 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2006Here is why I defend Otis. You optometrists have nothing but excuses, I have proof!
I defend Otis because he is right. I wore the minus lens and look what happened to me? My vision is very bad, worse than 20/400 now :( http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schw0709/stories/VisionTherapy.html If you read this link, the plus lens saved him. He was 20/40 and -1 and thanks to the plus and NOT falling victim to the wretched minus, he has cleared his vision to 20/20 and if he consisantly uses the plus, he will always pass the DMV. I have shown this link before and all you majority opinion optometrist can do is make up excuses. It works. Otis knows. Its proven. The eye is dynamic. Need I say more? I have shown this link several times and in other forums. Most optometrists would give him a -1 lens and send him on his way. *why* would he need the wretched minus lens when a few months using the plus lens and hes 20/20? You can argue all you want, the proof is in the pudding. I was never told about this and didnt figure it out and my eyes have experienced stair-case myopia. There is no changing the past for me. I sometimes look back and get upset and depressed but have to accept it as a way of life. My eyes have adapted to the minus and now I am stuck with it for life. This guy luckily figured it out on his own and cleared his vision. Hmmm, Is that why you can't buy reading glasses < +1.0? It's a conspiracy... >I defend Otis because he is right. I wore the minus lens and look what > happened to me? My vision is very bad, worse than 20/400 now :( [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > am stuck with it for life. This guy luckily figured it out on his own > and cleared his vision. This is not proof Nancy, it is hearsay. That someone wrote a script does not mean the kid was myopic. It also does not say what events happened prior to or after the event. This is not admissable in court for a good reason, it is not viable and reliable. dr grant > This is not proof Nancy, it is hearsay. That someone wrote a script > does not mean the kid was myopic. It also does not say what events > happened prior to or after the event. This is not admissable in court > for a good reason, it is not viable and reliable. > > dr grant Then its malpractice in the same way its to prescribe medicine to someone that was not ill and did not need it. How many victims did you prescribe glasses and did you make sure every one of them were myopic? I bet many of them could have used a plus lens and cleared their vision to 20/20 but you were too rude to consider the second opinion like Otis says he knows some smart, polite optometrists consider every possibility. acema...@yahoo.com wrote: > Then its malpractice in the same way its to prescribe medicine to > someone that was not ill and did not need it. How many victims did you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > says he knows some smart, polite optometrists consider every > possibility. Then go sue your optometrist and see how far you get. There are worse things than being nearsighted, and being farsighted is one of them. DrG bullshit. the guy couldn't see in the distance and the doctor offered him a solution that has no negative consequences. you will disagree with the latter phrase but I have proof and experience that says giving a pseudomyope part-time minus lenses does NOT cause development of true myopia. do you know the difference between accommodative disorders and true anatomical myopia? do you think that all nearsighted people really have accommodative disorders? i don't know why i even ask. you are a freak and i'm tired of dealing with you. go back to eating mushrooms and e-mailing fat women! ======== > Then its malpractice in the same way its to prescribe medicine to > someone that was not ill and did not need it. acemanvx@yahoo.com schreef: > I defend Otis because he is right. Yes and I'm the pope. I wore the minus lens No, you still wear the minus lens. and look what > happened to me? Wearing these minus lenses, you are capable to type in some nonsense. My vision is very bad, worse than 20/400 now :( Well ,put on your glasses then. > http://blablablabla > > If you read this link, the plus lens saved him. From what is he saved? Not myopia, maybe from some accommodative spasm He was 20/40 and -1 and > thanks to the plus and NOT falling victim to the wretched minus, he has > cleared his vision to 20/20 and if he consisantly uses the plus, he > will always pass the DMV. As you never will Ace. I have shown this link before and all you > majority opinion optometrist can do is make up excuses. There are no majority optometrists Ace, just optometrists. It works. Otis > knows. Yeh, only he. Its proven. Correct, Otis is the only one who knows and that to is proven The eye is dynamic. Need I say more? No, so please shut up. > I have shown this link several times and in other forums. Yes, and? On the other hand saying several times I'm the pope indeed did people make them think I'm, how about