly and then you just wish that if you were an emmetrope or hyperope you would be slightly better looking. You would be slightly more successful and get slightly more promotions and get slightly more friends and be slightly more popular and you would get a slightly better job. Doctor Leukemia says: >The risk of retinal detachment in myopes is about 3%. There is no such >thing as a "break-in" period for myopes. Hmm, maybe you're right, and the pain that I am getting is breaking into astigmatism glasses. I once broke into a really strong pair of glasses with astigmatism correction. Now I'm wearing weak glasses and see double vision in my right eye, or shadowing. like on the eye chart there is a duplicate on top of the letter than overlaps it. This leads me to believe that Lenscrafters overprescribed me. I did not notice this double vision and am quite certain the "new" glasses are responsible for this. That so-called astigmatism correction is actually an astigmatism inducer if you go back and just do the same activities that caused it in the first place. But then there is the traditional approach that is all genetic. Sure... Doctor Lokemoaia says: >In fact, even at the age of 4 years, most children are still very slightly >hyperopic. Excellent. So, if we give 4 year olds 1.25 diopter plus lenses they will stabilize at that point? >Why give plus lenses to children when they are born? We've already >described the visual morbidity associated with hyperopia. So you want children to become 20/20? That is sick. People are not responsible enough for maintain 20/20 vision. It's like you WANT people to become myopic. You'd rather let people go without pluses than to guarantee the preservation of their vision. So you're plan is to let people take vision into their own hands, without the knowledge of prevention? That is irresponsible and the public should be educated. But many groups are against this. ADHD experts would love to give the ADD kid to get myopia, because then they could study. Lasik surgeons also want you to get astigmatism and myopia. > >Emmetropes should not be wearing minus lenses. If wearing plus lenses > >was so pleasurable, all emmetropes would be doing it. > > They are, what do you think people's fascination with magnifying > glasses are and dislike of telescopes and binoculars demonstrates? Yeh, I follow that logic...NOT. Who has a fascination with magnifying glasses? Surely nobody I know. > Well Said Doctor Leukemia: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > slightly more friends and be slightly more popular and you would get a > slightly better job. Well, it sounds like you may need an EXTREME MAKEOVER. > Doctor Leukemia says: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > activities that caused it in the first place. But then there is the > traditional approach that is all genetic. Sure... I see. Not myopia, but astigmatism. Well, make up your mind. > Doctor Lokemoaia says: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Excellent. So, if we give 4 year olds 1.25 diopter plus lenses they > will stabilize at that point? Will they, indeed? You tell me. You obviously know more than I. > >Why give plus lenses to children when they are born? We've already > >described the visual morbidity associated with hyperopia. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to get myopia, because then they could study. Lasik surgeons also want > you to get astigmatism and myopia. Well, I don't know how to argue with an irrational person. Maybe I need to have a few drinks first to become sufficiently irrational so that I can even understand your post, let alone answer it. Or, maybe you could just sober up. DrG > In this episode; Doctor Judy claims that myopes have it better off than > hyperopes: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Also, myopic children never get the guarantee of permanent clear > vision, as opposed to the hyperope. Hyperopes do not have pernament clear vision, they need glasses for near and, if at +10, will need glasses for distance as well. Myopes can see at near without glasses. > Emmetropes find that trying on minus lenses are very painful, while > trying on plus lenses provide pleasure, I think our eyes are trying to > tell us something... Really? Do you have a reference for that? Most people I know would find walking around with distance blur due to plus lens to not provide pleasure. >>There is no evidence that studying causes high myopia. > > Well there is evidence that the human eye must accomodate to anything > close, which is evidence enough. You are starting to act like myopia > is a natural part of life; which is wrong. There is no evidence that accommodation causes myopia. If it did, 100% of