 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2006THE REAL WARNING (03/14/2006)
Dear Reader, Before you consider paying attention to anything that Neil Brooks or CatmanX writes, I invite you to review the following:. http://tinyurl.com/sybpn They both have been reported netnews administrators for multiple abusive posts to this and other groups. Their posts will be monitored and may even be deleted if deemed inappropriately abusive. Please look at the history of this group. Every person that has been able to improve myopia through any method is instantly ridiculed by all of the "myopia-cureaphobics". I have improved .75D using a combination of plus lenses and intense VT techniques for the last 2 years. I recently passed the DMV vision test for the first time in my life without correction. I consider myself solid "Anecdotal evidence" that Otis is helping far more people than he is harming with his postings. DISCLAIMER IN GENERAL All post to this group are in no way, shape, or form to be considered medical fact or medical advice. There is no assurance that anyone claiming to be a doctor, is really is a doctor. The internet is made up of sexual preditors, stalkers, and a.sholes in general. A place to go for medical advice? DISCLAIMER TO THE DISCLAIMER This newsgroup is for entertainment and enjoyment of the readers and posters. If you spend more than 1 hour a day reading or posting abusive postings, than you are a candidate for a new surgery guaranteed to improve thought process. This is a new technique, similar to lasik, where a ScalptorMiter is used to gently cut/lift the top of the skull to expose the the frontal lobe. A cool laser then gently molds the frontal lobe into oblivion. Within minutes, you can have a social life again!. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobotomy Wow, this really impressive. You have improved by +0.75 in 2 years by wearing plus and doing intense VT. Fantastic. I could have done it 2 weeks, but I am an abusive multiple infringer. You are however an anally retentive moron. You make the ridiculous statement that "those improving myopia through any method are ridiculed" is total stupidity. What we have repeatedly asked for is proof. Not witch doctory, not Francis Young who has been disproven by his peers, some real evidence that what you say is valid. For what it is worth, I AM an optometrist, I do treat myopes on a regular (as in daily) to reduce, modify and control myopia, but I do not come here making stupid claims that can't be substantiated by the likes of you, Cletis and Nancy. This is an unmoderated group and hence can't have the posts deleted, no matter how much you complain, not the last time I looked anyway. If you don't like being ridiculed, try speaking science for once and not mumbo-jumbo. GENERAL DISCLAIMER: I really have tried to be nice here as I really hate stupid morons who fail to substantiate anythinf they say. Apologies to those who may be offended. dr grant > GENERAL DISCLAIMER: I really have tried to be nice here If that is "nice", I'd sure hate to meet you when you were being nasty. :-(  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Wow, this really impressive. You have improved by +0.75 in 2 years by wearing plus and doing intense VT. Fantastic. I could have done it 2 weeks, but I am an abusive multiple infringer so you probab;y wouldn't want my help. You are however an anally retentive moron. You make the ridiculous statement that "those improving myopia through any method are ridiculed" is total stupidity. What we have repeatedly asked for is proof. Not witch doctory, not Francis Young who has been disproven by his peers, some real evidence that what you say is valid. For what it is worth, I AM an optometrist, I do treat myopes on a regular (as in daily) to reduce, modify and control myopia, but I do not come here making stupid claims that can't be substantiated by the likes of you, Cletis and Nancy. This is an unmoderated group and hence can't have the posts deleted, no matter how much you complain, not the last time I looked anyway. If you don't like being ridiculed, try speaking science for once and not mumbo-jumbo. GENERAL DISCLAIMER: I really have tried to be nice here as I really hate stupid morons who fail to substantiate anythinf they say. Apologies to those who may be offended. dr grant > They both have been reported netnews administrators for multiple > abusive posts to this and other groups. Their posts will be > monitored and may even be deleted if deemed inappropriately abusive. hi nancy_ace. you are a moron if you think anybody believes that "netnews administrators" are monitoring posts here. perhaps you've been eating mushrooms again. > The internet is made up of sexual > preditors, stalkers, and a.sholes in general. A place to go > for medical advice? exactly correct people. although many of us are doctors and offer advise to people who have questions, there are a few idiots like Otis, Acemanvx (aka Nancy, fartmanEqualizer) who will also offer advise that is certainly useless and potentially harmful. In fact, Otis has been reported to state authorities in Pennsylvania (see http://nbeener.com/OTIS_INVESTIGATION.pdf) and Acemanvx openly posts about taking illegal drugs on the internet. obviously these are not two einsteins that you would want to listen to! so what should an innocent person do-- go see a real licensed eye doctor! and if you want to read advise from anyone here on this newsgroup then stay away from posts by Otis and Ace. > DISCLAIMER TO THE DISCLAIMER > This newsgroup is for entertainment and enjoyment of the > readers and posters. this is what you think Ace. actually this newsgroup is for the exchange of information relating to science, medicine, and vision. you