you? No Ace, either Otis or you are capable to proof using a plus lens keeps eyes away from becoming myopic. Myopia is a not the same as pseudo myopia (accommodative spasm) You (Otis, Ace) are not familiar with the real definitions of the several types of ametropia. Most > optometrists would give him a -1 lens and send him on his way. You have not the slightest idea Ace, you are assuming. *why* > would he need the wretched minus lens when a few months using the plus > lens and hes 20/20? Who says the majority of optometrists prescribed him glasses? You can argue all you want, the proof is in the > pudding. Yes, quit correct Ace, instead of showing anecdotals show some real proof. I guess your answers in future are lookalikes of those Otis over and over again presents here. Either anecdotals or some very old stuff proven not be correct. I was never told about this and didnt figure it out and my > eyes have experienced stair-case myopia. There is no changing the past > for me. Just myopia Ace or, as I follow your prescriptions you offer us once in a while, myopia with an accommodative spasm component. I sometimes look back and get upset and depressed but have to > accept it as a way of life. Sorry for that, but you're not the only one. My eyes have adapted to the minus and now I > am stuck with it for life. No Ace, you need the minus correction to get a good vision, This guy luckily figured it out on his own > and cleared his vision. This guy simply get rid of his accommodative spasm. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Yes and I'm the pope. irrevelent. > No, you still wear the minus lens. I wouldnt if my UCVA wasnt so horrid. > Well put on your glasses then. For anything other than eating or reading, I depend on them > From what is he saved? > Not myopia, maybe from some accommodative spasm Then his optometrist has gotta be careful to differnate between myopia and tonic accomodation. Giving a minus lens to somone that is NOT myopic is very bad! > As you never will Ace. Probably not as I have way too much axial myopia. I will need to get a waiver to drive with a glasses restriction, I pass with glasses. > There are no majority optometrists Ace, just optometrists. Ill let Otis explain this one again. >The eye is dynamic. Need I say more? >No, so please shut up. You are going to make Otis mad! > No Ace, either Otis or you are capable to proof using a plus lens keeps > eyes away from becoming myopic. Otis has shown proof about 50 times, this is irrefutable. > Myopia is a not the same as pseudo myopia (accommodative spasm) > You (Otis, Ace) are not familiar with the real definitions of the > several types of ametropia. Then optometrists need to test and differnate between the two. Because most people start out with accomodative spasms due to near work and glasses compounds the situation and the eye is so stressed it enlongates in response to excess stimulus. > Yes, quit correct Ace, instead of showing anecdotals show some real proof. > I guess your answers in future are lookalikes of those Otis over and > over again presents here. You would just argue against any proof and make excuses. You choose what to believe. > Either anecdotals or some very old stuff proven not be correct. Says you. Vitrually every myope has gotten worse when prescribed glasses and wears them. Those who dont get glasses or refuses to wear them usually will stop their myopia from progressing or at least progression will be much reduced. Myopia is an epidemic now, but 50 years ago it was uncommon. > Just myopia Ace or, as I follow your prescriptions you offer us once in > a while, myopia with an accommodative spasm component. I have both now. Will be trying atropine to eliminate accommodative spasm, whatever my cycloplegic is, thats my axial myopia. > Sorry for that, but you're not the only one. Most people would not be myopic today had they known the truth and facts. Someday they will take the myopia epidemic seriously and start educating people to the facts that minus lenses causes stair-case myopia while plus lens prevents it. Already those with out of control stair-case myopia are being given atropine and bifocals plus to halt further progression. Good for short term(up to 6 months) because atropine is not good for the eyes over many months. > No Ace, you need the minus correction to get a good vision I did not till I was 12 and -1. > This guy simply get rid of his accommodative spasm. Which his optometrist failed to detect and tell him. He would have become myopic had he worn the minus lens or at very best, never gotten rid of accomodative spasms till presbyopia set in and he would have worn glasses for *nothing* all those years when all it took was a couple months in plus glasses! acemanvx@yahoo.com schreef: > Myopia is an epidemic now, but 50 > years ago it was uncommon. So are nitwits. >> Just myopia Ace or, as I follow your prescriptions you offer us once in >> a while, myopia with an accommodative spasm component. > I have both now. Will be trying atropine to eliminate accommodative > spasm, whatever my cycloplegic is, thats my axial myopia. I bet you never come to try anything to overcome your problem in vision. >> No Ace, you need the minus correction to get a good vision > I did not till I was 12 and -1. You didn't listen to me Ace, I told you several times to keep your hands ABOVE the sheets. You know the pope advises this to youngsters to avoid becoming nearsighted and because I'm the pope it is relevant. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) this has been explained to you before but apparently you don't read, or think, very well! the guy is describing a classical accommodative disorder caused by excessive near work. this is also called pseudomyopia. it is not "real" anatomical myopia but it nonetheless causes the same problems-- distance vision is blurred. he said he couldn't see in class. he probably couldn't drive safely either. the eye doctor treated him with an appropriate-strength minus lens and told him to wear it part time only when he needs it. this condition is self-limiting and does not convert to full or anatomical myopia. sure-- plus lenses can help break accommodative spasms. But what you don't realize is this guy is NOT LIKE ALL OTHER NEARSIGHTED PEOPLE. you try to lump them together and say that plus lenses work for everybody. MOST nearsighted people have excessive axial eye length. plus lenses do SQUAT to change the length of the eye. so what's your problem? did you want the eye doctor to tell the college kid in your weblink to "go away and just tough it out" even though he can't see in the distance? the minus lenses he was prescribed have no permanent detrimental effect-- that been PROVEN but you and your pal Otis apparently refuse to accept the results of scientific studies so I suppose you disagree. i'm personally tired of explaining the same old stuff to you over and over again and then showing you the PROOF of what i say using published scientific research studies and then have you apparently either not read them, or believe that we're trying to lie to you, or be too dense to understand, or whatever! you are apparently a crazy wacko who likely also believes in UFOs and Bigfoot. get a job, get a life, and quit being such a twit Nancy! ============== > I defend Otis because he is right. I wore the minus lens and look what > happened to me? My vision is very bad, worse than 20/400 now :( [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > am stuck with it for life. This guy luckily figured it out on his own > and cleared his vision. > this has been explained to you before but apparently you don't read, or > think, very well! I read all the explanations > the guy is describing a classical accommodative disorder caused by > excessive near work. this is also called pseudomyopia. it is not > "real" anatomical myopia but it nonetheless causes the same problems-- > distance vision is blurred. And he took care of it with a plus lens >he said he couldn't see in class. he > probably couldn't drive safely either. the eye doctor treated him with > an appropriate-strength minus lens and told him to wear it part time > only when he needs it. this condition is self-limiting and does not > convert to full or anatomical myopia. Then why do so many people become myopic? How do you know he wouldnt soon become myopic? You do know near work causes myopia, starting first with accomodative spasm. >sure-- plus lenses can help > break accommodative spasms. But what you don't realize is this guy is > NOT LIKE ALL OTHER NEARSIGHTED PEOPLE. you try to lump them together > and say that plus lenses work for everybody. MOST nearsighted people > have excessive axial eye length. plus lenses do SQUAT to change the > length of the eye. Of course once the eyeball enlongates, nothing will shrink it. This is why you have to use *preventive* measures before this ever happens. If you already have axial myopia, there are ways of slowing or stopping its progression. Any questions? > so what's your problem? did you want the eye doctor to tell the > college kid in your weblink to "go away and just tough it out" even > though he can't see in the distance? Not be rude like that, but explain honestly that he was NOT myopic and just had tonic accomodation and to use a plus lens for all near work. He had to figure it out on his own! > the minus lenses he was prescribed have no permanent detrimental > effect-- that been PROVEN but you and your pal Otis apparently refuse > to accept the results of scientific studies so I suppose you disagree. Because he never filled out his prescription and did NOT wear the minus. He chose the plus to clear his vision. The minus lens caused me to go from -1 to near -6. I am now near -5 only because ive been exercising away my pseudomyopia. Ive been told ill get down to a -3 at best. > i'm personally tired of explaining the same old stuff to you over and > over again and then showing you the PROOF of what i say using published > scientific research studies and then have you apparently either not > read them, or believe that we're trying to lie to you, or be too dense > to understand, or