 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2005s.m.v. dying
Well I think it's happened again. The nuts have killed s.m.v. 10 or so feeble posts in 1 day. Congrats, otis and cronies. You've done it again. Maybe it'll come back once more. But probably not this year. Bye for now. bill >Well I think it's happened again. > >The nuts have killed s.m.v. Its happening all over USENET. Blame the proliferation of GUI websites for drawing off the customers...all that eyecanding is irresistable, especially when one's browser (read, m$ie) forces it down one's throat. +++++++++++++ Reply to the list as I do not publish an email address to USENET. This practice has cut my spam by more than 95%. Of course, I did have to abandon a perfectly good email account... >Well I think it's happened again. > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Bye for now. So here we go again, folks. Let me explain the cost/benefit of having Otis on the board: 1) He suggests a relatively commonly known method of preventing or relieving ACCOMMODATIVE (or pseudo-) myopia. Doctors have know this for years: if you're nearsighted, take off your glasses for near work (duh). That's ALL you get with Otis. 2) All other Otis Brown claims are currently proven false. Minus lenses DO NOT hasten the progression of myopia. Plus lenses DO NOT slow it. Nothing seems to reverse it. We can't get that through his thick, senile skull. 3) The cost of engaging Otis in his pathetic intellectual masturbation? Caring, educated, generous eye doctors (who can help SCORES of people who have MORE SERIOUS problems with their eyes) leave. They just leave. Who knows how many have CONSIDERED contributing until they saw what an asylum it's become. Review this board for the last year. Look how many people stopped by, frightened out of their wits, because they, or a loved one, had a scary diagnosis or unsettling symptom. See how quickly they were helped by the various ODs and MDs who /try/ to frequent this board. Who's going to help them if the docs leave? Me? Otis?? I'm getting sick and tired of the signal-to-noise ratio being overwhelmed by Otis and his pathological blather. I've been involved in researching eye issues for over two decades, but still manage to pick up important and valuable bits from the eye docs who contribute here. I'm loath to lose them. I'm ASKING all of you who have remained neutral, all of you lurkers who enjoy the programming, but don't contribute (sounds like a PBS fundraising campaign now, only without mugs and totebags), and all of you regulars to join me in forcefully requesting that Otis leave s.m.v. in any way you can. He provides no benefit. He has already hurt some who have listened to him. He is beginning to hurt us all. Please. You really want to KEEP Otis Brown and LOSE Bill Stacy (or Larry Bickford, or David Granet, or ....)???? PLEASE HELP. Neil >> Well I think it's happened again. >> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > > PLEASE HELP. You're being melodramatic. You're also underestimating the casual visitor. This is likely not the first usenet group they have frequented. This group is not unlike most others in this respect. Most visitors seeking advice or information are capable of sorting good information with bad and making their own (sometimes informed) decisions. If not "informed" most people will go with a concensus. What I find very perplexing/disturbing is that a group of medical professionals continue to engage in this pointless exercise. Being professionals you all must be fairly well educated. Being professionals in the medical/scientific field you must be fairly analytic. Why is it that you seem to be compelled to engage and respond? It's like you are all adicted and can't help yourselves. It's an unmoderated group. You cannot control who posts here and, with few exceptions, what they post here. It seems you have tried reasoning with Otis and he has not changed his views. I got the impression that you've tried reasoning with Otis for THREE YEARS! <--- don't any of you find this alarming? You're not "warning others" you are engaging Otis in an attempt to change his mind or force him to capitulate. It's obvious (you have all pointed this out) that you are simply exacerbating the situation. Your efforts are counterproductive to your objective and yet you cannot seem to restrain yourselves. I'm just talking to myself. I have absolutely no expectation of influencing any of you or seeing anything change. This is what I find unique to this group. I feel like I'm watching an episode of the Twilight Zone. -Quick >>> Well I think it's happened again. >>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > >You're being melodramatic. ... and you're being naive. There used to be several more OD's and MD's who participated on a regular basis. If you ask them, they'll tell you that they stopped because of the Alex Eulenbergs and Otis Browns of this world. Ask Larry Bickford or Bill Stacy. >You're also underestimating the >casual visitor. This is likely not the first usenet group they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >their own (sometimes informed) decisions. If not "informed" >most people will go with a concensus. Hypothesis contrary to fact ... again. Read my latest post. They try Otis's way because it sounds simple. They try it without input from the medical community because Otis sounds convincing. At best, it does nothing. At worst, it exacerbates existing problems or creates new ones. >What I find very perplexing/disturbing is that a group of medical >professionals continue to engage in this pointless exercise. