 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / November 2006Ace: looking for trouble
Ace has been disrupting yet another newsgroup. Go over and check out his antics at alt.lasik-eyes where he takes his BS to new limits! He might actually be more delusional than Otis. LB > Ace has been disrupting yet another newsgroup. Go over > and check out his antics at alt.lasik-eyes where he takes > his BS to new limits! He might actually be more > delusional than Otis. Was there ever any doubt? I think Ace is completely disfunctional where Otis can probably manage to do things like get groceries budget and interact with the general populace. -Quick > Ace has been disrupting yet another newsgroup. Go over and check out his > antics at alt.lasik-eyes where he takes his BS to new limits! He might > actually be more delusional than Otis. > > LB Been following him for years. At EVERY spot he stops, rankle and attack follow. What is so sad is he is just trying to 'fit in', at least that is my observation..............a desparate person with virtually no real feel friends, most of his 'intimate' contact is through the internet. He lives for the debate, and since no one can ban him here (he gets banned at spots that brandish the stick), this is perfect fodder for his warped world. He is now 25 years old, lives at home, has some learning and physical disabilities and probably is facing supported help the rest of his life, even if he moves out, he will still need supervision. It is my understanding that he had completed two years of college the summer before last. He has admitted to me in the past that he lives for the debate. Yes, he is in a sad way.............. feathered one > > Ace has been disrupting yet another newsgroup. Go over and check out his > > antics at alt.lasik-eyes where he takes his BS to new limits! He might [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > feathered one Well I am truly sorry for his situation. I feel it is totally unacceptable to call him "retard" or any other derogatory names. That wont make him go away and it is so unkind to verbally assault a disabled person on his disability. There must be a better way to deal with this. As I've suggested in the past, why not have just one person reply to his, or Otis's posts with a one sentence disclaimer and *not* involve them in debate. Or perhaps a daily "warning post" and leave it at that. This back-and-forth jabbing has got to stop. LB, O.D. > As I've suggested in the past, why not have just one person reply to > his, or Otis's posts with a one sentence disclaimer I try to catch Otis's postings to newbies with my usual warning he is not in the medical profession, yada yada yada. I know it plucks his nerves, but it seems to work to a small degree. > and *not* involve > them in debate. Or perhaps a daily "warning post" and leave it at > that. This back-and-forth jabbing has got to stop. Yep, just post once warning the new poster they are not in the medical profession and disregard their posting should fit the bill, no matter what they say in their posting. I snip all out except the first line or so of Otis's posting and snip any non medical URL's out as well. No need to give such nonsense any more publicity then they deserve. Allen > > As I've suggested in the past, why not have just one person reply to > > his, or Otis's posts with a one sentence disclaimer Bravo. I haven't QUITE quit cold turkey, but I've cut down dramatically. I look better, I've lost weight, dropped a few points off the BP, etc., etc., etc. :-) >> > As I've suggested in the past, why not have just one person reply to >> > his, or Otis's posts with a one sentence disclaimer [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > look better, I've lost weight, dropped a few points off the BP, etc., > etc., etc. Not to mention what it's done for your IQ score! At least (t)he(y) do(es)n't complain about accusations of child molestation and death threats.  SignatureCheers, Bev xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." -- Lionel > At least (t)he(y) do(es)n't complain about accusations of child > molestation and death threats. ANALOGIES about child molesters: that may ring a bell, but ... death threats???? Who, where, and when?? Not my style. I'm law-abiding to a fault. >> At least (t)he(y) do(es)n't complain about accusations of child >> molestation and death threats. > > ANALOGIES about child molesters: that may ring a bell, but ... death > threats???? Who, where, and when?? Not my style. I'm law-abiding to > a fault. Another group entirely, continuing since 1999, and a court order was involved. Nothing anywhere else, including here, comes within a thousand miles of that sort of insanity. If you're really interested, check googlegroups for posts by Scott Abraham. The last 100 messages will explain it all. SignatureCheers, Bev ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (On going to war over religion:) "You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend." -- Rich Jeni Dear Bev, Reference: Primitive man spending 80 percent of his time watching for danger, or polor bears IN THE DISTANCE. o "Ocular Biometry of Eskimo Familes", Francis A. Young, George A. Leary, Primate Research Center, Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, Diagnostica Ultrasonica in Ophthalmologia, Paris, Centre National d'Ophthalmologie des Quinze-vingts, 1973 Refractive STATES of Illiterate Eskimos. N = 96 Eyes Mean = 2.2 diopters Standard Deviation = 1.3 diopters. What this means: 68 percent of these Eskimos will have refractive states from +0.9 diopters to +3.5 diopters. 