 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2007Plus Prevention Considered at Threshold
Subject: A new idea in prevention. There are two opinions on preventing the development of a negative refractive STATE of the natural eye. Second-opinion optometrists suggest the possibility. See: http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=64338 The issue obviously must be considered by the parents at the threshold -- as either/or. Best, Otis > The issue obviously must be considered by the > parents at the threshold -- as either/or. So according to your article: "The development and growth of a child's eye will not be impacted by whether or not that child wears glasses. His or her need for glasses is significantly more connected to genetics than any day-to-day behavior, such as video game playing or reading," said Ophthalmologist Richard Davidson at the Rocky Mountain Lions Eye Institute, University of Colorado School of Medicine" -MT > So according to your article: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT The title is: A close-up look at preserving children's vision The main point is: <<When Maybury determined Austin's eyes were straining to focus on things close in, he gave Austin a prescription for reading glasses that he believes will help keep Austin from needing stronger and stronger distance glasses over the years. "The lenses don't do all the work for the child. They just put the child's visual system in their comfort zone so they can read without the stress and strain, because ultimately, it's the stress and strain that makes their vision worse," said Maybury. Maybury says he is not suggesting that kids spend less time reading or doing other activities close to the eyes. Instead, parents should ask eye doctors to take a look at how their children's eyes are focusing on those close-up activities, so they can get the proper eyewear if needed. While many optometrists <brilliant> believe the use of bifocals or reading glasses for kids can help preserve their long distance vision, some local ophthamologists <idiot or evil> have told 9NEWS, in most cases, they disagree. >> Only idiots or evil optometrists and ophthamologists don't try their best to PRESERVE CHILREN'S VISION!!! And only idiots are fooled by these eye doctors. Myopia Cure Promoter http://www.geocities.com/myopiacure Dear all sentient beings, I apologize for the typo above. What I meant to type was: Only idiots or evil optometrists and ophthamologists don't try their best to PRESERVE CHILREN'S VISION!!! Unfortunately, the majority of the public is fooled by these eye doctors. Myopia Cure Promoter http://www.geocities.com/myopiacure On Feb 13, 12:36 pm, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote: > When Maybury determined Austin's eyes were straining to focus on > things close in, he gave Austin a prescription for reading glasses > that he believes will help keep Austin from needing stronger and > stronger distance glasses over the years. Having trouble clearing distance vison after prolonged reading does not imply any sort of "strain" close-in. > "The lenses don't do all the work for the child. They just put the > child's visual system in their comfort zone so they can read without > the stress and strain, because ultimately, it's the stress and strain > that makes their vision worse," said Maybury. I think that is a rather archaic (arcane) way of looking at the problem. I don't think it has anything to do with "stress" or "strain." > Maybury says he is not suggesting that kids spend less time reading or > doing other activities close to the eyes. Instead, parents should ask > eye doctors to take a look at how their children's eyes are focusing > on those close-up activities, so they can get the proper eyewear if > needed. Very true. > Only idiots or evil optometrists and ophthamologists don't try their > best to PRESERVE CHILREN'S VISION!!! > And only idiots are fooled by these eye doctors. Not true and not very nice. > Myopia Cure Promoterhttp://www.geocities.com/myopiacure Thanks. I needed chuckle and I got one. DrG > On Feb 13, 12:36 pm, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote: > > When Maybury determined Austin's eyes were straining to focus on > > things close in, he gave Austin a prescription for reading glasses > > that he believes will help keep Austin from needing stronger and > > stronger distance glasses over the years. > Having trouble clearing distance vison after prolonged reading does > not imply any sort of "strain" close-in. Dr. Maybury solved the problem. He gave Austin a prescription for reading glasses that will help keep Austin from needing STRONGER AND STRONGER distance glasses over the years. You, DrG, on the other hand, do NOT want to solve the problem at all. You like to DENY THE FACTS, DENY THE TRUTH, and DENY THE SCIENCE. > > "The lenses don't do all the work for the child. They just put the > > child's visual system in their comfort zone so they can read without [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > problem. I don't think it has anything to do with "stress" or > "strain." Again, Dr. Maybury solved the problem. He let the child wear reading glasses which put the child's visual system in their comfort zone so they can read without the stress and strain, because ultimately, it's the STRESS AND STRAIN that MAKES their vision WORSE. Again, you, DrG, on the other hand, do NOT want to solve the problem at all. You like to DENY THE FACTS, DENY THE TRUTH, and DENY THE SCIENCE. > > Maybury says he is not suggesting that kids spend less time reading or > > doing other activities close to the eyes. Instead, parents should ask [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Very true. Dr. Maybury said, "parents should ASK EYE DOCTORS to take a look at how their children's eyes are focusing on those close-up activities, so they can GET the PROPER EYEWEAR if needed (for children whose myopia is still progressing)." You wrote VERY TRUE but you don't normally give children PROPER EYEWEAR. If you did, none of the children in your office will be needing STRONGER AND STRONGER distance glasses year after year. > > Only idiots or evil optometrists and ophthamologists don't try their > > best to PRESERVE CHILREN'S VISION!!! > > Not true and not very nice. Not true because YOU are brilliant as you know all the science/truth behind myopia and how to prevent/control/reduce/cure myopia BUT you never did it and you always try to DENY THE FACTS, DENY THE TRUTH, and DENY THE SCIENCE when someone brings up the myopia prevention/control/ cure subjects because you are .... Myopia Cure Promoter http://www.geocities.com/myopiacure > Dr. Maybury solved the problem. He gave Austin a prescription for > reading glasses that will help keep Austin from needing STRONGER AND > STRONGER distance glasses over the years. The researchers who have tested your hypothesis say that it doesn't work. Don't argue with Dr. G, argue with them. You know, the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Myopia, Ophthalmology, New England Journal of Medicine. THAT's who disagrees with you. > You, DrG, on the other hand, do NOT want to solve the problem at all. > You like to DENY THE FACTS, DENY THE TRUTH, and DENY THE SCIENCE. Channel 9, on the other hand, knew the claims were off the wall and they included another quote that said so. > Again, Dr. Maybury