people would be myopic and there would be no hyperopia. Uncorrected hyperopes (75% of caucasian population) accommodate MORE than corrected or uncorrected myopes and they accommodate 100% of the time, even when looking at the distance, yet they do not become myopic. > Doctor Judy begins to mention that farsightedness causes diseases: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Again, I do not know what strabismus and amblyopia are. They are blindness. But I do know > that detached retina and break-in period are associated with myopia. I > also know that minus lenses cause a lot of tension and headaches. Retinal detachment is associated with long eye length, not myopia. Although long eye length is often also a cause of myopia, it is possible to have long eyes and no myopia and to have myopia without long eyes. Do you have a reference for your statement that minus lenses cause tension and headache? > Doctor Judy says children over four will be too old. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Well, then I guess the solution is simple. Give plus lenses to > children when they are born. It still won't prevent myopia from developing after age 4. What little effect plus lenses have on creating refractive error disappears after age 4. Dr Judy Dear Friend, Subject: OD who "believe" in the minus lens. I grant that the ODs on this site "eat their own poision", and will in fact use the "traditional" minus lens on their children EXACTLY as they use it on their own children. You will never persuade them to "change" as long as they believe that the minus lens is the "perfect" and ONLY solution. In that sense they are totally ethical and honest. Do not attempt to get blood from a stone. But remember the facts themselves to convince a FEW ODs that they should begin the use of the plus at the threshold -- as Steve Leung OD is now doing it. This was suggested by Professor T. Grosvenor (Houston) that the plus must be used BEFORE the minus len is used. Easy to say -- very hard to implement indeed. That is why I suggest we pay attention to the "second opinion" ODs in the sense of how they proposed to deal with their own children. Beyond that point this situation is clearly going to continue. These issues will always be a matter of your own personal judgment. Enjoy, Otis you stated" This was suggested by Professor T. Grosvenor (Houston) that the plus must be used BEFORE the minus len is used." WAS is the key word in this sentence. Ted Grosvenor no longer believes plus lenses to be efficacious. he is a man of science, unlike you. he has seen the data and knows that the old concept has not been proven to be true. he has moved on. why don't you? why do you continue to name drop people who don't even know you. why do you try to borrow credibility for your worn-out theory from other peoples good name. sad. sick. Otis, I am glad that the internet will always be around so that people can get a "second opinion", even though it is very unlikely that one will stumble upon these websites by accident. Even if these websites are just for marketing and are lying, it is the only way to explain these things to people without angering them. The problem with second opinions on the internet is that anybody can give them, even non-experts such as Otis. Quality of information is a real problem on the internet. DrG Doctor Leukoma said: >The problem with second opinions on the >>>>internet is that anybody can >>>>give them, even non-experts such as >>>Otis. Quality of information is a >>>real problem on the internet. >>>>DrG Doctor Lokoma... If you want expert information, then why don't visit one of those QUALITY websites. They talk about the QUALITY visual acuity that glasses give you. They talk about the QUALITY shield from projectiles glasses give you. But the most bull$!#@ statement is that glasses help you play sports. If anything, they make you way worse at sports. You cannot play football with glasses. You cannot wrestle with glasses. You cannot put on a fencing mask without destroying your glasses. You cannot play basketball with glasses. You cannot play volleyball with glasses. But hey, this is QUALITY information from QUALITY websites. And since it promotes minus lenses, they MUST be correct. Dear Friend, Both you and I got caught in the same "trap". I don't discuss "blame", only responsibility. If some one wants to discuss prevention then I have them read "The Printer's Son". Clearly the "show stopper" was the attitude of the parents and child -- that the parents did NOT WANT TO SEE THEIR CHILD IN A PLUS LENS. That is a lesson I learned with great force. In fact, I figured that the only way I could have avoided nearsightedness -- was I Jacob Raphaelson had been my