96 percent will have refractive states between -0.4 diopters to +4.8 diopters. Note: A refractive state of -0.4 diopters is generally a "Snellen" of about 20/30 to 20/40. Yes, it is possible for a small percentage of the women, working at home to have a very sight negative refractive STATE. The left "tail" of this distribution shows about 4 percent had a slight negative refractive STATE. Enjoy, Otis > >> At least (t)he(y) do(es)n't complain about accusations of child > >> molestation and death threats. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > (On going to war over religion:) "You're basically killing each other > to see who's got the better imaginary friend." -- Rich Jeni And of course the refractive STATES of the natural eye. And the question of whether they will change their refractive STATE if you place a -3 diopter lens on them -- as a NATURAL PROCESS. Some people believe that the natural eye is NOT DYNAMIC, and therefore the refractive STATE of the eye WILL NOT CHANGE BY -2 DIOPTERS in 120 days. Others, understanding that the eye is most likely a dynamic system, will affirm that by direct measurements (using a Retinoscope) will change. Here is the refractive profile for you interest: o "Spectacle lenses alter eye growth and the refractive status of young monkeys" Li-Fang Hung, M.L.J. Crawford & Earl L. Smith, Nature Medicine, Volume 1, Number 8, August 1995 Refractive STATES of young, normal primate eyes: N = 22 Eyes Mean = + 4.3 diopters Standard Deviation = 1.3 diopters. What this means: 68 percent of natural eyes will have refractive STATES from +3 Diopters to +5.3 diopters 96 percent will have refractive STATES between +1.7 to +6.9 Diopters. +++++++++++++ > Dear Bev, > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > (On going to war over religion:) "You're basically killing each other > > to see who's got the better imaginary friend." -- Rich Jeni See you havent answered my really really simple questions yet Otis... like, what's the range on the second graph? You're using it to advertise and promote, yet you can't back up your facts with, well, facts. Im not interested in getting into a long debate... just tell me CLEARLY CONCISELY ACCURATELY What is the range on that second graph you posted? (One Line Answer - ONE LINE OTIS - Im sure you can answer that) Cya Simon > See you havent answered my really really simple questions yet Otis... Terribly sorry, Simon, but ... IIRC ... Otis has NEVER answered relevant, cogent, important, and coherent questions posed to him. Not one. Not once. Not ever. You must be thinking of somebody else. Keep at it, though ;-) Neil Subject: The refractive-STATE distribution for the young eye in a "school" environment. Simon asked for statistics on a population of eyes with a Gaussian distribution, where 87 percent of the individuals had a negative refractive STATE. The people obligated to supply this scientific information were obligated to supply these statistics -- but they did not. But, fortunatly, Francis Young did measure the Standard Deviation for a population of students, and the had a Standard Deviation of two diopters. Using that number, and the fact that 13 percent had a postive refractive state, we can estimate that the mean was -2 diopters for the population, of students, with a S.D. of 2 diopters. What this means is that 68 percent would have refractive STATES between -4 to zero diopters, and 96 percent, refractive STATES between -8 diopters and +2 diopters. That should approximate the Gaussian refractive STATE profile of these fundamental eyes, maintained in a confined or "reading" environment. Enjoy, Otis +++++++++++++++ > Dear Bev, > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > (On going to war over religion:) "You're basically killing each other > > to see who's got the better imaginary friend." -- Rich Jeni Correction: For the 96 percent distribution, the refractive STATE would run between -6 to +2 diopters. Here are the nubers for children measured by Francis Young, at age 17, from, "Ocular Biometry of Eskimo Families". N = 194 Eyes Mean Refractive State = 0.93 diopters Standard Deviation = 1.97 Diopters It would be intersting if the Taiwan medical students could compile the mean and Standard Deviation for their refractive states, with nearsighedness at 92 percent. Best, Otis > Subject: The refractive-STATE distribution for the young eye in > a "school" environment. [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > > (On going to war over religion:) "You're basically killing each other > > > to see who's got the better imaginary friend." -- Rich Jeni But, Simon, since you do not seem to understand the meaning of these statistics, here is an "English Language" discussion of the