solved the problem. He let the child wear reading > glasses which put the child's visual system in their comfort zone so > they can read without the stress and strain, because ultimately, it's > the STRESS AND STRAIN that MAKES their vision WORSE. Ultimately you have no proof of that. If you ever actually tested the hypothesis (y'know, t-tests 'n 'at) you wouldn't be so sure. Most optometrists and even some ophthalmologists believed it in the 50's and 60's. Only a few still do. "Stress and strain" do not cause myopia. > Dr. Maybury said, "parents should ASK EYE DOCTORS to take a look at > how their children's eyes are focusing on those close-up activities, > so they can GET the PROPER EYEWEAR if needed (for children whose > myopia is still progressing)." For a -2.00 myope, the "proper" eyewear is NONE. But they take off their glasses and still get nearsighted at the same rate. How do you explain that? > Not true because YOU are brilliant as you know all the science/truth > behind myopia and how to prevent/control/reduce/cure myopia BUT you > never did it Oh please, tell us who has done it. I'd like to learn something that works. > and you always try to DENY THE FACTS, DENY THE TRUTH, and > DENY THE SCIENCE when someone brings up the myopia prevention/control/ > cure subjects because you are So prove us wrong. But Dr. Maybe on the Channel 9 News doesn't cut it. -MT perhaps you would like to validate your claims by citing some of the "science" that supports what you believe. ------- On Feb 13, 4:33 pm, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote: > you always try to DENY THE FACTS, DENY THE TRUTH, and > DENY THE SCIENCE when someone brings up the myopia prevention/control/ > cure subjects On Feb 13, 3:33 pm, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote: > Dr. Maybury solved the problem. He gave Austin a prescription for > reading glasses that will help keep Austin from needing STRONGER AND > STRONGER distance glasses over the years. Let's do a follow-up story and make sure that Dr. Austin "solved" the problem. > You, DrG, on the other hand, do NOT want to solve the problem at all. > You like to DENY THE FACTS, DENY THE TRUTH, and DENY THE SCIENCE. How do you come by that outrageous conclusion? > Again, Dr. Maybury solved the problem. He let the child wear reading > glasses which put the child's visual system in their comfort zone so > they can read without the stress and strain, because ultimately, it's > the STRESS AND STRAIN that MAKES their vision WORSE. It is true that Dr. Austin did something in the way of a treatment. Time will tell if it is working or not. I disagree that "stress and strain" is at the root of the problem, and so do the majority of the researchers working on this problem today. > Again, you, DrG, on the other hand, do NOT want to solve the problem > at all. You like to DENY THE FACTS, DENY THE TRUTH, and DENY THE > SCIENCE. I've actually been studying the problem for many years. You obviously have quit studying the problem many years ago, as your theories and ideas are stuck there with Otis. > Dr. Maybury said, "parents should ASK EYE DOCTORS to take a look at > how their children's eyes are focusing on those close-up activities, > so they can GET the PROPER EYEWEAR if needed (for children whose > myopia is still progressing)." I agreed with this. > You wrote VERY TRUE but you don't normally give children PROPER > EYEWEAR. If you did, none of the children in your office will be > needing STRONGER AND STRONGER distance glasses year after year. How do you know what I do in my practice? Myopia will not be cured in my lifetime. Prescribe all the bifocals and reading glasses you want, but you will not stop all children from becoming myopic. Show me one example of an optometrist who has prevented myopia in 100% of his/her patients. You can't. > Not true because YOU are brilliant as you know all the science/truth > behind myopia and how to prevent/control/reduce/cure myopia BUT you > never did it and you always try to DENY THE FACTS, DENY THE TRUTH, and > DENY THE SCIENCE when someone brings up the myopia prevention/control/ > cure subjects because you are .... I'm neither brilliant nor omniscient, but it doesn't take much to know more than you. DrG > Again, you, DrG, on the other hand, do NOT want to solve the problem > at all. You like to DENY THE FACTS, DENY THE TRUTH, and DENY THE > SCIENCE. Somebody likes to post in all CAPS, and they like to refer to science. I wonder who that could be? :-( > > Myopia Cure Promoterhttp://www.geocities.com/myopiacure > > Thanks. I needed chuckle and I got one. > > DrG Only evils will chuckle or laugh softly or amusedly, usually with SATISFACTION when seeing people's myopia get worse and worse year after year which results in retinal detachment since they are the ones who are causing it. For more information, see: International Myopia Prevention Association http://www.myopia.org/ I don't believe it! Is there someone as stupid as Cletis? Or are you Cletis posting under one of your alais'? Optometrists cause retinal detachment? Big call sweetie. Can you back this one up or do we believe you because you are an internationally reknowned expert on the subject? I suppose you think we cause people to go myopic because we can make heaps of money out of it too. You also make out that we are evil. Excellent, now I know why all my friends call me master and where my horns and tail came from. You are one smart cookie. dr grant On Feb 13, 4:10 pm, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote: > Only evils will chuckle or laugh softly or amusedly, usually with > SATISFACTION when seeing people's myopia get worse and worse year > after year which results in retinal detachment since they are the ones > who are causing it. I was chuckling at the contents of your website. DrG > > > Myopia Cure Promoterhttp://www.geocities.com/myopiacure > > > > Thanks. I needed chuckle and I got one. > Only evils will chuckle or laugh softly or amusedly, usually with > SATISFACTION when seeing people's myopia get worse and worse year > after year which results in retinal detachment since they are the ones > who are causing it. I didn't chuckle either. It's not funny. I've been there and done that. I don't personally believe that myopia causes RD. I think elongated eyeballs might be the cause of both. I've tried them both. > In article <1171404624.387154.132...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't personally believe that myopia causes RD. I think elongated > eyeballs might be the cause of both. I've tried them both. I think I made my point clear, Dan. I am nearsighted, my wife is nearsighted, and my son is more nearsighted than both of us put together. Fortunately, none of us have had retinal detachments, and those events are thankfully rare even in highly nearsighted people. DrG Dear DrG, Subject: Dealing with your own children. I do respect you in this way. You only "know" to put your own children in a minus. That is absolutly honest and ethical. No question about it. Further, I do agree that plus-prevention is difficult, and must be STARTED before the refractive STATE goes below -1/2 diopter. That is indeed difficult. But some optometrists recognize the problems, and START their own childern in the plus (at a refractive STATE of zero) because they recognize the consequences of the Eskimo data provided by Frank Young. This is how a TRUE second opinion will start. But, I agree, once you START with the minus, your distant vision becomes so much spilt milk, so much water over the dam. To even SUGGEST that a OD represents BOTH the majority-opinion AND second-opinion is nuts. But that is why we are having these discussions. Best, Otis > > In article <1171404624.387154.132...