father -- and kept me in a plus lens. That is my tribute do both Jake Raphaelson and Steve Leung OD. You will eventually get married and have children. This has been a "lesson" for you -- and in the future you will learn to "accept" what these "preventive" optometrists have to offer. But a great deal depends on our learning to "accept" the need for agressive use of the plus -- before we begin wearing that wretched minus. I am glad my sister's children "woke up" and avoided stair-case myopia. They obviously had no choice, and had to do it themselves -- because no one would help them, and the mindless hostility of SOME of these ODs on sci.med.vision. Best, Otis Present those facts, Otis. Please do. We would all like to see them. Why do you hide behind decades-old studies? Why? Because you are not interested in the truth, but in hiding behind lies and obfuscations. Why? Because you are promoting a narrowly selfish agenda based upon your own personal problems. Please get some help, Otis. DrG stop crossposting four eyes >><<stop crossposting four eyes>><< what's wrong with cross posting? >>><<stop crossposting four eyes>><< > > what's wrong with cross posting? i'm myopic (slightly) but i dont wear my glassrs so i dont look like a dork like u. >>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<stop crossposting four eyes what's wrong with crossposting? > >>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<stop crossposting four eyes > > what's wrong with crossposting? What do alt.suicide.*, misc.comsumers, and rec.arts.tv have to do with your vision problems? Not a thing, that's what's wrong with crossposting. And it makes you look like a troll who wants to start flamewars. Also it sucks unsupecting repliers into the other forums if they don't notice the additional addressee groups, and the threads tend to multiply geometrically. I'm taking the time to respond here because the "asian male you idiot" now also claims to be a minor and has been somewhat less nutty with the posts lately. Still pretty nutty and troll like, and it wouldn't surprise me if she turned out to be a 1st year optometry student with too much free time on her hands... But if you're not, that would be a great idea. You could learn the all latest on your disability, and you'd be able to work toward the proofs that you and otis want to exist. >>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<stop crossposting four eyes >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Not a thing, that's what's wrong with crossposting. And it makes you > look like a troll who wants to start flamewars. Dear Young Friend, You must be good technically. Apparently William believes you are in pre-optometry! I guess I am gullible -- I believe you are who you say you are. I know when you are young you complain bitterly about some situations -- I know I did. But equally I was prepared to learn. Yes, you and I got a bad "deal", and some of this is our own responsibility. But please remember the following Russian proverb: Once I cried and cried and cried Because I had not boots. Until I met a man With no feet. Buck up, my friend ... let us learn together! Best, Otis WStacy> I'm taking the time to respond here because the "asian male you idiot" now also claims to be a minor and has been somewhat less nutty with the posts lately. Still pretty nutty and troll like, and it wouldn't surprise me if she turned out to be a 1st year optometry student with too much free time on her hands... Otis> That would surprise me totally ... given the general tennor of my Asian friend. Otis> But as a first-year optometry student he is doing an excellent analytical job of making analytical arguments about the dynamic nature of the natural eye. Best, Otis > Dear Young Friend, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Otis Freeze this and archive this forever. The truth is that Otis believes he was dealt a "bad deal" in life. Now he lashes out, irrationally, at those whom he thinks are responsible for his "bad deal" in life. Please, folks, get some counseling. Otis: I implore you not to prey upon poor vulnerable teenagers with low self-esteem. Can anybody else shed some light on this odd situation? DrG Dear "G", There you go -- making wild ASSUMPTIONS about me. This is not true -- I just sought to determine scientific fact concerning the natural eye's behavior. I also sought to understand the "show stopper" produced by the public that wants exclusively a "quick-fix", and will not listen to the logic of true-prevention -- as stated by the optometrist Jacob Raphaelson. The scientific (experimental) data tells us the true story of the natural eye's proven behavior. It can be up to the individual to figure this out, and (started before the minus lens), the plus can move the "near" objects out to infinity -- PROVIDED the refractive status is SLIGHTLY negative (i.e., pseudo-myopia). This suggests the concept of RESPONSIBILITY, where the person himself ACCEPTS responsibility to understand the true facts, and acts strongly to ELLIMINATE the near enviroment with a plus. For instance, if the person reads at 20 inches (-2.0 diopters), and then begins reading through a +2 diopter lens (read at the blur-point), his accommodation system is set at zero diopters. >From the previous example (to our Asian friend), the "new" visual enviroment (average) would be ( 0 - 0 ) / 2, or his visual enviroment would be zero diopters. >From the study of primates (living in the wild) we know (Francis Young) that the adolescent primate has refractive states running from approximately zero to two diopters (pseudo hyperopia), thus monkeys in that enviroment are not "nearsighed" (have pseudo-myopia). (There might be 1 percent -- but the average is a stated above.) Best, Otis Otis Town says: >>>This suggests the concept of >>>RESPONSIBILITY, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>enviroment with a >>>plus. Yes, I believe the public is seriously overeducated on things like sex education. For example, a lot of us guys aren't even having sex. And how complicated is it to put on a condemn? Health Ed is a stupid class and is seriously lacking in substance. For an organ that interprets 90% of the input in our lives, quite possible the most important organ in our lives, the public is seriously undereducated. Not once in my public education has anyone even coined the term nearsighted or farsighted or myopia or hyperiopia. Yet we learn about the heart valves. We learn about physics. We learn about math, and English. All things that are far less important. The point is that a person cannot accept responsibility and blame for their myopia if they did not know the information in the first place. I mean common, they never even taught us about accomodation in high school. Sick. Otis Town says: >>>This suggests the concept of >>>RESPONSIBILITY, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>enviroment with a >>>plus. Yes, I believe the public is seriously overeducated on things like sex education. For example, a lot of us guys aren't even having sex. And how complicated is it to put on a condemn? Health Ed is a stupid class and is seriously lacking in substance. For an organ that interprets 90% of the input in our lives, quite possible the most important organ in our lives, the public is seriously undereducated. Not once in my public education has anyone even coined the term nearsighted or farsighted or myopia or hyperiopia. Yet we learn about the heart valves. We learn about physics. We learn about math, and English. All things that are far less important. The point is that a person cannot accept responsibility and blame for their myopia if they did not know the information in the first place. I mean common, they never even taught us about accomodation in high school. Sick. I believe that if they did, kids would use the excuse that reading causes myopia as an alibi to not do homework, or an alibi to justify staring out a window, or an alibi to not pay attention in class. The government does not want this, and wants people to be uneducated and blind. The government wants to control us like a herd us sheep, the government wants us to never question authority. You will see that those of us who are myopic are the ones who followed all the rules and are "teacher's pets". >> Dear Young Friend, >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >he was dealt a "bad deal" in life. Now he lashes out, irrationally, at >those whom he thinks are responsible for his "bad deal" in life. "When Otis S. Brown was a young boy, he dreamed of someday becoming an airline pilot. In fact, everything he did throughout those early days in grade school was aimed at achieving that goal. Then, disaster struck, and Otis Brown's dreams of becoming a pilot faded as he was fitted with increasingly stronger minus glasses to correct a worsening case of myopia, or nearsightedness, a condition which causes distant objects to appear blurred." - http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/PREV73.TXT (Otis's website) That is correct -- and I interviewed Dr. Ludlam who cleared some individuals from 20/300 to 20/40 -- if you actually read the paper. Dr. Ludlam also stated that submariners develope nearsighedness proportional to the time spend in the submarine -- I assume you didn't read that either. In any event, Ludlam had communicated in writing with Dr. Raphaelson, and that is how I met that grand old man -- of of