implication of these statistics: But of course, you think this is all a big joke. ===================================== December 6, 2000 By Liu Shao-hua Staff reporter Taipei Times Subject: Myopia Increases Among Children One of every five children in the first grade in Taiwan's elementary schools is myopic (nearsighted). The proportion of myopics in this group has increased from 12.1 percent in 1995 to 20.4 percent this year, according to the results of a survey released by the Department of Health yesterday. The results also show that 60.7 percent of sixth graders in elementary schools, 80.7 percent of third graders in junior high schools, and 84.2 percent of third graders in senior high schools suffer from myopia. In addition, the number of seriously myopic children is also on the rise. The proportion of seriously myopic children among sixth graders in elementary schools has increased from 2 percent five years ago to 2.4 percent this year. Serious myopia is defined as exceeding 600 degrees (6 diopters). Anything over 25 degrees (0.25 diopters) is myopia. Normal eyesight is zero degrees. "We appeal for reductions to children's work load in schools and the amelioration of visual environments in daily life," said Chen Tzay-jinn, director-general of the health promotion bureau, under the health department. The survey was conducted by the department, in cooperation with National Taiwan University and its hospital, and involved a sample of 12,000 students from four million students between the ages of 7 and 18 nationwide. Myopia has been on the increase in Taiwan ever since the first myopia survey in 1983. The department manages the survey every four or five years. The growth of nearsightedness among young children is thought to result from learning to read very young and using computers very young, Chen pointed out. Last year, the department and the Ministry of Education delivered official documents to kindergartens nationwide demanding that children not be taught to read or use computers too early. "But many teachers and parents protested against this appeal," said the department officials. "They questioned exactly what they were permitted to teach if reading was not allowed." "We do hope that parents and teachers can heighten their awareness of myopia and understand that early learning does not guarantee students' performance in the future, but it does bear a strong correlation to defects in vision," Chen said. The department also appealed for children under the age of 10 not to be taught how to use computers. Senior high school students suffer the highest rates of nearsightedness, at over 84 percent. "It reached a plateau five years ago and has not changed this year. But their myopia has become more serious," Chen said. According to the survey, 20 percent of third graders in senior high schools are seriously nearsighted. Many people thought operations could cure myopia. "But the superficial improvement of vision does not better the health of the eye. More importantly, it might reduce people's awareness of other problems associated with nearsightedness, apart from visual ones," said Lin Lung-kuang, ophthalmology professor at National Taiwan University. "Myopia cannot be cured. We have to prevent children from becoming nearsighted. Don't let them use their vision too early," Lin urged. Because of the public's lack of awareness of myopia, the department estimated its prevalence would continue to grow. "Singapore resembles Taiwan in many respects and the extent of its myopia problem might serve as a warning for us," Chen said. +++++++++++ > Correction: > [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > > > (On going to war over religion:) "You're basically killing each other > > > > to see who's got the better imaginary friend." -- Rich Jeni > But, Simon, since you do not seem to understand the > meaning of these statistics, here is an > "English Language" discussion of the implication > of these statistics: > > But of course, you think this is all a big joke. No. I asked valid questions. You can't answer them. I wanted a one line answer to my question, "what is the range on the bottom graph of the link you frequenty post at http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html I know what statistics are, but in the next paragraph, you talk about estimating what the mean is. Hardly factual. Of course, I asked other questions, you still can't answer them with resorting to copying and pasting huge essays written by others. What do you think? I think thinking is so important. Lets hear what you think for a change. Please? It would be so much better if you could directly engage with someone in conversation. Please? Simon > Subject: The refractive-STATE distribution for the young eye in > a "school" environment. > > Simon asked for statistics on a population of eyes with a Gaussian > distribution, where 87 percent of the individuals had a > negative refractive STATE. No I didn't. I asked for the range of the graph. You don't know, so it's meaningless clutter. > The people obligated to supply this scientific information were > obligated to supply these statistics -- but they did not. So it's