 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2006can't we all just get along?
c'MON guys, let's be nice. There is room enugh for all of us here... > c'MON guys, let's be nice. There is room enugh for all of us here... Exactly. I get along but others dont. How are you doing? :) "Exactly. I get along but others dont." Huh? You stir it up (the shieeet, I mean), stand knee deep in it, and then have the balls to say you get along, inferring the problem is with everyone else???? Classic, absolutely classic. Mr Feathers > > c'MON guys, let's be nice. There is room enugh for all of us here... > > Exactly. I get along but others dont. > > How are you doing? :) Dear Ace, As I suggested, you must put youself in the "position" of a majority-opinion OD, and think about a person reading the Snellen at 20/60 to 20/50. When you understand THAT ISSUE, you will begin to understand why EXCLUSIVELY the minus lens is applied (in the 20 minutes available). If you truly wish the second-opinion, then it is necessary to understand how YOU can clear your vision to pass the DMV before you wind up in that chair. Clearly, some MOTIVATED people have been able to clear their vision to better-than 20/40, (with the plus) pass the DMV, and never get a minus lens, and subsequent stair-case myopia from the minus. But, in the future, your children will have that choice. You can understand why a M.O. OD can be of little help to you in helping your child in the use of the plus. Just remember, there are S.O. ODs who know this -- and put their OWN KID into a plus at the 20/50 level. But that does take motivation and knowledge on the part of the S.O. OD. And, if it comes to your own child -- you must be the "motivator". Best, Otis > > c'MON guys, let's be nice. There is room enugh for all of us here... > > Exactly. I get along but others dont. > > How are you doing? :) > Dear Ace, > > As I suggested, you must put youself in the "position" of > a majority-opinion OD, and think about a person > reading the Snellen at 20/60 to 20/50. Otis likes to play optometrist, but he hasn't a clue. > When you understand THAT ISSUE, you will > begin to understand why EXCLUSIVELY the minus > lens is applied (in the 20 minutes available). You sure don't. > If you truly wish the second-opinion, then it is > necessary to understand how YOU can clear > your vision to pass the DMV before you wind > up in that chair. False premise. > Clearly, some MOTIVATED people have been > able to clear their vision to better-than 20/40, (with the plus) > pass the DMV, and never get a minus lens, and > subsequent stair-case myopia from the minus. Anecdotal. Hearsay. > But, in the future, your children will have that > choice. You can understand why [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > motivation and knowledge on the > part of the S.O. OD. It will take about five years to find out just how bad this advice is. By then, Otis will have beat it out of Dodge if he hasn't already been run out. > And, if it comes to your own child -- you > must be the "motivator". ...and be glad that this isn't a matter of life or death. DrG [all snipped] > ...and be glad that this isn't a matter of life or death. Do you know how many people die in vehicle accidents every year? Otis isn't advocating use of a plus lens when people need a minus, while driving, that I know of, but if just a few folks decide that their minus lenses are "poison" and don't wear them to drive, that could be "life or death", and for innocent folks who get hit.  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > In article > <1157898396.119991.305600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > are "poison" and don't wear them to drive, that could be > "life or death", and for innocent folks who get hit. Uhhh, Otis (and, naturally, Ace) very strongly suggest you don't need correction to drive if you can meet the DMV requirements. While legally true, I find it very disturbing knowing there are people driving with 20/40 vision. While finding that multifocals don't work for me I experienced something between 20/30 and 20/40. I left the docs with them in and went a few blocks before pulling over and removing them (I'm primarily being corrected for presbyopia). I'm sure I could have managed to get down the road in traffic but not if things got really busy or any sort of emergency situation. -Quick Dear Quick, Most people do not become concerned about their vision until they "fail" the DMV test. And then, of course, they MUST get a minus lens. But this issue is this: 1. If the person wishes to keep his vision clear -- he should personally verify his vision on his own Snellen. 2. We know that the refractive STATE of the natural eye will move negative at a value of -1.3 diopters in 4 years at a college. 3. A person who know this, and enters a college with a 20/20 (but a refractive STATE of zero -- should know this -- and BOTH MEASUREMENTS. 4. By monitoring his Snellen, he can see the initial negative change, and Snellen at 20/25, 20/30, and even 20/40. (About -1/2 to -3/4 diopters -- the strength of the minus needed to clear the 20/20 line.) 5. It then becomes his responsibility to take strong CLEARING actions with the plus -- if he has the motivation for it. 6. Provided he has the motivation for it, he then clears bact towards 20/20 -- and never needs M.O. OD involvement at all. Best, Otis > > In article > > <1157898396.119991.305600@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > -Quick > 2. We know that the refractive STATE of the natural > eye will move negative at a value of -1.3 diopters in 4 > years at a college. This is just plain silly. > 5. It then becomes his responsibility to take strong > CLEARING actions with the plus -- if he has the > motivation for it. No proof of efficacy of this exists. > 6. Provided he has the motivation for it, he > then clears bact towards 20/20 -- and never > needs M.O. OD involvement at all. ...and they lived happily everafter. More science fiction. DrG >>2. We know that the refractive STATE of the natural >>eye will move negative at a value of -1.3 diopters in 4 >>years at a college. > > This is just plain