 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2007Can Eyesight be Improved Naturally?
Hi friends, I'm Kazekage, and I've just joined this forum. Recently my vision has been deteriorating.quite rapidly. I am extremely worried. I wonder, is there any way that I may improve the condition of my sight by natural means? I do not wish to keep getting stronger glasses. My optometrist will not allow me to wear contact lenses due to health problems. I do not have the money to resort to laser eye surgery, and I would not like to have to resort to it. Is there any other way? Thanking you for your kind advice, -Kaze Sorry forgot to say, if it is of any use, I am currently aged 15 years. By the way guys, I'm myopic with -0.5 for my left eye and -3.25 in my right eye. Sorry about replying to my own thread so much, can't seem to find the 'modify post' button! =P > By the way guys, I'm myopic with -0.5 for my left eye and -3.25 in my > right [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 'modify > post' button! =P Are you aware of a specific reason causing your eyesight to deteriorate? Sir, >Are you aware of a specific reason causing your eyesight to deteriorate? Eyestrain. -Kaze > Sir, > > >Are you aware of a specific reason causing your eyesight to deteriorate? > > Eyestrain. Doubt that. > Eyestrain. How do you measure that? -MT > > Eyestrain. > > How do you measure that? > > -MT Kaze is 15 yrs old, please have mercy on her! Which reminds me something that happened to me when I was her age. The following is all true. It was in a far away country, where I grew up. I was in the central bus station in the big city when a young man, approximately 25-30 yrs old, approached me and asked me about my prescription. I gave him a puzzled look and he explained that I could get rid of my glasses by doing some eye exercises that would cure my myopia. I was intrigued and he said that I should get a certain book on the subject and follow the instructions, like he had done, and enjoy the results. Then he offered to lend me the book, wrote his address on a piece of paper and invited me to come and get it. In that far away country girls are not taught to fear strangers and avoid them, so I eventually made the trip to his house and got the book. It was Adlos Huxley's "Brave New World" (if I am not mistaken), which was interesting anyway, and included portions about the Bates theory and method of myopia treatment through a sequence of exercises. I tried some of the exercises for some time, but felt no improvement except a very temporary (a few seconds) of a little sharper vision through squinting. I finally returned the book and heard nothing from that man in the following years. 10 years later I moved to the big city, and a few months later noticed a new sign next door. It said "The Bates Institute". This reminded me of the old meeting, and I knocked on the door out of curiosity. By now my Rx increased from -1.5D to -2.5D (sorry Otis, no -.5D increase every 6 months as you suggest). Amazingly, it was the guy from the bus station, who now was my neighbor. At that time I worked for a magazine as a journalist, and the journalist in me drove me to a further investigation. I interviewed quite a few of the Institute's clients as they came in and out, and even created some longer term contacts with some of them. After a year of such investigation I fouind not even ONE person who said that his/her vision was improved through the exercises/treatment. Eventually I wrote an article about it, and shortly thereafter the Bates Institute closed up and its owner disappeared. There was a rumor that the authorities forced him to close the business. But you may try, Kaze. People have always aspired to some miracle remedy that will cure or prevent diseases, retard aging, improve their mental capacity and give them youth and health. Snake oil is an old remendy, but today's trend is "natural". Good luck, Kaze. My story, and the stories of the dozens who left their money at the Bates Institute, are nothing but anecdotal tales. Dear Kaze, Subject: Check your Snellen. Kaze, it is difficult to soar with the eagles -- when you are surrounded by turkeys. If you want PREVENTIVE advice -- you will not get it from majority-opinion ODs on sci.med.vision. I would suggest that you take a larger degree of responsibility to clear your vision. Start by reading you Snellen with BOTH eyes open. You have "mono-vision" with the prescription you have provided. With a measured refractive STATE of -1/2 diopter, your Snellen (with both eyes) will be about 20/40 -- but you should check this yourself. Since you are convinced Bates is right for you -- just start using these methods, monitor your Snellen, and verify it clears to pass all DMV visual-acuity requirements. That is probably the only way you will get your naked eye vision restored. Good luck! Otis > By the way guys, I'm myopic with -0.5 for my left eye and -3.25 in my right > eye. > > Sorry about replying to my own thread so much, can't seem to find the 'modify > post' button! =P >Dear Kaze, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If you want PREVENTIVE advice -- you will not >get it from majority-opinion ODs on sci.med.vision. On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog. The nice thing about mathematics is that it doesn't matter. I can claim to be a cairn terrier with a habit of getting lost, an independent streak, and an insatiable curiosity, but you don't have to believe me; you just have to see if my figures check out. It is natural to assume that, if myopia arises from some failure to adapt the eye to its environment, then under-correction, or no correction at all, is the way out. There seems to be some trouble