still a made up graph. > But, fortunatly, Francis Young did measure the Standard > Deviation for a population of students, and the > had a Standard Deviation of two diopters. So it's still a made up graph. > Using that number, and the fact that 13 percent had > a postive refractive state, we can estimate > that the mean was -2 diopters for the population, > of students, with a S.D. of 2 diopters. "estimate". Cool. Real facts for a change. So you can't answer my question then because the "facts" are made up? Thanks Simon > Well I am truly sorry for his situation. I feel it is totally > unacceptable to call him "retard" or any other derogatory names. That > wont make him go away and it is so unkind to verbally assault a disabled > person on his disability. On the contrary, it's very acceptable to call him a retard. It's what he is. Ah, yes. The majority opinion (that the eye is frozen), argues that the living eye is not dynamic an a negative refractive STATE can not be prevented. But, there some people who take science seriously, and respect the fact that the natural eye is proven to be dynamic, and, under proper control, a negative refractive STATE can be prevented. See: www.chinamyopia.org for this developing second-opinion. Otis > Ace has been disrupting yet another newsgroup. Go over and check out his > antics at alt.lasik-eyes where he takes his BS to new limits! He might > actually be more delusional than Otis. > > LB WTF? How does your child molestation activities have anything to do with negative refractions, Cletis? Are you shifting from your fundamental eyes because of your excessive masturbation over kiddie porn? > for this developing second-opinion. Developing?? Did you forget where you last got out of your time machine? -Quick > The majority opinion (that the eye is frozen) You're lying again. The majority do NOT believe the eye is "frozen." > argues > that the living eye is not dynamic an a negative > refractive STATE can not be prevented. All you have to do is show us that it works. Y'know, t-tests, two groups, treated and untreated. Come back when you have some results. > But, there some people who take science seriously, > and respect the fact that the natural eye is proven > to be dynamic, and, under proper control, > a negative refractive STATE can be prevented. See: I don't see any comparisons between treated and untreated. > for this developing second-opinion. Another lie. In the US, it "developed" during the 50's and 60's. The MAJORITY of optometrists believed as you do. 50 years later, you're lying to us about the history of prescribing habits. There's a big chunk of history missing from your philosophy, Horatiotis. -MT Dear Mike, There you go again with your majority opinion hubris. All I do is report MEASURED FACTS concerning the dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- and you go ballistic. Check: http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html You do not like these objective facts (directly measured using NEUTRAL WORDS), so you make up your own "story" to the effect that the natural eye does NOT change its refractive STATE in a negative direction when you place a minus lens on it. The natural eye proves-out to be a dynamic system, versus your venerated box-camera "picture" of the eye. But that is why there is a preventive second-opinion -- based on objective, scientific facts.- In fact Christine Wildsoet has a picture of this performance of the NATURAL EYE. Best, Otis > > The majority opinion (that the eye is frozen) > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > -MT > There you go again with your majority opinion hubris. How insolent of me, asking if you read Parssinen, Ong, Gwiazda, Grosvenor, Shotwell, Norton, or Wiesel. > All I do is report MEASURED FACTS concerning the dynamic > behavior of the natural eye -- and you go ballistic. Yup. Collies and Coyotes. Y'know, Asians and Caucasians would produce a similar picture. That's because more Asians have the wretched minus inflicted on them. > You do not like these objective facts (directly measured > using NEUTRAL WORDS), so you make up your > own "story" to the effect that the natural eye > does NOT change its refractive STATE in a negative > direction when you place a minus lens on it. So why are you wearing minus???? I didn't make up the story. It was Parssinen, Ong, Gwiazda, Grosvenor, Shotwell, Norton, Wiesel and many more. > In fact Christine Wildsoet has a picture of this performance > of the NATURAL EYE. So why are you wearing minus???? You're lying to us, and you're lying to yourself, Horatiotis. -MT ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* ATTENTION USENET VISITORS, THIS AREA HAS BEEN DECLARED A TROLL WILDLIFE REFUGE. TO LEARN ABOUT THE TROLL, ITS HABITAT, AND ITS WAY OF LIFE, PLEASE READ THE SIGN-POST BELOW. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TROLL, YOU CAN PICK UP BOOKS AND SOUVENIRS IN THE GIFT SHOP AT THE END OF THE TOUR. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR OBSERVING ALL TROLL WILDLIFE REFUGE RULES, HAVE A NICE DAY. ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* ----------------------------------------- | Common name: Woodland Troll | | Scientific name: Trollus Useneticus | | sub-species: Dejadotcomus | ----------------------------------------- ############################################################ # # # PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: # # # # The common woodland troll (Trollus Useneticus) is an # # approximately 1.7m long nocturnal furry creature that # # has been found to exist in nearly every climate and # # latitude. Predominant features include: a very pale # # complexion, a large bony ridge above the eyes, a dense # # cranium, dragging knuckles, and a pungent odor. # # # ############################################################ ############################################################ # # # HABITAT: # # # # Most trolls spend the daylight hours under a large rock # # sleeping. Unfortunately, the natural habitat of the # # troll has been encroached by development (as is all too # # often the case). The modern troll has to make due with # # a slimy, moss covered rock. Often, trolls are forced # # to endure poor sanitation and filthy living conditions. # # Combined with the general lack of hygiene among trolls, # # this results in a very unpleasant odor. # # # ############################################################ ############################################################ # # # ACTIVITIES AND DIET: # # # # During their active period at night, the common troll # # engages in numerous activities, though the most # # important of these is foraging for food. The one # # characteristic that ties all different troll species # # and sub-species together is their diet. Trolls # # invariably survive off of a combination of cheetohs, # # arguments, and annoying others. A typical troll # # requires approximately 10 arguments and flames per day # # just to stay alive. With the increasing use of # # killfiles and just regular ignoring of trolls, it has # # become more and more difficult for trolls to eke out a # # basic sustenance. # # # ############################################################ ############################################################ # # # KNOWN PREDATORS: # # # # Unfortunately, trolls have many predators. Most common # # among them are the helpful researcher, the informative # # poster, the cool headed responder, and the kill-filer. # # The cool header responder is technically not a troll # # predator however. Trolls are typically unfazed by # # logical counter arguments and cool headed reason. # # However, even though their posts do not deliver the # # same level of sustenance that a "flamer" or an "annoyed # # poster" may provide, they still provide a valuable # # source of dietary fiber for the troll. # # # # The most dangerous predators for the trolls are the # # helpful researcher, the informative poster, and the # # kill-filer. The common troll is highly allergic to # # fact, real data, and research. Upon skin contact with # # actual hard evidence and real data, the troll will # # experience intense itching and burning at the site of # # contact, followed by lesions and blisters. Eventually, # # this results in loss of skin near the area of contact, # # and usually to loss of a limb (in the example of # # contact near the arm or leg). Contact with facts and # # data near the facial area usually results in a slow # # painful death. Contact with extremely high doses of # # fact and hard data can cause temporary loss of # # consciousness and even permanent brain damage for the # # troll. # # # # The kill-filer poses a much more insidious threat to # # the troll. Not posing a direct threat to the troll per # # se, the kill-filer simply deprives the troll of yet # # another source of nourishment. Some trolls have # # developed counter measures to thwart the kill-filers, # # usually this takes the form of a type of camoflage. # # # # The trolls' predators have reaped a terrible slaughter # # over the years, resulting in the death of great hordes # # of trolls. Trolls continue to breed rapidly though and # # their population is stable. However, it is unknown how # # long this situation can persists. Eventually, natural # # predators and poachers may result in lower numbers of # # trolls. Already we are seeing lower diversity among # # the different troll species. That is why this troll # # habitat refuge exists, to ensure the preservation of # # the troll for not only our future, but the future of # # our children. # # # ############################################################ ========================================================== / This troll habitat refuge has been paid for in part by / / the anti Troll-Defamation League, the International / / Society for the Advancement of Trolls, and the Troll / / Habitat Preservation Alliance. / ==========================================================From http://www-personal.