the preventive second-opinion. Steve Leung OD, and the scientist Stirling Colgate carry on with the true-preventive method -- and I would suggest those who wish to learn of the preventive method visit the site: www.myopiafree.com and form your own judgment about this second opinion. If you child is on the threshold of nearsighedness (20/40) and -3/4 to -1.0 diopters you might contact a prevention-minded optometrists (behaviorial) and discuss this specific issue. When the optometrist sees you sincere interest in prevention with the plus then you will have saved him a great deal of effort in "pursuading" him to help you with the plus. That would give you child a "fighting chance" an retaining clear distant vision through the school years, and would give you a great deal more "control" of this situation. Best, Otis >That is correct -- and I interviewed >Dr. Ludlam who cleared some individuals >from 20/300 to 20/40 -- if you actually >read the paper. Oh, I read the whole paper, Otis. A lot of 32 year old anecdotal garbage. But nothing in there is more significant than this passage (1973): "When Otis S. Brown was a young boy, he dreamed of someday becoming an airline pilot. In fact, everything he did throughout those early days in grade school was aimed at achieving that goal. Then, disaster struck, and Otis Brown's dreams of becoming a pilot faded as he was fitted with increasingly stronger minus glasses to correct a worsening case of myopia, or nearsightedness, a condition which causes distant objects to appear blurred." It explains your pathological *need* to be right about this theory, whether or not the facts support you. It explains why you would *not want* to conduct trials to prove that: - plus lenses prevent the progression of myopia in humans, AND - minus lenses accelerate the progression of myopia in humans It explains your pathological zealotry all too well. But it still doesn't prove efficacy of plus lens therapy for myopes. X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com. SBC & Prodigy have been informed of this Filthy Abuser, Copyright,Trademark Infringer. Do a search at http://freespeechstore.com/ for the forgeries, aliases, etc. and then report him to these executives... http://freespeechstore.com/Qresults.asp?Search_Keyword=sbc&btnSearch2=Find+Speech Report him to... wh5700@sbc.com, abuse@swbell.net, tg6846@sbc.com, abuse@prodigy.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Freespeechstore@aol.com To: wh5700@sbc.com ; abuse@swbell.net ; tg6846@sbc.com ; abuse@prodigy.net ; groups-abuse@google.com ; abuse@verio.net ; abuse@earthlink.net ; abuse@giganews.com Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2005 8:14 PM Subject: Forging, Cyberstalking, and Continued Harassment From SBC, Prodigy Customer Dear All, The FreeSpeechStore.com has been and is continually harassed in Usenet, newsgroups, etc. by one of your customers. We have notified you in the past with no definitive action taken. Because of his/her abuse of our abuse email contact address, (forging our abuse email address, which you all were notified of months ago), FSS is constantly spammed, and almost daily. The harvesting of the email address has caused us monetary damages. As recently as today, this person is using a filthy alias/forging of our name, address, etc. (freespeechstore8myballs@the.table, see below documentation) Also, his has used various email hoaxes, forges, aliases, etc. of many of the major ISP's abuse addresses when posting filth about us. This account holder merely posts to harass. You have been put on notice in the past and freespeechstore.com (FSS) is notifying you again, if definitive action is not taken, we will seek our legal remedies. Below, is the documentation of the abuse. If you need more information, do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully, FSS ================================================================== Reply-To: "Giant Radioactive Easter Bunny" <freespeechstore8myba...@the.table> From: "Giant Radioactive Easter Bunny" <freespeechstore8myba...