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Feb 14, 10:02 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Another bunch of statements from Otis without a logical connection masquerading as a discussion. And so it goes. DrG On Feb 14, 8:02 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You only "know" to put your own children in a minus. ====================================================== We interrupt this bald faced lie to bring you the following plaintive entreat: ====================================================== ....bunch of questions for you to answer here, Sweet Cheeks .... maybe just as a Valentine's Day present to ... well ... to all of us. See: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt Answer 'em, Uncle Otie. Answer 'em ALL Answer 'em HONESTLY Answer 'em FULLY Answer 'em DIRECTLY Answer 'em HERE ... on sci.med.vision Come on. Be a dude. Be a real, full-fledged dude. Won't you? On Feb 14, 10:02 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear DrG, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You only "know" to put your own children in a minus. I "know" that my son loved to play baseball. Therefore, I had a choice to make: either give him eyeglasses so he could see the ball, or do nothing and have him be hit in the head by a baseball he couldn't see, or not play baseball at all. > Further, I do agree that plus-prevention is difficult, > and must be STARTED before the refractive STATE > goes below -1/2 diopter. So THAT'S the problem. I started him in bifocals when he was -0.75 instead of -0.50. > That is indeed difficult. But some optometrists > recognize the problems, and START their > own childern in the plus (at a refractive STATE > of zero) because they recognize the consequences > of the Eskimo data provided by Frank Young. SInce the cause of myopia is genetic, it certainly is difficult to imagine doctors doing this on their own children. > But, I agree, once you START with the > minus, your distant vision becomes so much > spilt milk, so much water over the dam. With minus lenses, my son was able to play baseball every year since he was 5 years/old, become an accomplished pianist, and go on to a prestigious university. Instead of going over the dam, he crossed the bridge. DrG Dear Dr. Leukoma, Subject: A sincere and honest answer. Thanks for the your insight, and your statement about your son. While we disagree about the natural eye as a dynamic system -- we do not disagree about that issue. I personally think you are dealing with a "situation" that is completely out-of-hand, and there is nothing you can do about it. That that is how I draw the line separating medicine, from second-opinion science. With deep respect to you, Otis > On Feb 14, 10:02 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > DrG > I personally think you are dealing with a "situation" > that is completely out-of-hand, and there is > nothing you can do about it. So why didn't it work? And why do you continue to recommend a treatment that doesn't work? -MT On Feb 16, 1:56 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Dr. Leukoma, > [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > > - Show quoted text - You continue to raise strawman arguments in order to promote your anti- optometry agenda. If the entire scientific body doesn't accept your terminology, then we are wrong, and that is the gist of your entire argument. DrG Dear "L", Subject: I am PRO-OPTOMETRY! I am absolutly FOR an optometrist who supports you with the second-opinion. To suggest that I am anti- "optometry" is a lie. I think the public should understand that they have a choice at the threshold, and that professionals will support them -- if they REQUEST SUPPORT FOR PLUS PREVENTION. I personally would have appreciated the care and concern of a second-opinion optometrist -- and my need to learn from him. His statement that he INSISTS that his own children wear a plus with a refractive state of zero would be very convincing to me. His statment of the nature of this either / or choice I must make would force me to review the scientific literature concerning the refractive STATES of Eskimos: 1. In the wild, or "open", and 2. Going through 12 years of USA type schools. Those scientific facts would be a major factor in the choice I would have to make myself for my long-term visual welfare. That is all. Otis ++++++++++++++ > On Feb 16, 1:56 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Feb 16, 7:35 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear "L", > > Subject: I am PRO-OPTOMETRY! I don't believe the reverse, however, is true. > I am absolutly FOR an optometrist who supports > you with the second-opinion. Steve Leung? I believe he's covered in my questions -- you know -- the ones you won't answer. > To suggest that I am anti- "optometry" is a lie. Spoken like the true expert at lying that you are. > I think the public should understand that they > have a choice at the threshold, and that professionals > will support them -- if they REQUEST SUPPORT > FOR PLUS PREVENTION. I think the public should have full facts. How 'bout answering my questions? > I personally would have appreciated the care and concern > of a second-opinion optometrist -- and my need to > learn from him. I need to learn from you, Uncle Otie. I need to learn your answers to my now famous questions. What'cha' think? > His statement that he INSISTS that his own > children wear a plus with a refractive state of > zero would be very convincing to me. Randomized, controlled testing would be more convincing. Otherwise, you'd have to call this all a failure based solely on your myopic niece, Joy, right? > His statment of the nature of this either / or choice I must make > would force me to review the scientific literature > concerning the refractive STATES of Eskimos: Sorry. Things just aren't that black and white, Uncle Otie. > 1. In the wild, or "open", and You mean before they were introduced to a "Western" diet? > 2. Going through 12 years of USA type schools. Got any facts you'd care to butcher and lie about here, Uncle Otie? Care to address the USAF study now? I'm ready. > Those scientific facts would be a major factor > in the choice I would have to make myself > for my long-term visual welfare. Scientific facts?? We might get nearer to THOSE if you'd answer my questions. > That is all. Would that it were.... :-( On Feb 16, 9:35 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear "L", > > Subject: I am PRO-OPTOMETRY! > > I am absolutly FOR an optometrist who supports > you with the second-opinion. Where are they? Are they listed under the yellow pages as "second opinion optometrists"? There aren't any in my neighborhood, and there are at least 10 within a 5 mile radius of me. Unfortunately, your Steve Leung was not yet born when your genetic myopia was occurring. DrG > > In article <1171404624.387154.132...