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/Humour/trolls.html Dear Mike, I am sorry you don't understand statistics. Nor the English language. I said PREVENT, not cure. Avoid at the threshold. I also said analysis, and results that profoundly exceed, highly significant. But you obviously don't understand the scientific concept involved. Otis ++++++++++++ Subject: The primate rhesus (dynamic) eye responds the same way as the primate homo-sapien (dynamic) eye does. When you respect the "responsiveness" of the eye to a negative change in its AVERAGE visual environment, then you recognize that both species behave the same way. Here is the analysis of the primate-human eye. At age 9 average, the refractive state of Eskimos is: Mean = +1.3 Diopters, Standard Deviation = 1.7 Diopters At age 17 (after 8 years in school) Mean = -0.93 Diopters, S.D. (Sigma) = 1.97 diopters. Z = (Xc - Xt) / Sqrt [Sigma(c) ^2 / N(c) + Sigma(t) ^2 / N(t)] Z = [ 1.3 - (-0.93)] / Sqrt[ 1.7 ^2 / 218 + 1.97 ^2 / 194 ] Z = 12.2 The value of "Z" determines the significant of the result for the dynamic behavior of the fundamental primate-human eye. 1.64 is significant 2.33 is highly significant 3.9 is virtually certain The "Z" value is 12.2 The natural primate-Rhesus and primate-human behave in the same way. Why would you believe that they would not? Best, Otis ++++++++ > > There you go again with your majority opinion hubris. > [quoted text clipped - 152 lines] > ==========================================================From > http://www-personal.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/Humour/trolls.html > The natural primate-Rhesus and primate-human behave in the > same way. > > Why would you believe that they would not? Serious answer - Raviola and Wiesel, NEJM 312:1609-1615. Not-so-serious answer - until you, I never met a human who crapped in their hand and threw it at me. -MT > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/DynamicEye.html Perhaps you would do the honour of answering my questions regarding the graph: So what does this prove? Chinese are not Eskimos? Eskimos are Monkeys? Chinese are not Monkeys? I presume you're suggesting, that "reading" is the problem, hence why Hong Kong students get Myopia. In that case, would "looking a far way away" lead to Hyperopia? Perhaps the evil minus lens is a figment of your imagination to be remedied simply by altering viewing behavioral patterns amongst the obviously stupid people from Hong Kong who only sit reading books? I think we've also covered in the past the question as to why I as a computer programmer, am not myopic, I think you've told me that I havent read enough to become myopic. Perhaps you could also not cheat on your graphs for "Refractive State of Hong Kong Students". In both graphs, 0 Diopters is shown, but only in the top graph, do you show the range of -0.7 to +2.1. What is the range for the bottom graph? How can we be assured that all those students in Hong Kong, weren't naturally predisposed genetically or what have you to Myopia and became students? ie how can you be sure that those students acquired myopia due to studying? Why is it that reading leads of myopia, but only glasses cause more myopia? Doesn't continued reading in glasses cause more myopia in which case the problem isn't the glasses? Cya Simon Hi, What is the range for the bottom graph? Thanks for reading the graph. If you read further, you would have found that the more time a person spends in "school" once he starts with the minus, the sooner that -1/2 diopter "down" rate is set up. The people making this statement of 87 percent "nearsighed" did not provide the mean or standard deviation. But, Francis Young did -- so I will post that information for Eskimos. But please note that this issue is not "reading". It is "habitual distance". For instance, let us say that some kids "push back" and read at 21 inches (-1.9 diopters). I would expect that type of person's refractive STATE to remain at about zero diopters. But then you have kids reading at 6, 5, and yes, 4 inches (-10 diopters). To suggest that these are the "same" is not right. The real issue would be for the parents to understand this "bad habit" of some kid, and take action to "slow it down". Just one man's opinion. Otis > > Dear Mike, > > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > Cya > Simon > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the minus, the sooner that -1/2 diopter "down" rate > is set up. Well I read the rest of your post, but you havent answered any of my questions. Lets start with this one. What is the range for the bottom graph? The range for the top graph is clearly labelled, on the graph itself. What's the range on the bottom? Ta Simon yet persons of northern european origin (caucasians) behave differently than eskimos or asians. and certain american indian tribes instead develop significant astigmatism. all this clustering of similar refractive characteristics within similar racial groups tends to favor a genetic basis for refractive error development wouldn't you agree? what would raphaelson say? (WWRS) or perhaps its just the wretched minus. and why would you pretend to know anything about these issues? the current experts in this field all come to different conclusions than you. PS-- there is no "second opinion". you should refer to it as the "old disproven opinion". !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > Cya > > Simon |
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.