silly. I spent four years in college myself. That never happened to me. Maybe he means only people who have studied religion in Israel, or something else in China? Apparently, according to Otis and Ace, it all depends on what you study, and where you study it! Cya Simon > >>2. We know that the refractive STATE of the natural > >>eye will move negative at a value of -1.3 diopters in 4 > >>years at a college. I wish! I went to college for 8 years yet my "refractive state" went from nearly plano to +1.25. Now, years later I'm stuck wearing "the plus". If your theory was correct, I'd be happily focused without correction. Go Otis. Keep inventing data that makes no sense to support your already disproved theories. What a crock! LB, O.D. I guess what he means is that all those emmetropes and hyperopes in college have eyes that are unnatural. Only the myopes have natural eyes. Or are those the ones with the fundamental eyes??? >>> >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >LB, O.D. > William Stacy schreef: > I guess what he means is that all those emmetropes and hyperopes in > college have eyes that are unnatural. No,no,no, William, they just are suffering from that horrible "BoX syndrome" For those who have not the same education as Otis had, we talk about the fixed boxcamera syndrome made public by the same great engineer Otis. Free to Marcus Porcius Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam In conclusion, I think the " old plus lens therapy junk recovered by Otis" should be destroyed. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Most people do not become concerned about their vision > until they "fail" the DMV test. And then, of course, they > MUST get a minus lens. Most people don't drive until age 16. > 1. If the person wishes to keep his vision clear -- he should > personally verify his vision on his own Snellen. If you want your feet to stop growing, measure them carefully, and make your own measurements - don't trust anybody else. > 2. We know that the refractive STATE of the natural > eye will move negative at a value of -1.3 diopters in 4 > years at a college. Everybody gets nearsighted in college? > 3. A person who know this, and enters a college > with a 20/20 (but a refractive STATE of zero -- should > know this -- and BOTH MEASUREMENTS. So everyone entering college should have an eye exam? > 4. By monitoring his Snellen, he can see the initial > negative change, and Snellen at 20/25, 20/30, and > even 20/40. (About -1/2 to -3/4 diopters -- the > strength of the minus needed to clear the 20/20 line.) If you monitor the length of your feet, you'll know as soon as they start getting bigger. > 5. It then becomes his responsibility to take strong > CLEARING actions with the plus -- if he has the > motivation for it. If your feet start growing, it's best to wear small shoes. > 6. Provided he has the motivation for it, he > then clears bact towards 20/20 -- and never > needs M.O. OD involvement at all. So all it takes to cure nearsightedness is "motivation." Thank you for your insight. -MT > Dear Quick, > > Most people do not become concerned about their vision > until they "fail" the DMV test. And then, of course, they > MUST get a minus lens. As I posted yesterday, my wife failed the DMV vision screening exam and was prescribed a *plus* lens which she must wear at all times while driving. I got glasses in the fourth grade, because I couldn't see anything, close or near. If I hadn't, I would now be an illiterate dropout. > 2. We know that the refractive STATE of the natural > eye will move negative at a value of -1.3 diopters in 4 > years at a college. I am immediately going to start a proactive campaign to keep people from going to college. This is unacceptable. :-) SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA >> Most people do not become concerned about their vision >> until they "fail" the DMV test. And then, of course, they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I got glasses in the fourth grade, because I couldn't see anything, > close or near. If I hadn't, I would now be an illiterate dropout. Not necessarily, you were probably a smart kid! My husband's vision at age 65 is -5 and -4, presumably much worse when he was a kid. He remembers reading by laying the book on the table, resting his fist on the table above the book and resting his forehead on his fist. He didn't get glasses until a required physical exam when he was a Caltech freshman. I find it difficult to understand how his mother didn't notice something wrong... >> 2. We know that the refractive STATE of the natural >> eye will move negative at a value of -1.3 diopters in 4 >> years at a college. > > I am immediately going to start a proactive campaign to keep people from > going to college. This is unacceptable. Wait. If my husband HADN'T gone to college his eyes would have miraculously improved? Damn, you can't win for losing... SignatureCheers, Bev ====================================================== All the toilets were stolen out of the police station. The police have nothing to go on. > > I got glasses in the fourth grade, because I couldn't see anything, > > close or near. If I hadn't, I would now be an illiterate dropout. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > remembers reading by laying the book on the table, resting his fist on > the table above the book and resting his forehead on his fist. But if you can't read the blackboard, you miss out on a lot in class. Besides, it was almost impossible to read. I could only focus about one inch away. This means closing one eye and moving the book back and forth in front of the open eye. > He > didn't get glasses until a required physical exam when he was a Caltech > freshman. I find it difficult to understand how his mother didn't > notice something wrong... I've posted this story before, but maybe it's time again. I shared an office at work for five years with a woman. Her husband was really stupid. His parents told him so, repeatedly. Even though he was a straight A student in high school and became a successful computer executive, he never did learn his colors. His wife had to check him each morning before he left the house. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > [all snipped] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lenses are "poison" and don't wear them to drive, that could be "life or > death", and for innocent folks who get hit. If you pass the DMV, you are legal to drive. Thats why Otis says its so important to make sure your vision is always 20/40 or better! Legal to drive and safe to drive are 2 different things moron. Last I looked, blurry vision caused more problems with driving. Then again, you are a moron, so why am I bothering. Dear Dan, I EXPECT a person to be intelligent and act responsibly. I EXPECT the person to verify his Snellen (as passing) the DMV BEFORE he goes to take the DMV test. If he does not PASS the DMV, then he is required to get a lens to clear his distant vision. If the person sees his Snellen at 20/40 (DMV Standard) and choose to NOT clear his vision to 20/30 or better (using "Bates", the plus or any method that works for him), the I expect that he will see his vision go to 20/50 to 20/60. In that event then he must get a lens to pass the DMV. But if the individual PASS the DMV, and goes to an over-prescribing OD (for Best Visual Acuity) who prescribes for 20/20, 20/18, 20/15 (if the retina is that good) has the right to make a choice. For a person who has PASSED the DMV, and wishes SLIGHTLY SHARPER VISION at night, then he can get a weak minus from zennioptical if he wishes -- and wear it ONLY at night and when he judges it necessary -- provided he always verifies his Snellen as 20/40 or better. Best, Otis > [all snipped] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lenses are "poison" and don't wear them to drive, that could be "life or > death", and for innocent folks who get hit. If only there wasn't the collateral damage I would be all for this. Otis and Ace could be self resolving problems. -Quick > Dear Dan, > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >> dabel@sonic.net >> Petaluma, California, USA otisbrown@pa.net schreef: > Dear Ace, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > begin to understand why EXCLUSIVELY the minus > lens is applied (in the 20 minutes available). For your information layman Otis, OD's are prescribing not only minus glasses. But as always, you didn't want to be informed about reality. > If you truly wish the second-opinion, then it is > necessary to understand how YOU can clear > your vision to pass the DMV before you wind > up in that chair. Is getting a drivers license the only thing that is important? Are you prescribing only based on this DMV test Otis , or aren't you prescribing at all being a layman with no knowledge what so ever in this particular field? > Clearly, some MOTIVATED people have been > able to clear their vision to better-than 20/40, (with the plus) > pass the DMV, and never get a minus lens, and > subsequent stair-case myopia from the minus. Otis, the charlatan, is using his escape route again by using the word "motivated". If you didn't succeed, than don't blame Otis, you simply aren't motivated. Even more worse, Otis is hurting concerned parents with this phrase. Free to Marcus Porcius Cato's "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam In conclusion, I think the " old plus lens therapy junk recovered by Otis" should be destroyed. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > As I suggested, you must put youself in the "position" of > a majority-opinion OD, and think about a person [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > begin to understand why EXCLUSIVELY the minus > lens is applied (in the 20 minutes available). My wife was reading the Snellen at that level and the OD gave her a *plus* lens. > If you truly wish the second-opinion, then it is > necessary to understand how YOU can clear > your vision to pass the DMV before you wind > up in that chair. My wife failed the DMV vision screening test and they referred her to an OD, who gave her a *plus* lens. She now has a valid driver's license but she is required to wear her plus lens to drive. > Clearly, some MOTIVATED people have been > able to clear their vision to better-than 20/40, (with the plus) > pass the DMV, and never get a minus lens, and > subsequent stair-case myopia from the minus. My wife has never worn a minus lens. Most hyperopes don't. At the age of 55, she wasn't worried about stair-case myopia. SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA Dear Ace, I suggest you read: www.chinamyopia.org for the full second-opinion. If you want your kids to have a "fighting chance" at keeping their vision clear for life -- then prevention must start at the 20/50 level. If your OD tells you that your right to an informed, competent, second-opinion '...MUST BE DESTROYED", then I suggest that you must look for a competent second-opinion OD will will tell you the proven effect of a minus lens on a population of natural or FUNDAMENTL eyes. Yes, volunteer THAT second-opinion information to a person at the threshold -- and THEN we "get along". Otis > > c'MON guys, let's be nice. There is room enugh for all of us here... > > Exactly. I get along but others dont. > > How are you doing? :) > Dear Ace, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > their vision clear for life -- then prevention > must start at the 20/50 level. Seemingly the only dubious "second opinion" Otis has been able to find. DrG > c'MON guys, let's be nice. There is room enugh for all of us here... I disagree. Other than just ONE individual and his follower (and unfortunately at times he has hijacked the group w. his obsession), this group has usually very good discussions. I do think the majority of readers and posters do appreciate the answers and views from the providers here (the O.D.'s/M.D.). It's sad to see one intellectually dishonest fanatic ramble on and on and not able to rationally discuss or listen to other points of views. I do believe that out and out obscenity has no place especially since there are more effective ways to make this person look foolish. frank |
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.