and otis have nothing to contribute to either of those three topics yet you insist on posting your hearsay and unlearned opinions without regard to what is really true and what is really beneficial to people. > Dear Reader, > > Before you consider paying attention to anything that Neil Brooks > or CatmanX writes, I invite you to review the following:. > They both have been reported netnews administrators I don't believe this. Neil and dr grant are netnews administrators? Which newservers? SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Dear Central, Subject: You are right about the abuse. Prevention with the plus is the second-opinion. It is essential that you know about the method -- before you begin wearing the minus. It is time we begin understanding prevention in this manner. At the threshold you have nothing to lose -- just choose neglect, and there is no problem -- except that you get "deeper" into it. No one can help you -- if you choose to abuse the person who is attempting to offer you an honest second-opinion. Think about it. Best, Otis > No one can help you -- if > you choose to abuse the person > who is attempting to offer > you an honest second-opinion. > > Think about it. I thought about it. I thought that Jim Jones was probably honest. I thought that you are probably honest. I thought that you both deserve abuse. -Quick > At the threshold you have nothing > to lose You SURE about that, Uncle Otis?? Developing eyes ... without substantive refractive error?? You're SURE that there's no potential for harm with unnecessarily interfering with the near-vision triad of accommodation, convergence, and mydriasis?? You're SURE that this won't induce -phorias in otherwise healthy eyes?? Do you have any data to support this conclusion, or are you--as usual--just vocalizing from your anus? I wonder if this has anything to do with that State of Pennsylvania investigation into your activities. I imagine it could. > > At the threshold you have nothing > > to lose > > You SURE about that, Uncle Otis?? Developing eyes ... without > substantive refractive error?? Otis?? > You're SURE that there's no potential for harm with unnecessarily > interfering with the near-vision triad of accommodation, convergence, > and mydriasis?? Otis?? > You're SURE that this won't induce -phorias in otherwise healthy eyes?? Otis?? > Do you have any data to support this conclusion, or are you--as > usual--just vocalizing from your anus? Otis?? > I wonder if this has anything to do with that State of Pennsylvania > investigation into your activities. I imagine it could. Otis?? >> > At the threshold you have nothing >> > to lose [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Otis?? Uncle Otie? Aren't you going to answer this simple, direct question?? >> You're SURE that there's no potential for harm with unnecessarily >> interfering with the near-vision triad of accommodation, convergence, >> and mydriasis?? > >Otis?? Uncle Otie? Aren't you going to answer this simple, direct question?? >> You're SURE that this won't induce -phorias in otherwise healthy eyes?? > >Otis?? Uncle Otie? Aren't you going to answer this simple, direct question?? >> Do you have any data to support this conclusion, or are you--as >> usual--just vocalizing from your anus? > >Otis?? This one's rhetorical.... >> I wonder if this has anything to do with that State of Pennsylvania >> investigation into your activities. I imagine it could. > >Otis?? Actually, this one is, too.... Abandon all hope! Even if you killfile the major nuisances, you will still see their crap dragged out and around again and again by idiots who have nothing better to do. >Abandon all hope! > >Even if you killfile the major nuisances, you will still see their >crap dragged out and around again and again by idiots who have >nothing better to do. Don't be so hard on yourself, Dick. Dan Abel wrote: In article <1142992174.160495.302...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "serebel" <sere...@aol.com> wrote: > Okay, I will clarify, You can whine to all the webbies you want, this What's a "webbie"? -- Dan Abel d...@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Well, webmaster, hall monitors, etc. > Dan Abel wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What's a "webbie"? > Well, webmaster, hall monitors, etc. Thanks. Makes sense now. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > Dear Central, > > Subject: You are right about the abuse. > > Prevention with the plus is the > second-opinion. only in your mind. no other eye expert claims "the plus" to be anything except something presbyopes use for reading glasses. > It is essential that you know about > the method -- before you begin > wearing the minus. you should know! you should know that "the plus" doesn't work as proven in several studies: http://snipurl.com/fij0 http://snipurl.com/fimq http://snipurl.com/fimr and you should know that excessive minus does not cause staircase myopia like Otis likes to falsely claim it does. see this study: http://tinyurl.com/s89ya > It is time we begin understanding > prevention in this manner. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Think about it. of course we all would like to prevent myopia. the only problem is everything that has been tested so far doesn't work. but that doesn't stop Otis from insisting that plus lenses work and ignoring the decades of research and the legion of experts that say it doesn't. Otis actually thinks its a conspiracy between the optical companies and the eye doctors to try to make everyone need glasses so they can enrich themselves. clearly otis is in need of psychiatric help. > only in your mind. no other eye expert claims "the plus" to be > anything except something presbyopes use for reading glasses. I have been told several times on this group that I ain't no presbyope. I use plus lenses rather heavily. I'm some sort of fake, I think it's called pseudophakia. My wife is also heavily dependent on plus lenses. She uses one for distance (+1). She's a real presbyope though, in addition. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Dear Reader, PClear has every right to his "majority opinion" to the effect that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the dynamic behavior of the fundamental primate eye. But when he makes sweeping statement to the effect that ALL SCIENTISTS believe that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive state of a population of natural eyes -- he is simply mistaken. But that is his majority-opinion. When I make a statement -- you can expect that I have checked -- in a number of ways. Otis> Prevention with the plus is the second-opinion. PClar> only in your mind. no other eye expert claims "the plus" to be anything except something presbyopes use for reading glasses. Otis> "No other expert"??? Please read: www.chinamyopia.org There are other experts who support the concept of PREVENTION with the plus at the threshold. You error is to say absolutly all EXPERTS. You are mistaken. Otis> But that is why there is a second opinion in the first place -- and your total denial is indeed the majority opinion. Otis> Major changes in science tend to develop in this manner. Best, Otis > Dear Reader, > When I make a statement -- you can expect that > I have checked -- in a number of ways. and ... though it's usually factually incorrect ... I post it repeatedly, nonetheless. But this is simply the nature of our pleasant discussions of the fundamental box camera of the Helmholtz of the dynamic Donders of the Oakley-Young negative refractive state "at the threshold" Best, Otis >fundamental primate eye Your fascination of things primate is compelling... can people start calling you "gorilla boy" now? Ahh, I still think "ShortBus" has a better ring to it. > When I make a statement -- you can expect that > I have checked -- in a number of ways. The bathroom floor is wet so it must be raining. I checked. -MT Where do you get off still peddling this crap Cletis? Your other experts consist of mostly NON-ExXISTANT sites, a few that are promoting themselves, yourself and Don Rehm. The Leung and See sites are neither experts and are attempting only to drum up business. You can't count them as relevant, informed or expert. Try and dispute this. Rehm uses significant rhetoric, but sticks to disproven theories and discounted papers. For example, he constantly mentions the COMET trial, but this found no way of slowing myopia. Your site is a rehash of Rehm's, so just as invalid. We are still waiting on you providing an expert that has any credibility and a theory that has any merit. Myopia is far more complex than you, Rehm Young and your ilk can possibly understand and your simplistic viesw on wearing plus just don't conbert in the real world. dr grant oh, and i forgot to mention, otis brown is currently under investigation by the State of Pennsylvania. it seems he likes to give medical advise to people without the proper qualifications. http://nbeener.com/OTIS_INVESTIGATION.pdf Obviously, its wise to steer clear of him! Seems like Cletis and Nancy are the only people that are offended here. Solution is simple, GO AWAY. There are people with real issues that need addressing, not unsubstantiated drivel about curing myopia and second opinions from second opinion optometrists like me (who by the way thinks that my official second opinion is that Cletis and Nancy are both dangerous fools). Give it up boys, we are not going to let you troll your lies here. dr grant >Give it up boys, we are not going to let you troll your lies here. And stop ripping off my sig while you're at it! Flippin' unoriginal gits... ;) Central Scrutinizer wrote: Dear Reader, Before you consider paying attention to anything that Neil Brooks or CatmanX writes, I invite you to review the following:. http://tinyurl.com/sybpn They both have been reported netnews administrators for multiple abusive posts to this and other groups. Their posts will be monitored and may even be deleted if deemed inappropriately abusive. You've got to be kidding. You can "report" til the cows come home. All to no avail. It is your choice to waste your time though. >Central Scrutinizer wrote: Please be careful how you post and how you quote, serebel. This post suggests that I posted a warning about Neil and CatmanX, which I DID NOT. As well, your post has no ">" marks in front of the quoted text, and so it is impossible to distinguish between what you are quoting and what you are actually saying. You may wish to clarify what you are trying to say here. I, for one, would appreciate that gesture. BD. Central scrutee wrote: >Central Scrutinizer wrote: Please be careful how you post and how you quote, serebel. This post suggests that I posted a warning about Neil and CatmanX, which I DID NOT. Okay, I will clarify, You can whine to all the webbies you want, this is an UNMODERATED site. People can post as they so choose, if it offends you, too damn bad!!!! >Central scrutee wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >is an UNMODERATED site. People can post as they so choose, if it >offends you, too damn bad!!!! Very kind of you to own up to your erroneous attribution like that.... >Okay, I will clarify, You can whine to all the webbies you want, this >is an UNMODERATED site. Whatever... > Okay, I will clarify, You can whine to all the webbies you want, this What's a "webbie"? SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA |
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.