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > together. Fortunately, none of us have had retinal detachments, and > those events are thankfully rare even in highly nearsighted people. You are indeed fortunate. I'm not a professional, but I've heard that RD is more common for people who are extremely nearsighted. Am I wrong? > In article <1171501827.057601.241...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - RD is uncommon, period. It is less uncommon for high myopes. But, these are not absolute terms. DrG > > In article <1171501827.057601.241...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > > You are indeed fortunate. I'm not a professional, but I've heard that > > RD is more common for people who are extremely nearsighted. Am I wrong?- > RD is uncommon, period. It is less uncommon for high myopes. But, > these are not absolute terms. I'm glad that it isn't common. We aren't talking fun here. I've had it in both eyes. When I was working, there were three people in my hall who had RD. We're talking about ten people. It's common in my life. I don't pretend to be representative. I'm glad. > In article <1171679010.698931.66...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > who had RD. We're talking about ten people. It's common in my life. I > don't pretend to be representative. I'm glad. This is readily Googable. The risk is about 1/20 with high myopes (> 6 diopter). This is about the same percentage who have long-term complications from LASIK eye surgery. DrG Dear Dan, When I was 14 to 15 years old, my mother's cousin had a detached retina -- and went blind. Of all the things I feared the most -- that was it. It is clear that the deeper you get into myopia, the greater the threat of a detached retina. In a study by Perkins, detached retina was listed as the third cause of blindness, in people over 30. If myopia were a casual "inconvenience", then I would not object to the over-prescription of the minus. But it is not that sort of thing. Thus, it would be wise to take the time to understand the second-opinion, and if you understand it, support your child in the use of the plus for prevention -- thus avoing even ENTRY into a negative refractive STATE. It is true that plus-prevention is an intrusion in a person's life. But it is an intrusion for his own personal benifit. That is why I would direct a person to a second-opinion optometrist who would guide you and your children in the correct use of the preventive plus -- the same as Austin is guided by Dr. Maybury. "The times, they are a-changing" Bob Dylan Best, Otis > In article <1171501827.057601.241...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Feb 16, 9:22 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Dan, > [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Otis believes that minus lenses cause myopia. He also believes that curing myopia is a matter of going to the right person who can give the right prescription, such as the over-the-counter reading glasses. Otis believes this because of a study that was published in the early 1980's, and because of anecdotal cases he has heard about. Otis has even been found guilty of misinterpreting the results of his "pet" study. Prefering to live in a world of his own construction, he denigrates and ignores virtually every study published since, including the recent COMET study, because they disagree with his "reality." Otis has also ignored our pleas for any credible scientific evidence to prove his treatments. Instead, he offers up a slew of pseudo- scientific babble designed to hide the fact that the emperor (Otis) has no clothes. I really don't want to have to raise the proper term for what I think is amiss here, but something is indeed rotten in Denmark. But, you know all of this already. DrG > Dear Dan, > > When I was 14 to 15 years old, my mother's cousin had > a detached retina -- and went blind. Both eyes? If so, I am truly sorry. If one eye, that causes problems. My wife and I see out of one eye. I had a loss of vision in my good eye due to RD for ten days. I didn't drive. I didn't work. I had limited use of the computer and reading. > On Feb 13, 12:36 pm, myopiac...@yahoo.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > on those close-up activities, so they can get the proper eyewear if > > needed. DrG> Not true and not very nice. > Myopia Cure Promoterhttp://www.geocities.com/myopiacure Thanks. I needed chuckle and I got one. DrG +++++++++++++++ Yes, stair-case myopia leading to -10 diopters of myopia and detached retinas have you and Catman rolling the in the aisle. It would be nice if you were a little more humble and respected a person's right to an informed second-opinion. Of if you do not feel you can support a person's right to that second-opinion, why not discuss this issue with the parents -- and send them to Dr. Maybury who WILL HELP the child with plus prevention. Why would you have a problem with such an open and honest discussion with the parent -- and a professional? Otis > Very true. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > DrG > Of if you do not feel you can support a person's > right to that second-opinion, why not discuss [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > such an open and honest discussion with > the parent -- and a professional? The dialog would begin something like this.... "I'm sorry your child is myopic. Some myopes get MORE myopic. Some myopes get LESS myopic. Some myopes NEVER change prescriptions. I'll prescribe the appropriate glasses. Wear them to clear up your distance vision. Under-prescribing won't affect the eyes. Overprescribing won't affect the eyes. That said, there's this past-his-sell-by-date guy, in Pennsylvania, who's under investigation by the State of Pennsylvania for practicing medicine without a license. He ignores all data that contradicts his closely-held belief, has a nearsighted niece who followed his advice, he can't understand statistics, doesn't answer direct questions, is highly myopic himself, and has been dismissed by many doctors as ... well ... nuts. He is a human logical fallacy fountain, unable to maintain coherent positions without drifting off into logical errors that seem to lead him to faulty conclusions. But he'd like to talk with you about a roundly disproven theory that has never been proven effective in people without a certain type of binocular function disorder, and--even then--only slightly effective. You, by the way, don't HAVE that binocular function disorder, so there's no reason to think you'd benefit. Oh, by the way, this old guy has CAUSED DOUBLE vision in numerous people who followed hs advice, and -- one more thing: most of his evidence comes from studies on ANIMALS who did not HAVE myopia but had lenses sutured to their lids ... 