whatever! you are apparently a crazy wacko who > likely also believes in UFOs and Bigfoot. There is also proof showing the minus lens causes stair-case myopia. I choose to believe in this, you chose to belive minus lenses have no effect and instead blame it on the "genes" I say genes are only part of the equation. I know research is being done to isolate the myopia gene to reduce the chance and prevelence of myopia. The near work environment is another factor that needs to be addressed. This is something you can agree on > >he said he couldn't see in class. he > > probably couldn't drive safely either. the eye doctor treated him with > > an appropriate-strength minus lens and told him to wear it part time > > only when he needs it. this condition is self-limiting and does not > > convert to full or anatomical myopia. > Then why do so many people become myopic? what are you trying to say? minus lenses make people become myopic? your putting the cart before the horse. first the patient comes in because they can't see in the distance because they have developed myopia. then you give them minus lenses. how come there are so many people walking around myopic at a low enough level that they just deal with it and they've never even worn a minus lens? you know there are studies that show that wearing spectacles has no influence on the rate of change of refractive error? there are also studies that show deliberately giving excessive minus lens power results in no change in refractive error progression. there are also studies that show plus lenses are totally ineffective at preventing myopia. but who cares about the science? Ace knows all! your title says you have proof-- where is your proof? or do you have a rather loose definition of the word proof? > How do you know he wouldnt > soon become myopic? what a stupid remark. how do you know that he WOULD become myopic! > If > you already have axial myopia, there are ways of slowing or stopping > its progression. Any questions? really? care to educate us on that topic? i'm sure you have "proof". > > so what's your problem? did you want the eye doctor to tell the > > college kid in your weblink to "go away and just tough it out" even > > though he can't see in the distance? > Not be rude like that, but explain honestly that he was NOT myopic and > just had tonic accomodation and to use a plus lens for all near work. sure all that could be explained to him. it probably was since he was given proper instructions on wearing the minus lenses part time. but do you think you are actually helping someone who comes in complaining that they can't see to drive safely or to see whats going on in class and you send them away with a recommendation to wear plus lenses and just wait until things get better? they may not. accommodative disfunctions can be quite persistent. giving someone a minus lens to use only when they need it is simply the only rational approach. minus lenses have been PROVEN to not increase the progression of refractive error, and unlike you, I can give you solid references to support my statements. > There is also proof showing the minus lens causes stair-case myopia. really? please present this "proof". as i say its been studied already in humans and found NOT to be the case. you must have some proof that has been held secret from vision researchers (i smell conspiracy!) Another recommended approach would be to recommend bifocals with minus for distance and an add for near. DrG > this has been explained to you before but apparently you don't read, or > think, very well! [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > am stuck with it for life. This guy luckily figured it out on his own > > and cleared his vision. But since single-minus costs $350, and a bifocal $350, and this August GOT HIS VISION TO PASS THE DMV, then why the hell should he wear a minus??? When a "plus" costs about $8? As long as he takes PERSONAL responsibility to always PASS the legal visual-acuity requirement for the DMV, then there is no reason at all why he should wear a bi-focal. And in fact, the MINUS part of the bifocal will PREVENT his vision-clearing. Just one man's opinion. Best, Otis > Another recommended approach would be to recommend bifocals with minus > for distance and an add for near. [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > > am stuck with it for life. This guy luckily figured it out on his own > > > and cleared his vision. nearly all nearsighted people are true anatomical myopes. your stupid $8 readers give them a hassle, more distance blur, and NO CHANGE IN THE ANATOMICAL STRUCTURE OF THEIR EYE. PLUS LENSES DO NOT SHORTEN THE EYE! for pseudomyopes, who are in the minority but do exist such as the college kid who wrote the webpage, its fine for them to wear plus lenses at near. its also good for them to see in class and to see while driving so using minus lenses part-time is good too. you think all nearsighted people are pseudomyopes. sorry, they're in the vast minority! this really is such a simple topic to people with half-a-brain. or would you rather