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and respond? It's like you are all adicted and can't help >yourselves. See above. The reason most engage is to limit the harm done by the Rishi's and Otis's of the world. >It's an unmoderated group. You cannot control >who posts here No attempt to control. Yes, and attempt to ask people to circle the wagons in persuading Otis to leave voluntarily. Plenty o'forums exist where he can run amok. >and, with few exceptions, what they post >here. It seems you have tried reasoning with Otis and he [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >are engaging Otis in an attempt to change his mind or force >him to capitulate. I disagree. I'm warning others that following Otis's advice without close medical supervision is foolhardiness. >It's obvious (you have all pointed this out) >that you are simply exacerbating the situation. Your efforts >are counterproductive to your objective and yet you cannot >seem to restrain yourselves. In one way, yes. In another way, no. >I'm just talking to myself. I have absolutely no expectation >of influencing any of you or seeing anything change. This >is what I find unique to this group. I feel like I'm watching >an episode of the Twilight Zone. While I don't disagree with the notion that nothing anybody does is affecting Otis's behavior in any way, I do disagree that--left to their own devices--nobody will listen to him. They have, and they have come to regret it. There are numerous examples of this. Have any suggestions (as I've asked of this group before) as to how to prevent him from doing harm without hijacking the group? Do you think that a regular warning (such as Bev's, or such as mine) is effective? >> You're being melodramatic. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Ask Larry Bickford or Bill Stacy. Have you considered that they left because of the incessant (fruitless) volleys which by volume decreased the signal to noise level? >> You're also underestimating the >> casual visitor. This is likely not the first usenet [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > nothing. At worst, it exacerbates existing problems or > creates new ones. Yes. People harm themselves and are harmed every day. This is a fact of life. People are taken, mislead, swindled, abused and taken advantage every day. This is a fact of life. Do you think your efforts to alleviate this are best spent engaging Otis? What has been your result so far? Read your latest post... Do you think Otis would continue here if he didn't have an audience? truthfully? >> What I find very perplexing/disturbing is that a group >> of medical professionals continue to engage in this [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > See above. The reason most engage is to limit the harm > done by the Rishi's and Otis's of the world. Really? Or are you just feeding your ego (and Otis')? Have you actually tried censure? It seems you all have been at this particular endevor for quite some time. How long do you plan to continue before deciding it's ineffective? You really should have some measurable milestones and alternative approaches based on those. >> It's an unmoderated group. You cannot control >> who posts here > > No attempt to control. Yes, and attempt to ask people to > circle the wagons in persuading Otis to leave > voluntarily. Plenty o'forums exist where he can run amok. See above. How long has it been? Has Otis left yet? Do you feel he is on the verge of leaving? >> and, with few exceptions, what they post >> here. It seems you have tried reasoning with Otis and he [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I disagree. I'm warning others that following Otis's > advice without close medical supervision is foolhardiness. No. You're not. You are engaging Otis directly in a dialog. >> It's obvious (you have all pointed this out) >> that you are simply exacerbating the situation. Your [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > listen to him. They have, and they have come to regret > it. There are numerous examples of this. Maybe you will have to accept the fact that you can't save everybody in the world from everything. If you are going to try you are certainly not making the best use of your resources. > Have any suggestions (as I've asked of this group before) > as to how to prevent him from doing harm without > hijacking the group? Do you think that a regular warning > (such as Bev's, or such as mine) is effective? Minimally. It doesn't hurt. The answer is censure. This has proven time and time again to be far and away the most effective method of dealing with trolls and the like on usenet. Trolls are still very effective at what they do since censure requires group discipline to be effective. I would have thought that possible with a group comprised mostly of professionals in the medical field... maybe not. Otis is looking for an audience. You're providing it. -Quick >>> You're being melodramatic. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >incessant (fruitless) volleys which by volume decreased >the signal to noise level? One way to find out.... >>> You're also underestimating the >>> casual visitor. This is likely not the first usenet [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Read your latest post... Do you think Otis would continue >here if he didn't have an audience? truthfully? No, but I'm short of ideas and long on motivation [hmm: maybe not so different from Otis after all :-) ] >>> What I find very perplexing/disturbing is that a group >>> of medical professionals continue to engage in this [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >You really should have some measurable milestones and >alternative approaches based on those. Open to alternative approaches.... >>> It's an unmoderated group. You cannot control >>> who posts here [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >See above. How long has it been? Has Otis left yet? >Do you feel he is on the verge of leaving? Maybe stroking out? >>> and, with few exceptions, what they post >>> here. It seems you have tried reasoning with Otis and he [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >No. You're not. You are engaging Otis directly in a dialog. For public consumption. >>> It's obvious (you have all pointed this out) >>> that you are simply exacerbating the situation. Your [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >going to try you are certainly not making the best use >of your resources. Fair point. >> Have any suggestions (as I've asked of this group before) >> as to how to prevent him from doing harm without [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Otis is looking for an audience. You're providing it. Also a fair point. Thanks for the input. Dear Quick, You may find this surprising, but most of the "advocacy" comes from the "second opinion" MDs!! In fact there are many who would attempt to "restrict" the prescription of a "minus" by not using it until they had no choice. I deeply respect that man -- but felt that there was a need for greater and effective communication about WHY he judged that that minus was "risky". At the very minimum, the Oakly-Young proves his point. It is funny -- a man named "Rishi" posted here -- with honestly "wild" claims. He had the habit of calling people "names" -- which I do not engage in -- even as others call me "names". (Does this sound childish?) There is no doubt but that "prevention" is the second opinion, but can only be effective at the threshold. I you read my site -- I LIMIT the effectiveness to about 20/70. Beyone that point -- prevention-with-plus can not be effective, and you have commited yourself to permanent wear of that minus. These "debates" coud be reduced if the OD would stop "defending the practice" and face basic scientific facts concering the proven behavior of the fundamental eye -- as a dynamic system. But the will not face these facts -- and that is the problem. They could also stop "counter-posting" and that would ease the situation. But they can not. At least with the ODs -- I realize that they have little choice in the matter. But with people like "Neil" who seems to be a "control freak" you really have to wonder. Some (at 20/60) have used the plus with great force, and cleared to 20/20. And equally others have not. It becomes a matter of the person's judgment about how much effort he wishes to expenc on this goal. As such, this is a matter of personal empowerment. If the person is successful -- then no more optometric involvement. Obviously -- if not, he can use the minus lens for the rest of his life. None of this is "easy". Easy is the minus lens. "Difficult" is prevention. Those who say that "prevention is impossible" I will disagree with. Those who say that true-prevention is very difficult -- I will agree with. Those who insist that you have no right to and "informed choice" I strongly disagree with. Best, Otis O. B. (Old Buzzard), You are completely useless. Any misinformation that you provide here can be easily found with a Google search, including the book you have for sale on the Net. In a forum where people come for help with their contacts, their vision, their lenses ... anything to do with their eyes except some form of mild myopia for which they PROBABLY DON'T NEED GLASSES ANYWAY, you are NOTHING -- NO HELP. And, if they can see without their glasses, they don't need you, either. GO AWAY. This is all I have ever said to you and all I ever will, except your (hopefully joking) IQ chart is offensive to someone who really has bad vision. Please do not respond. I'm surprised I even lowered myself and wasted my time to type an note to you. > You may find this surprising, but most of the "advocacy" comes > from the "second opinion" MDs!! And who would that be? I know a number of ophthalmologists and I can't imagine them taking you seriously. -MT > There is no doubt but that "prevention" is the second opinion, > but can only be effective at the threshold. I you read [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But the will not face these facts -- and that > is the problem. Sure. Refer everybody to your website where the only evidence for your type of "prevention" belongs in Ripley's Believe It Or Not museum of failed and scrapped ideas over at the junk heap of history. These debates would indeed end if Otis would quit defending his failed and totally discredited ideas. But, he will not face these facts, and that is the problem. DrG > Dear Quick, > > You may find this surprising, but most of the "advocacy" comes > from the "second opinion" MDs!! What are their names, please. R metronome: a city dwarf > Dear Quick, > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > Otis My father was a healthy, robust individual most of his life. He was a chiropractor of the