24/7. Now ... any questions?" > The dialog would begin something like this.... > > "I'm sorry your child is myopic. Some myopes get MORE myopic. Some > myopes get LESS myopic. Some myopes NEVER change prescriptions. I've tried it all. I think I went a couple of decades with no change. > send them to Dr. Maybury who WILL HELP > the child with plus prevention. I'LL DO IT! If you or Dr. Maybury will agree to refund my patients' money if they show no improvement. How's that for a deal? -MT > Yes, stair-case myopia leading to -10 diopters of myopia > and detached retinas have you and Catman rolling > the in the aisle. So now you are suggesting that climbing stairs gives you myopia. Is this the reason the asian monkeys are more myopic, because they have to climb the stairs of their condo? We all know monkeys are too stupid to invent lifts. > It would be nice if you were a little more humble > and respected a person's right to an informed > second-opinion. But we do!!! That is why I am a certified second opinion doctor. I ensure everyone knows all sides of the story. .....Like you are a dickhead. Oh.......and my second opinion is that I was right with my first opinion. ROFL > Of if you do not feel you can support a person's > right to that second-opinion, why not discuss > this issue with the parents -- and send > them to Dr. Maybury who WILL HELP > the child with plus prevention. Anyone can prescribe plus for eyestrain. You have no information the kid was myopic or going myopic. You are trying to support a stupid argument with no facts once again Cletis. > Why would you have a problem with > such an open and honest discussion with > the parent -- and a professional? I don't. I am a second opinion expert. Look up ACBO, OEP and COVD sites and you will see my name there. And I still think you are a dickhead. dr grant Dear Catman, And then the little boy said, ''...but the Emperor has no clothes on..." H. C. Anderson > > Yes, stair-case myopia leading to -10 diopters of myopia > > and detached retinas have you and Catman rolling [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > dr grant On Feb 14, 9:48 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Catman, > > And then the little boy said, ''...but the Emperor has no > clothes on..." > > H. C. Anderson ...and people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones (nor prance about in the nude). DrG "...we don't wash our hands -- because germs don't exist -- and that is BOTH the majority-opinion and second opinion." Said about 1820, when the death rate for women was running 30 percent. These women were being delivered doctors who first examined diseased tissues and then went and delivered babys. I. Semmelwies > On Feb 14, 9:48 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > DrG On Feb 14, 8:16 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > "...we don't wash our hands -- because germs don't exist -- and that > is BOTH the majority-opinion and second opinion." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > doctors who first examined diseased tissues and then went > and delivered babys. I know that one: Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument): "I did not murder my mother and father with an axe! Please don't find me guilty; I'm suffering enough through being an orphan." Some authors want you to know they're suffering for their beliefs. For example, "Scientists scoffed at Copernicus and Galileo; they laughed at Edison, Tesla and Marconi; they won't give my ideas a fair hearing either. But time will be the judge. I can wait; I am patient; sooner or later science will be forced to admit that all matter is built, not of atoms, but of tiny capsules of TIME." There is a strange variant which shows up on Usenet. Somebody refuses to answer questions about their claims, on the grounds that the asker is mean and has hurt their feelings. Or, that the question is personal. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#pity Dear Catman, You statement that you are both the first-opinion AND the second-opinion simply tells me how arrogant you are. That only reinforces the need for an HONEST discussion of these issues with prevention-minded parents. Obviously you are NEVER going to honor them with an HONEST discussion of the preventive alternative. But, you must have missed this statement along the way: "FIRST ... do no harm..." Otis > On Feb 14, 8:16 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#pity Trying to reply to Catman, but in fact replying to me, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Catman, > > You statement that you are both the first-opinion AND > the second-opinion simply tells me how arrogant you are. Arrogant: 1. making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official. 2. characterized by or proceeding from arrogance: arrogant claims. I have never met anybody more arrogant than you, Otis. Perhaps that's mixed in with a liberal dose of pathological behavior, but the arrogance stands on its own merits. > That only reinforces the need for an HONEST discussion > of these issues with prevention-minded parents. But you will never have an honest discussion yourself. Ironic, eh? > Obviously you are NEVER going to honor them > with an HONEST discussion of the preventive alternative. And you'll never help them. Show me any evidence that you achieve outcomes that vary from the standard distributions in the USAF study. No? Didn't think so. > But, you must have missed this statement along the way: > > "FIRST ... do no harm..." And ... as always ... there lies one main difference between these doctors and you: they DO take an oath to "first do no harm." You don't. That's why you feel comfortable dabbling in things that you don't understand, and--in the process--inducing double vision in the unwary. That's why you feel comfortable lying, cherry-picking information, defecating logical fallacy after logical fallacy, never answering direct questions, and bragging about your emmetropic nephew--in whose eyesight you probably made ZERO difference--while hiding your myopic niece, Joy, from public scrutiny. This is why you attribute your (near unanimous) failures to "lack of personal resolve" when SCIENCE would seek to understand the failures (maybe the theory is crap? Maybe). You BELIEVE that there are no repercussions to your actions, and that you will be DEified and vindicated long after you're dead. I think the truth is closer to this: you will be VILlified and prosecuted before too long. You can't stop yourself. You don't help anybody. You DO hurt people. > But, you must have missed this statement along the way: > > "FIRST ... do no harm..." So, you had any luck getting those FDA warnings you wanted? How's that going? -MT > Obviously you are NEVER going to honor them > with an HONEST discussion of the preventive alternative. Like Dr. Worrall... ================================== Dr. Worrall's work extends nationwide By: Kelly Arbor, Colfax Record Staff Writer Wednesday, February 14, 2007 5:07 PM PST Behind the mild-mannered exterior of Colfax optometrist Russell Worrall lies a nationally renown 'fraudbuster.' Dr. Worrall, who moonlights as an associate clinical professor at the University of California at Berkeley, was active in a recent consumer fraud lawsuit, which stopped an Iowa firm from telemarketing the "See Clearly Method." Iowa's Consumer Protection Division brought the successful lawsuit against the Iowa Vision Improvement Technologies, markers of "See Clearly Method." A recent letter from Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller thanked Worrall for lending his expertise to the expose of the firm's claims. The "See Clearly Method" stated it could provide a natural way for individuals to strengthen their eyes, as an alternative to eyeglasses. "Your willingness to devote the time and resources necessary to be an expert witness, and to do so without compensation, speaks volumes about your commitment to your profession and to the public good," Miller wrote. Worrall is sympathetic to anyone who wants to throw away their glasses