@the.table> Newsgroups: rec.autos.driving,misc.transport.road References: <1111856220.206972.324320@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <ibh1e.4649$gI5.3365@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> <1111871987.136997.198700@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: LLBs - The saints of our highways Lines: 4 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Message-ID: <UID1e.16037$C47.5400@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.118.252.48 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr14.news.prodigy.com 1111951284 ST000 67.118.252.48 (Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:21:24 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 14:21:24 EST Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: TSU[@S^EBJWYBTH]^JKBOW@@YJ_ZTB\MV@BT]_MIJQR@EPIB_VUKAH_[MTX\IS[K[NGYJJFNOFZR_G[BUNTAOQLFE^TEHRPI]PZZRP_BMDSFQFL_]CBHXRWCMDCUZAZN@D_AKMNLEI]MWHCSXL^]NNC__CZFGSGHYYXWPFG@SCAVA]\FT\@B\RDGENSUQS^M Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:21:25 GMT Shut the hell up, you insane troll. ================================================================== It appears that SBC, Prodigy, Giganews.com, etc...have an AUP abuser, Supreme CyberStalker with many aliases, to include abuse@verio.com, abuse@earthlink.net, and nobody@google.com. He stalks, harasses, forges, posts filth in Usenet and the Newsgroups with zealous criminality! See below for the detail and notice the abuse forges and all the filthy references... http://freespeechstore.com/Qresults.asp?Search_Keyword=sbc+cyberstalker&btnSearc h2=Find+Speech http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=freespeechstore+sbc+prodig y&qt_s=Search+Groups http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d&q=hubert+frees peechstore&btnG=Search http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d&q=null@example .com&btnG=Search http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d&q=invalid@exam ple.com&btnG=Search http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d&q=abuse@myisp. net&btnG=Search http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d&q=not@myisp.ne t&btnG=Search http://freespeechstore.com/Qresults.asp?Search_Keyword=sbc+prodigy&btnSearch2=Fi nd+Speech http://freespeechstore.com/public/Sub_Public6/2552_Google__SBC__Prodigy_AUP_News group_Abuser_Reported.htm http://freespeechstore.com/public/Sub_Public6/2424_Internet_Abuser..null@example .com_invalid@example.com_abuse@myisp.net_not@myisp.net__et_al.htm http://freespeechstore.com/public/Sub_Public7/2792_SBC__Prodigy__Usenet_CyberSta lker__Troll__Harasser__Forger_Outed_and_Reported....htm http://freespeechstore.com/public/Sub_Public6/2407_Alias_Mark_Rathbun__eBayer__a buse@verio.net_Usenet__Newsgroup__Forger_and_Harasser.htm Some of the many aliases are... "Annualized Scrotum Investment" abc@nospam.bytemi "Aristotle Testicockle Stephanopoulus" abuse@yourisp.net "Astoundingly Violent Discharge" abuse@earthlink.net "Barrington J. Puke-Nostril" <abuse@isp.net> "Boner J. Skidmark" <Scissorsrun@btt.net> "Boner J. Skidmark" abuse@isp.net "Captain MonkeyNuts" <SpaceBur...@HenrikBlucher.Fapworthy "Captain MonkeyNuts" nobody@google.com "Cornelius P. Dorkbucket." abuse@kevintied.pas "Dainty Scampering Pus-Bucket" HornCheese@KnobGobbler.4You "Dave Parker" "Dave Parker" abuse@realjazz.net "Ernestine K. Monkeynuts" freespeechstore8mybabuse@the.table "Ernesto Nipple-Cheese" everybody@hates.you "Exploding Nipple Crank" everybody@hates.you "Ezikial K. Butt-welder" abuse@earthlink.net "Festive Homosexual Cyborg" "Fetid Triboluminescent Dingleberries" MorganHook@TablePiss.NoseClamp "Filthy Usenet Abuser" invalid@null.com "Flaming Psychotic Embolism" AlbumFolder@TimmyChair.Plump "FreeSpeechStore Ate My Balls" FSSAMB@8MyBalls.fried "Geromino Q. Sockpuppet" <invalid@null.com> "Giant Radioactive Easter Bunny" freespeechstore8myballs@the.table "Giggling Japanese Underware Girls" "High-voltage Alligator Shoes" "Howling Rectal Itch" abuse@splort.net "Hyperspazmodic Baby Poop" "Idiotic Plumbing Wasp" everybody@hates.you "Inflatable Centipede Roller" "Insane Televised Boil Lancing" "katbo" bongokat@hotmail.com "Madison Q. Stinktrousers" abuse@realjazz.net "Mark Rathbun" (abuse@verio.net) "Net Cop" abuse@netcop.net "Patricio J. Whackmember" groups-abuse@google.com "Rear Admiral Melvin" "Screaming Underwater Harem" everybody@hates.you "Smee Again" FesteringDouch...@MonkeyNuts.BraStrap "Thaddeus McFarckle-Burger" nobody@google.com "Albert N Humperleggalot" (abuse@myisp.net) "Antonio Puketard Smythe III" (invalid@example.com) "ArchangeloQWhackMember@MyButt.now" "Bloated Donkey Pancreas"..abuse@earthlink.net "Carlos Eduardo Foreskineater" (null@example.com) "Dave Hubert" (none@earthlink.net) "Dave Null" (not@myisp.net) "eBayer" (abuse@verio.net) "Electrified Drywall Sofa" (null@example.com) "Hoofington P. McSnort" (null@example.com) "Insatiable Skull Refuse" (null@example.com) Laughing out loud (null@example.com) "Melodious Chromium Scrotum Stretcher" (invalid@example.com) "Richard P. Cranium" groups-abuse@google.com "Thelonius Q. Knobgobbler" (redacted) "Vulcanized Posterior" Replacement abuse@mynutts.com "Festering Nutball" <abuse@myvbrush.pit> =============================================================== > X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com. |
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.