discuss conspiracy theories? ================= > But since single-minus costs $350, and a bifocal $350, and this > August GOT HIS VISION TO PASS THE DMV, then [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > > > > am stuck with it for life. This guy luckily figured it out on his own > > > > and cleared his vision. > But since single-minus costs $350, and a bifocal $350, and this > August GOT HIS VISION TO PASS THE DMV, then > why the hell should he wear a minus??? When > a "plus" costs about $8? Probably a lot cheaper at Walmart, or that mail order place you are always recommending. > As long as he takes PERSONAL responsibility to always > PASS the legal visual-acuity requirement for the DMV, then > there is no reason at all why he should wear a bi-focal. Well, single vision then. If a person wants to see, that is their right. If a cure for myopia were available, I certainly would recommend that as well. > And in fact, the MINUS part of the bifocal will PREVENT his > vision-clearing. Not according to your pet Young-Oakley study -- remember? > Just one man's opinion. ...and worth exactly what we paid for it. DrG > I defend Otis because he is right. I wore the minus lens > and look what happened to me? My vision is very bad, > worse than 20/400 now :( I never wore any lenses at all and I got fat. -Quick > > I defend Otis because he is right. I wore the minus lens > > and look what happened to me? My vision is very bad, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -Quick You mean you got fat, quickly? :) DrG >>> I defend Otis because he is right. I wore the minus lens >>> and look what happened to me? My vision is very bad, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You mean you got fat, quickly? :) Well... yes. Then I got old, started wearing glasses and my rate of increasing fatness declined but not to the point of decreasing fatness. If only I had the SECOND-OPINION when I quit driving a truck and moved into a cubicle I could have worn lenses and not got fat at all. -Quick > Well... yes. Then I got old, started wearing glasses > and my rate of increasing fatness declined but not > to the point of decreasing fatness. If only I had the > SECOND-OPINION when I quit driving a truck and > moved into a cubicle I could have worn lenses and > not got fat at all. This is one instance where Stair Stepping would have helped. DrG >I defend Otis because he is right. I wore the minus lens and look what >happened to me? My vision is very bad, worse than 20/400 now :( False cause. You'd have ended up short sighted anyway. Ann >http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schw0709/stories/VisionTherapy.html > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >am stuck with it for life. This guy luckily figured it out on his own >and cleared his vision. Once again we see Nancy posting wearsay as proof. Once again we see Cletis agreeing with him. In short, we see two half-wits agreeing that something that is not supported by evidence is in fact proof that there was a conspiracy to murder Kennedy. Next they will be suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was a conspiracy. On 7/25/06 11:54 PM, in article qb4ec2575g2dv8edegv2029vanssagfao4@4ax.com, >> I defend Otis because he is right. I wore the minus lens and look what >> happened to me? My vision is very bad, worse than 20/400 now :( > > False cause. You'd have ended up short sighted anyway. > > Ann How can you claim that? You have no evidence of how it would end up with actions that were not carried out. Even if true, it is unproveable. Bill -- Ferme le Bush > How can you claim that? You have no evidence of how it would end up with > actions that were not carried out. Even if true, it is unproveable. So if one group wears glasses fulltime and another group wears them only minimally or not at all, it means nothing when they get myopic at the same rate? If one group wears excess correction and another group wears exactly the "right" prescription, it means nothing that they get nearsighted at the same rate? Or one group wears less-than-adequate correction and gets nearsighted FASTER, what does that mean? -MT On 7/26/06 4:07 PM, in article jrydnQ2s1LtLaFrZnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@giganews.com, "Mike Tyner" <mtyner@mindspring.com> wrote: >> How can you claim that? You have no evidence of how it would end up with >> actions that were not carried out. Even if true, it is unproveable. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -MT The item quoted was a sample size of 1. Bill -- Ferme le Bush sure the sample size was 1. but the statement is fully supported by statistically-significant data from large groups of people who were treated similarly-- 1 group with no correction, 1 group with proper correction. others studies use 1 group with proper correction versus 1 group with excessive correction. in both cases myopia progression occurred similarly-- no difference. ========= > The item quoted was a sample size of 1. > > Bill > -- Ferme le Bush |
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.