old school who refused to believe in the viral theory of the common cold. He was also proud of the fact that he had never had to take an antibiotic in his life. He firmly believed that his good health was the result of a diet rich in legumes, and so we often ate bean soup. He probably would have agreed with the sentiments of Otis, and would have avoided antibiotics at all cost, as being the "quick fix." Instead, he focused on prevention, and bean soup was a staple in our diet. I can imagine how he and Otis would have had these conversations: OTIS: True prevention is difficult and must begin at the threshold. DAD: I agree. Today, physicians are only interested in the 'quick fix' of antibiotics. OTIS: Once the minus lens is used, then it is too late. DAD: Of course. The use of antibiotics only leads to more infections by increasingly virulent organisms. It's like a staircase. OTIS: The public demands the quick fix. DAD: Yes, they do. The physician has no choice but to give them a pill. It takes great discipline to let nature take its course. OTIS: Myopia can be prevented, if only people would use their eyes wisely. DAD: Avoiding drafts and eating lots of legumes is the only way. OTIS: I am glad we have had this thoughful exchange. DAD: Enjoyed it. > My father was a healthy, robust individual most of his life. He was a > chiropractor of the old school who refused to believe in the viral [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > DAD: Enjoyed it. But wasn't your father partly correct? Weren't the doctors in my childhood guilty of over-prescribing antibiotics, even when it was pretty clearly a viral problem? Dan - whose son took antibiotics every day for two years! > >> Well I think it's happened again. > >> [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > their own (sometimes informed) decisions. If not "informed" > most people will go with a concensus. I think you're overestimating the intelligence of The Average Person. > What I find very perplexing/disturbing is that a group of medical > professionals continue to engage in this pointless exercise. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and respond? It's like you are all adicted and can't help > yourselves. As a recovered loon-baiter, I know that it's partly an addiction. The other part is simply not wanting horseshit to go unlabeled -- a sort of civic duty. The civic duty part is largely for the benefit of the genuine newbies who aren't prepared for the negativity/stupidity they will encounter in usenet. Every once in a while some virgin will ask a question, get a snotty/stupid answer, and then say something like "I <sniff> came here to ask a question about <something important> and <loon> said <something nasty> <sniff> to me. I'm going away and never come back so THERE!" While such people are probably no loss to the group, it seems rude to frighten them away. > It's an unmoderated group. You cannot control > who posts here and, with few exceptions, what they post > here. It seems you have tried reasoning with Otis and he > has not changed his views. I got the impression that you've > tried reasoning with Otis for THREE YEARS! <--- don't any > of you find this alarming? Three years is NOTHING! Try six and a half! The loon in question is tiring, but still posts vicious rants every once in a while when stimulated by the professional loon-baiters. > You're not "warning others" you > are engaging Otis in an attempt to change his mind or force [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > is what I find unique to this group. I feel like I'm watching > an episode of the Twilight Zone. It CAN change if enough people get sick of it, but not completely. Some loon-baiters are so addicted that the best they can do is only post occasionally. Better that than no restraint at all.  SignatureCheers, Bev --------------------------------------------------- Don't you just KNOW that there is more than one Sierra Club member who is absolutely sure that the dinosaurs died out because of something humans did? > > You're being melodramatic. You're also underestimating the > > casual visitor. This is likely not the first usenet group they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > their own (sometimes informed) decisions. If not "informed" > > most people will go with a concensus. I don't agree. Otis is telling people what they want to hear. The ODs are telling people what they *don't* want to hear. Guess who's got the advantage when dealing with a casual visitor? I consider myself to be more sophisticated and knowledgeable than the average lay-person about vision. Otis had me totally taken in for several days. Even after that, I couldn't understand why the ODs were dumping so hard on him. > I think you're overestimating the intelligence of The Average Person. I don't agree with you either. :-) It's not intelligence, it's experience, which in turn leads to knowledge. > > > You're being melodramatic. You're also underestimating the > > > casual visitor. This is likely not the first usenet group they [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > It's not intelligence, it's experience, which in turn leads to knowledge. Disagree right back at you, but without knowing an actual person with a genuine certified IQ of 100 we'll never know. Really, just how smart IS the average person? If it's the receptionist we hired because we didn't want her to quit in 6 months because the job was so boring, then "average" is definitely