through eye exercise but, he said, myopia (nearsightedness), hyperopia (farsightedness) and astigmatism aren't treatable that way. Though eye fatigue can respond to certain exercises, there are no exercises that correct faulty vision, he said. In children, lazy eye, or amblyopia, is treatable through patching and exercises, Worrall said, and exercises can help children with "convergence insufficiency." These conditions can be detected in an optometric exam, he added. At the Children's Vision, Neuro-Optometry and Binocular Vision Clinic at the U.C. Berkeley's Meredith Morgan University Eye Center, Worrall has made vision therapy his specialty. He also has an Auburn optometry practice with ophthalmologist Daniel Foreman, and does eye exams at Colfax Vision Center twice a week. "Dr. Worrall is well liked among both his young patients and their parents," said Binocular Vision Clinic Chief Pia Hoenig. "He is also very popular among our student clinicians. We are extremely fortunate that Dr. Worrall makes the effort every Saturday to travel to the Bay Area to share his knowledge." Debunking myths about vision problems isn't easy, according to Worrall. "People are looking for a simple, natural way to deal with health problems," he said, but there is no scientific evidence supporting an "easy, natural total cure." ======================================== Like that? As before, the blind leading the blind. Sure, I understand. Otis > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > Like that? > As before, the blind leading the blind. Would that be the FDA leading the FTC? That's a really big conspiracy you got there. Think the Italians are behind it? -MT > On Feb 14, 9:48 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > > Dear Catman, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ...and people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones (nor > prance about in the nude). I've got my complaint here. Nudists (adult) don't prance, or dance, or frolic or run around. They just walk. Dan (a regular poster to rec.nude) > Subject: A new idea in prevention. Nice to have new ideas. Except, it's 100 years old, and not supported by most professionals. On Feb 13, 11:15 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: A new idea in prevention. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Otis Experts are in agreement on many things. The experts agree that myopia is genetic with an environmental component. That close work is involved in myopia progression has been acknowledged for many years. The experts also agree that providing the myopic child with their best distance correction is in the child's best interests, and is consistent with the published research. Experts also agree (and have agreed for years) that myopes with accommodative lag who are either orthophoric or esophoric at near -- a minority -- seem to benefit more from bifocals than other myopes. Recently, two researchers (Hung and Ciuffreda) have written a paper on near-induced transient myopia. They maintain that some people exhibit a signficant latency in relaxing their accommodation after prolonged near work, and that this latency can contribute to axial myopia. It is a very interesting thesis. Experts also agree that accommodative "stress" is not involved in myopiagenesis, but that poor accommodation and retinal blur probably are involved. In my practice, I strive to adhere to the above concepts in my treatment recommendations. Once the concept of "accommodative stress" has been discarded, and the concept of retinal blur is accepted, more of the observed facts seem to fall into place. The more one is familiar with the research, the more readily it becomes apparent just how far out in left field Otis really is. DrG On 2/17/07 6:04 AM, in article 1171721068.203901.106790@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: > Experts are in agreement on many things. The experts agree that > myopia is genetic with an environmental component. That close work is [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > familiar with the research, the more readily it becomes apparent just > how far out in left field Otis really is. Although I truly believe that medicine has improved much in the last 150 years, it is difficult me to believe that "experts" have stopped agreeing to many false assumptions since the middle of the 19th century. In the days of Semmelweis, pus and blood stains on white coats were considered signs of sage wisdom and experience. In my days, mustard plasters and tonsillectomies were standard practice. Whatever happened to cryogenic treatment of stomach ulcers? Even more recently, there was a course change on the benefit of hormone replacement therapy. Even though experts agree, it ain't necessarily so. If you want to show how smart you are, predict the next medical old wives' tale that is going to be shot down. Bill -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go. > Even though experts agree, it ain't necessarily so. If you want to show how > smart you are, predict the next medical old wives' tale that is going to be > shot down. But, but, but ... aren't you just the least bit curious as to why Otis won't answer my questions? I know I am. On 2/17/07 1:20 PM, in article 1171747209.704901.40590@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com, "Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote: > But, but, but ... aren't you just the least bit curious as to why Otis > won't answer my questions? Not really. While I may agree with what Otis says from time to time, I have not converted to his religion. Bill -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go. > Not really. While I may agree with what Otis says from time to time, I have > not converted to his religion. That's what I have gathered. You just like to hurl little spitballs for effect. DrG On 2/17/07 6:33 PM, in article 1171765992.458663.236610@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: >> Not really. While I may agree with what Otis says from time to time, I have >> not converted to his religion. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > DrG BIG ONES -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go. > On 2/17/07 6:33 PM, in article > 1171765992.458663.236...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > BIG ONES > -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go. Although size does matter, it is all relative. Dear Bill, You are correct about I. Semmelwies. AFTER he reduced the death rate from 30 percent to 1 percent, he was declared a fraud. Then the non-hand washing doctors ran THEIR study and PROVED that "hand washing" had no effect, and that the death rate remaind at 30 percent whether they washed their hands -- or did not. Here is some more commnetary on this issue for you enjoyment: +++++++++++++++++++++++ THE HISTORY OF EXISTING PRACTICE The use of a lens to deal with any and all problems of the eye began in the 14th century. The practice of using a negative lens for nearsightedness has continued, almost unchanged, for the last 300 years. The compelling reason for this practice is the public's demand for an instant solution, and a corresponding refusal to consider the use of an alternative approach. A REVIEW OF THE PAST APPROACH We should all thoughtfully evaluate the unfortunate effect of using an immediate and easy fix for the problem of nearsightedness. This situation of a self-perpetuating mistake (produced by public need and attitude) is sometimes recognized by the students of medicine. Dr. Perri Klass said it this way in VITAL SIGNS: "... Sometimes the awesome weight of medical knowledge is totally off the beam. You have to practice medicine with that in mind, with the knowledge that a hundred years or so along the road, they'll be telling stories about the medical theories of today to get a laugh of the medical students of 2085..." And about medicines' confidence in its routines: "... Or something so basic, so taken for granted, that no one has gotten around to questioning it. Whatever it is, probably the medical profession is collectively doing something really dumb and really damaging, and doing it with complete good will and typical medical self-confidence." This applies to vision. The demand for negative lens use comes partly from the public's demand for an instant solution, (and corresponding reluctance to properly use a plus lens) and not from a scientific assessment of the behavior characteristic of the normal eye. +++++++++++++++++++++ As always be a responsibility of BOTH the parent and child. Further there is a "window" of opportunity that exists for prevention if the parents and child are willing to ACCEPT it. As Mike Tyner said, he found his child with a refractive STATE of -3/4 diopters (20/60) and put the 5 year-old into a strong minus. I can not argue with that type of action. I am certain that the doctors who did not wash their hands, delievered their own wives with no hand washing. That is the nature of the problem. Best, Otis > On 2/17/07 6:04 AM, in article > 1171721068.203901.106...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > You are correct about I. Semmelwies. AFTER he reduced > the death rate from 30 percent to 1 percent, he was declared > a fraud. When you reduce the incidence of myopia from 30% to 1%, we'll listen. I promise. -MT > > You are correct about I. Semmelwies. AFTER he reduced > > the death rate from 30 percent to 1 percent, he was declared > > a fraud. > > When you reduce the incidence of myopia from 30% to 1%, we'll listen. I > promise. It ain't hard. Anecdotal evidence. It's bound to happen to someone. Otis will use that as proof. Otis--perhaps the world's worst typist--wrote: > As Mike Tyner said, he found his child with a refractive > STATE of -3/4 diopters (20/60) and put the 5 year-old > into a strong minus. > > I can not argue with that type of action. Nor can I imagine Mike ever saying that. > I am certain that the doctors who did not wash their > hands, delievered their own wives with no hand washing. Chronology, logic, or syntax error aside ... does your sister harbor a grudge against you for "forcing" her daughter ... your niece, Joy ... into myopia?? > That is the nature of the problem. ... and the nature of my question above. >> Otis: >> As Mike Tyner said, he found his child with a refractive [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nor can I imagine Mike ever saying that. Me neither. I think this was a reference to the 5-year-old with lenticonus, whom I recommended NOT correcting right away. -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Your child with a negative refractive STATE of -3/4 diopters. Re: You actions when you can "clear" your child's Snellen with a -3/4 diopter lens. (-3/4 diopter is about 20/40 to 20/50 -- depending on test condions). You believe that the right and ONLY action is to place a -3/4 diopter lens on your child (and any child) who has a negative refractive STATE of that level. I do not believe is wise to do it -- but you do. Since this is your family -- I have no objection. Nor, if you state this "up front" to the public, I still have no objection if you identify this policy as the majority-opinion. It is clear (from my experience with second-opinion optometrists) that they think the prevention (with a plus) at this point would be wise -- in their judgment. In fact they personally insist that THEIR children begin wearing a plus for all reading when their refractive state moves from +1/2 to 0.0 diopters. It is my belief that THOSE children will maintain a normal refracitve STATE of from zero to +3/4 diopters for the following 15 years (through college), and that is the right method for prevention. It is indeed difficult to deal with children in this manner -- but that is an issue for the parents to begin understanding. Further, I believe this is a now-or-never type of choice. That is what I mean when I describe a second-opinion optometrist like Steve Leung at: www.chinamyopia.org The choice must be for the parents -- and since it will have life time consequences for the child -- it should not be a matter of you putting the child in a -3/4 diopter lens, and saying nothing about plus-prevention. Best, Otis > >> Otis: > >> As Mike Tyner said, he found his child with a refractive [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -MT > Subject: Your child with a negative refractive STATE of -3/4 diopters. You are confused. I have no such child. Both my children have always been +050 or thereabouts. > You believe that the right and ONLY action is to > place a -3/4 diopter lens on your child (and any child) > who has a negative refractive STATE of that level. Another false recollection, based on your imagination rather than reality. I don't think I've _ever_ recommended -0.75 for a five-year-old. > I do not believe is wise to do it -- but you do. Since > this is your family -- I have no objection. I don't recommend it for my family or anyone else. My reasons are not the same as yours. > Nor, if you state this "up front" to the public, I still > have no objection if you identify this policy as > the majority-opinion. You are confused. I believe the majority would NOT correct -0.75 in a five-year-old. > It is clear (from my experience with second-opinion optometrists) > that they think the prevention (with a plus) at this point > would be wise -- in their judgment. It is clear from my experience prescribing and studying published comparisons, that plus makes no difference. > It is my belief that THOSE children will maintain > a normal refracitve STATE of from zero to +3/4 diopters It is my belief that your perception of reality is somewhat altered. -MT > It is my belief that your perception of reality is somewhat altered. If I cared, I'd try to correlate this abject, dangerous, recurring, sometimes sad yet oft amusing issue with hour of day, day of week, date of month, etc. I'm guessing it's a "half life of one of his meds" issue and that we _could_ pin it down. But .... Congrats on being both Mike AND Dr. Leukoma, incidentally. Not many have mastered it. Dear Mike, Sorry, I got you mixed up with DrG's statement about his 5 year-old. My point was this -- the minus lens works instantly, and the plus obviously does not work instantly. The problem is that you confuse "instant results" with science-based plus-prevention. In your mind, EVERYTHING in this world must be reduced to a quick-fix in 5 minutes, or you don't think it is "science". You have a very limited "vision" here indeed. But if DrGs "vision" is limited, and with this "vision" he puts his child in a minus lens -- then the results are indeed predictable. (Maybe he does not realize it -- or maybe he does not want to know it -- but they are.) But