subnormal. One form of intelligence is being able to make reasonable decisions in the absence of sufficient information. Quite a few fail... SignatureCheers, Bev =========================================================== Giving out free MS security updates is like giving out free band-aids with flesh-eating microbes in the pads. > One form of intelligence is being able to make reasonable > decisions in the absence of sufficient information. > Quite a few fail... True enough but that's life. You won't save them. Otis is not preaching in a vacuum here. If someone asks a question or for advice and Otis replies and someone else replies then they have information and have to make a decision. A very few will always go with the one they were hoping for inspite of information to the contrary. It's likely that before they are dissapointed with their vision results they will already be pennyless from helping Ifran Galubar transfer his millions out of Batswana and/or sick or dead from the internet viagro and ambertan from the email order... The rest will likely bring it up with a doc at their local establishment first. Try this: For each of the above print out the next sample you get. Rush out to your receptionist exclaiming "Look at this! This is really great!". My guess is that she will reject them and your faith in the peasants will be restored. -Quick > > One form of intelligence is being able to make reasonable > > decisions in the absence of sufficient information. > > Quite a few fail... > > True enough but that's life. You won't save them. I guess I don't much care about saving them, I just want them to keep out of the way. > Otis is not preaching in a vacuum here. If someone > asks a question or for advice and Otis replies and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > at this! This is really great!". My guess is that she will > reject them and your faith in the peasants will be restored. Well, the receptionist was a long time ago, but I see your point even if I don't fully agree with it. A [not blood] relative emailed me about whether she really needed to disconnect her computer for Internet Cleaning Day or if just shutting it off would be enough. Ambertan? Is it any good? What does it do? Maybe I'll order some as soon as I get my refund from that company that sells Rolexes. Dumb shipping department sent me a Rolez by mistake, but I expect it will all be OK real soon now. SignatureCheers, Bev 66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 Vampireware; n, a project capable of sucking the lifeblood out of anyone unfortunate enough to be assigned to it, which never actually sees the light of day, but nonetheless refuses to die. -- Trygve Lode Neil, If there is anything I can do to force Otis into a box, I will do it. I joined this group so I could learn more about what is wrong with my vision and if there is anything I can do to help it. Otis Brown can't help me and he can't help anyone else who truly SUFFERS from poor vision. Dr. Stacy, you (Neil), and others are capable and can help. They can explain things and make me understand my own problems and possibly find solutions or at least learn to live with it a little better. I've only posted a couple times, but like you, Neil, I am loath to see Dr. Stacy and potentially others go while the lunatics such as Otis and Gertrude aka whoever stay to post nonsense. I belong to several monitored lists, and am even a monitor to one. Believe me, the worthless posters here for nothing more than to "sell" something would have been gone long ago. Debbie > and all of you regulars to join me in forcefully requesting that > Otis leave s.m.v. in any way you can. You think a crackpot mission poster is going to comply with your request? He is not going to leave because you and others keep giving him attention. You all keep him posting. Killfile him and ignore him. Then he won't matter if he keeps posting. SignatureCharles Ignoring him clearly does not work to get rid of him. Otis will simply invent dialog and reply with his usual bull$hit. I thought the kill-file-and-ignore-him process might work last year and obviously it did not. He's such an easy target it's hard not to fire away, not just for fun but to protect innocent visitors to smv. The uniformed don't get at first read that he's a loony. At least they don't get that when he writes his form-letter posts. Now that he's become increasingly bizarre, perhaps it is more obvious that he's a nut-case. I think now the better approach is to reply with one sentence each time he posts with that sentence simply stating: "Otis is an angry old man, possible crazy or otherwise demented, with a passion for promoting disproved theories with lies and deception." The fact that he persists is proof enough of his sick behavior. Most of the other weirdos leave after a while. Otis is simply far too sick to understand his uselessness. It is true that quite a few of the doctors and other vision scientists who have participated here have gone away. We do have our private discussion groups for *real* discussion but smv serves a different purpose. I would hope that it works assisting lay people by providing knowledge that they can use to know when to seek appropriate eye health care or simply to broaden their knowledge for the sake of knowing more about their body. So I'm thinking: keep firing away at him. But you're correct----engaging him in dialog is not productive. Neil's approach, but shorter as I've suggested above, would free up the time to pay attention to real people with real issues. LB Newsgroups ebb and flow. They're organic. Otis is a cancer. Not all cancers can be cured, but some can. I think he can. His theories have been defeated, in any event. DrG > The uniformed don't get at first read that he's a loony. At least > they don't get that when he writes his form-letter posts. Now that > he's become increasingly bizarre, perhaps it is more obvious that > he's a nut-case. You should have more faith. New people coming to the newsgroup will get that Otis is a loony. > I think now the better approach is to reply with one sentence each time > he posts with that sentence simply stating: "Otis is an angry old man, > possible crazy or otherwise demented, with a passion for promoting > disproved theories with lies and deception." No. The better approach is to ignore his individual posts without any reply. And to have discussions with real people. The FAQ that Bev posts every week is enough. That should continue to be posted every week. SignatureCharles > Otis is simply far too sick to > understand his uselessness. I think that "sick" is overstating things a bit. Otis thinks that he is "fighting the good fight" against the "conspiracy" of the eye doctors. I think he is like the old lady around the corner who is convinced she can cure minor ailments with non-scientific mumbo-jumbo. Both have cure rates greater than zero, and just don't understand scientific studies (or *any* kind of science). >> Otis is simply far too sick to >> understand his uselessness. > >I think that "sick" is overstating things a bit. [snip] I don't. I genuinely don't. You could call it denial, blind faith, an overt unwillingness to be reasoned with, ignorance of established facts, aversion to (and avoidance of) any information that contradicts his position, distortion of other people's comments, a pathological need to respond with straw men and red herrings rather than confront somebody's argument head on, perpetually changing the topic via use of contrived terminology in an effort to gain advantage or work in a realm where he is more comfortable.... You could call it any or all of these things, but ... at some point ... since it /is all/ of these things (and more), I genuinely have to think we're dealing with somebody who is more than a few sandwiches short of a picnic. When somebody wants something to be so to such a great degree that they ignore any and all reality, no matter how blatantly it stares them in the face, and no matter how kindly, or forcefully, others try to enlighten them, that's a pretty pathological level of denial, don't you think? Add to that the known etiology of his crusade (shattered dream of flying planes due to high myopia) and the picture is pretty clear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial Giving the benefit of the doubt, he is--at the very least--the least critical thinker I've come across in a long, long time. A veritable font of logical fallacies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacies#List_of_fallacies To paraphrase Groucho Marx, "Whatever he is, I'm against him ... even if I've offensed him ... I'm against him" > You could call it denial, blind faith, an overt > a pathological need to respond > When somebody wants something to be so to such a great > degree that they ignore any and all reality, no matter > how blatantly it stares them in the face, and no matter > how kindly, or forcefully, others try to enlighten them, > that's a pretty pathological level of denial, don't you > think? Hmmm, these extractions sound like they could apply to both sides? It's really really simple. Otis is looking for an audience. You people persist in responding. Otis is a nut and appears to be obsessed. That explains his behavior. You all...? I'm intrigued that a group of you (in the medical field no less) seem to share the same obsessive compulsion coupled with such a lack of understanding of the human psyche. I can only imagine that none of you have children. Nothing is going to change here in the near future. You guys just don't/won't get it. Maybe you do and it's an uncontrolable emotional response? Here's the scenario: By some chance you all decide to try the "don't feed the trolls" approach. Poster: "what about my eyes?" Doc: "It's because of this." Otis: "It's been shown that this can be prevented..." Doc: "Please disregard Otis, he is a nut, this study... that study..." Otis: "This has been shown, that..." and you're off to the races again... Probably within minutes of deciding "I will not feed the troll". twilight zone, you are all trapped in the twilight zone... -Quick > Otis is looking for an audience. > You people persist in responding. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nothing is going to change here in the near future. > You guys just don't/won't get it. Oh, no. I "got it" a long time ago. However, sometimes an itch begs to be scratched. I still like the idea of Neil as the "official responder," with his "canned speech" approach. Tit-for-tat. DrG DrG > Otis is looking for an audience. > You people persist in responding. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nothing is going to change here in the near future. > You guys just don't/won't get it. Oh, no. I "got it" a long time ago. However, sometimes an itch begs to be scratched. I still like the idea of Neil as the "official responder," with his "canned speech" approach. Tit-for-tat. DrG DrG > Otis is looking for an audience. > You people persist in responding. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nothing is going to change here in the near future. > You guys just don't/won't get it. Oh, no. I "got it" a long time ago. However, sometimes an itch begs to be scratched. I still like the idea of Neil as the "official responder," with his "canned speech" approach. Tit-for-tat. DrG DrG Dear "Quick", Excellent. An open mind! You are indeed right. I was provided most of my information from the ODs themselves! (Second opinon -- that is.) I simply sought to establish a sciencific basis for that second opinion. These ODs could "change" if they would admit that they have no interst in work to proven that the natural eye is a sophisticated an dynamic device. The "difference" betwee my "pitch" is that I rely on objective fact from direct testing of the primate eye -- to make my case. The ODs are doing everything in their power to deny objective scientific proof of this nature. Remember this is SUPPOSED TO BE A SCIENTIFIC News Group. And the first thing these "majority opinion" ODs do -- is to attempt to DENY objective scientific truth as it concerns the dynamic behavior of the natural primate eye. That is why we have these "objections" -- because they do not what the full implications of scintific truth (and the second opinon) to become established. But yes one "group" is living in the "twilight zone". The question -- in science -- is which group. The "majority opinion" or the "second opinion" that describes the over-prescription of the minus lens as, "poison glasses for children". Perhaps an over-drawn metaphore -- but close to scientific truth in this matter. You decide. Otis Dr. Stacy, Please don't go. I need your help. I haven't found all the answers I need and I need help really badly. Ignore Otis and the losers who cheer him on. Stay here and help those of us who need you. With an 1Q of between 1-10, you know I need some help from someone with a brain. Please stay. Debbie > Well I think it's happened again. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > bill Bill, Take some time off.. go fishing, play tennis, play a trumpet, do some gardening.. but mainly relax and stay away from this group for a while. Then, when you're rested, give it another try. It may suprise you to know that all news groups have problems like this and this, by far, is not the worst group. I have been on usenet since its inception years ago and have found that there are always weird people making untrue or half-true posts. Try sci.optics or sci.electronics.design to mention just two. Forget about us for a while and.... Have a nice vacation!! To others reading this, as I've said before, don't feed the trolls and do the ***plonk***. George Dear Bill, Subject: Growth of "second-opinion" optometry. I think that what you are "scared" of is the death of "traditional optometry". You fear even the slightest change in the tradional minus lens. I understand your position PERFECTLY. Indeed, and honestly, most people PREFER that minus lens. But that is superficial. As long as you offer them a DISCUSSION of the preventive alternative -- and sign a statement -- that they were duly informed of their "choice" I would have no objection to any over-prescription of a minus lens. That way, the resulting stair-case myopia would be a result of THEIR choice. I would think that most parents would be PLEASED that you respected their intelligence in this matter. The WORST that could happen is that they simply turn-down the use of the plus -- for prevention. So yes, maybe you are concerned with the death of "conventional optometry". But some times scientific truth produces that kind of result. Let use respect the person's right to an informed "second opinion" as suggested by Steve Leung OD www.chinamyopia.org Your own children might be better off (avoid serious myopia) by understanding this preventive issue. (And the scientific truth that supports it.) Best, Otis > Subject: Growth of "second-opinion" optometry. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > www.chinamyopia.org Sorry, but I cannot find any information on this new, emerging profession called "second opinion" optometry. By the same token, I cannot find anything on "traditional" optometry either. The closest thing I can find is "behavioral developmental" optometry, and their websites don't specifically mention myopia prevention at all. Now, I did go to optometry school, but it wasn't called the Illinois College of Traditional Optometry. It was simply the Illinois College of Optometry. In the four years I spent going to school there, I learned a whole lot more than simply prescribing minus lenses. In fact, I learned about that whole other world of plus lenses. I also learned about some optometrists who believed that bifocals prevented myopic progression, and one of them actually came to speak at our school. He insisted that he used this method on his son, and instead of becoming a high myope, his son became only a low myope. And so, if I understand you correctly, Otis, you are saying that after optometry school, optometrists go out into the world and become either "minus lens optometrists" or "plus lens optometrists." But then, it appears as though there are only two of the latter: Steven Leung and Jacob Raphaelson, and that together they represent some kind of "revolution." Did I understand you correctly? Thought so. DrG |
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.