that is a parent's choice. Otis +++++++++ Dear DrG, > Subject: Dealing with your own children. > I do respect you in this way. > You only "know" to put your own children in a minus. I "know" that my son loved to play baseball. Therefore, I had a choice to make: either give him eyeglasses so he could see the ball, or do nothing and have him be hit in the head by a baseball he couldn't see, or not play baseball at all. > Further, I do agree that plus-prevention is difficult, > and must be STARTED before the refractive STATE > goes below -1/2 diopter. So THAT'S the problem. I started him in bifocals when he was -0.75 instead of -0.50. > That is indeed difficult. But some optometrists > recognize the problems, and START their > own childern in the plus (at a refractive STATE > of zero) because they recognize the consequences > of the Eskimo data provided by Frank Young. Since the cause of myopia is genetic, it certainly is difficult to imagine doctors doing this on their own children. > But, I agree, once you START with the > minus, your distant vision becomes so much > spilt milk, so much water over the dam. With minus lenses, my son was able to play baseball every year since he was 5 years/old, become an accomplished pianist, and go on to a prestigious university. Instead of going over the dam, he crossed the bridge. DrG > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > -MT On Feb 18, 11:02 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Mike, > > Sorry, I got you mixed up with DrG's statement about > his 5 year-old. You get a great deal "mixed up." > My point was this -- the minus lens works instantly, > and the plus obviously does not work instantly. or ... it seems ... at all ... except in near-point esophores [see my much-touted list of questions] > The problem is that you confuse "instant results" > with science-based plus-prevention. The problem is that YOU confuse THEORY or HYPOTHESIS with science or fact AND that you ignore contradictory evidence (, and confuse terminology, ignore relevant questions, and have no grasp of logic, etc.) > In your mind, EVERYTHING in this world must > be reduced to a quick-fix in 5 minutes, or > you don't think it is "science". In YOUR mind, NOTHING that doesn't support your zealously-held belief merits consideration. > You have a very limited "vision" here indeed. pot ... kettle ... black. > But if DrGs "vision" is limited, and with this > "vision" he puts his child in a minus lens -- then [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But that is a parent's choice. Ready to answer my questions yet, Uncle Otie? If not ... why not? On Feb 18, 9:02 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Personally speaking, I cannot find any evidence that prescribing for a 0.75 diopter myope is harmful. DrG > On 2/17/07 6:04 AM, in article > 1171721068.203901.106...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Evidence-based medicine is a rather recent advance. You want medicine to be more science-based, then you bitch when we are. Why do you dwell here along with Otis? Neither of you has any interest in science-based medicine. DrG > Even though experts agree, it ain't necessarily so. I completely agree. Still, in the absence of hard information, what do you do? I have to think that a medical professional has to go with the best information that is current, even though it is disproved in the future. If my doctor consulted a fortune teller with a crystal ball, I'd get a new doctor. On 2/18/07 4:35 PM, in article dabel-3B01EF.16354318022007@cor8-ppp5025.per.dsl.connect.net.au, "Dan Abel" <dabel@sonic.net> wrote: >> Even though experts agree, it ain't necessarily so. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If my doctor consulted a fortune teller with a crystal ball, I'd get a > new doctor. Physicians are not god! I catch them in logical errors all the time. I am very happy when I find one who will have enough time and inclination to actuallY explain on the basis of current theory. I went to a cardiologist who was mentoring students while using me as a subject. He explained, to the student, all the things he pays attention to while auscultating my heart. I was amazed by how much went through his mind. I have little evidence that most physicians concentrate that hard. Unfortunately for me, this guy retired to go into education full time. Bill -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go. > On 2/18/07 4:35 PM, in article > dabel-3B01EF.16354318022...@cor8-ppp5025.per.dsl.connect.net.au, "Dan Abel" [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Bill > -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go. No doubt there is similar variability in the quality and acumen of engineers. DrG As there are intelligent people who will take scientific facts seriously, and work in the context of a plus-PREVENTIVE program -- when it is of GREAT BENIFIT to them that they succeed in avoiding entry into a negative refractive STATE for the natural eye. Otis > > On 2/18/07 4:35 PM, in article > > dabel-3B01EF.16354318022...@cor8-ppp5025.per.dsl.connect.net.au, "Dan Abel" [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Feb 18, 8:48 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > As there are intelligent people who will take scientific > facts seriously, and work in the context of a > plus-PREVENTIVE program -- when it is > of GREAT BENIFIT to them that they succeed > in avoiding entry into a negative refractive STATE > for the natural eye. How can a person be taken seriously when he ignores 30 years worth of science, and then misrepresents one of the only studies in support of his theory? DrG On 2/18/07 5:45 PM, in article 1171849524.428112.22150@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote: > No doubt there is similar variability in the quality and acumen of > engineers. That is certainly true. Where I have found the greatest variability is in secretaries. There are departments that would not function without adequate secretaries because of, for example, incompetent bosses. On the other hand some departments don't function because of their secretaries. The worst part of that situation is that superb secretaries do not get paid much more than the lousy ones. Bill -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go. > On 2/18/07 5:45 PM, in article > 1171849524.428112.22...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, "Dr. Leukoma" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Bill > -- Fermez le Bush--about two years to go. At least we can agree that there is no shortage of mediocrity, if not downright incompetence. DrG > On 2/18/07 4:35 PM, in article > dabel-3B01EF.16354318022007@cor8-ppp5025.per.dsl.connect.net.au, "Dan Abel" [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Physicians are not god! I've noticed that. I made a mistake once. Seriously, my doctors generally try to explain. Sometimes I don't understand. Sometimes it takes several times. > On 2/18/07 4:35 PM, in article > dabel-3B01EF.16354318022...@cor8-ppp5025.per.dsl.connect.net.au, "Dan Abel" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Physicians are not god! I catch them in logical errors all the time. Soooooo .... what, then? Scrap it all and go with faith ... like the Dark Ages? That would lead you to consult Otis. [shiver] |
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
|