fitting this theory to the evidence. Is there a simple mathematical model under which under-correction need not work? There is; it follows naturally from the theory that the growth of the eye, whether to myopia or normal vision, is not informed of the sign of the eye's current departure from perfect adjustment, but only of its magnitude. It explains susceptibility to myopia as a trade-off that has made sense in evolutionary time. It explains why near work may induce myopia, regardless of correction. It suggests that the problem with near work is not near work as such, but the increased range of accommodation it requires of those undertaking it, which turns out to be surprisingly large. I have written this up at http://www.mcdowella.demon.co.uk/MyopiaGrowth.html. It requires (except for one section, which is self-contained and comes with an explanation) no more mathematics than that once taught in UK grammar schools to pupils intending to go on to do science at university. This model may not reflect reality, but its existence suggests that the question of what low-impact interventions might retard or reverse the progression of myopia will have to be determined by experiment, or at least reference to earlier experiments. Personally, I would rather bet on reducing near work than under-correction, but then I am not an independent observer (I get too distracted by rabbits :-)).  SignatureA.G.McDowell On May 21, 11:33 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Kaze, it is difficult to soar with the eagles -- when > you are surrounded by turkeys. Dear Kaze, it is difficult to soar with eagles when you don't have any wings. > If you want PREVENTIVE advice -- you will not > get it from majority-opinion ODs on sci.med.vision. However, you can get PREVENTIVE advice from Otis. It has little congruence with reality, but it sounds nice. Goodness knows that we all need some false hope. > I would suggest that you take a larger degree of > responsibility to clear your vision. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That is probably the only way you will get > your naked eye vision restored. The bottom line is that OTIS strongly recommends that you try any approach that goes against the "majority opinion." Who knows, you may even sprout some wings. DrG > Sorry forgot to say, if it is of any use, I am currently aged 15 years. Kase, There is a yahoo group by the name "i-see" which deals with your interest. Basically it's a cult of of people who have a deep need to believe in various theories that promote myopia "cure" by natural (and sometimes not so natural) methods. It gives them hope and comfort, like any other religion, and some of them testify to have improved their vision. If you like to spend your time in their church, sign up. Keep an open but critical and skeptical mind, and let us here know about your success or failure. Have fun and a good luck! Dear Ms. Brainy, Thankyou for the reply! I would like to know more about this "i-see" if possible. Where may I find them? I will do whatever is needed to cure my (opic) problem!! "Basically it's a cult of of people who have a deep need to believe in various theories that promote myopia "cure" by natural (and sometimes not so natural) methods. " Umm, does it work? "If you like to spend your time in their church, sign up. " Although I am not a Christian, where I may find this church? (I am currently in the Norway). By church you are mean a actual Church or do you mean a general place of rendezvous ? Thanking you for your aid in these times of distress, -Kaze!! > Dear Ms. Brainy, > > Thankyou for the reply! I would like to know more about this "i-see" if > possible. Where may I find them? i-see is a yahoo newsgroup. just search yahoo for "i-see" and you'll find it. > I will do whatever is needed to cure my > (opic) problem!! what she is referring to is the likelihood that the eye exercises proposed at i-see are worthless. it doesn't matter how motivated you are to change your vision if there isn't any method that affects it. to be frank with you, there has been lots of work at finding ways to stop or slow myopia development and nothing has been found to work. however, the folks at "i-see" believe their is a method regardless of whether it is supported in science or not. have you asked your eye doctor what to do? if he told you that no-one knows of anything thats effective, then he's telling the truth. > "Basically it's a cult of of people who have a deep need to > believe in various theories that promote myopia "cure" by natural (and > sometimes not so natural) methods. " > > Umm, does it work? they have no proof that it does, but no scientific study has ever been done to PROVE that it doesn't. much of the background for what they propose is based upon the methods of an old ophthalmologist named Bates. his opinions have been largely discredited and it is commonly held amongst eye care professionals today that his methods are just bunk and speculation. furthermore, recently the State of Iowa (in the US) took legal action against a company selling a vision improvement program and basically shut them down. their program is also based upon the Bates method. go to this link -- http://www.allaboutvision.com/buysmart/see_clearly.htm > "If you like to spend your time in their church, sign > up. " > > Although I am not a Christian, where I may find this church? (I am currently > in the Norway). By church you are mean a actual Church or do you mean a > general place of rendezvous ? yes PS - there is no evidence that a subjective feeling of eyestrain has anything to do with development of myopia. do you do lots of near work (reading, computers, etc)? there is a correlation between people who do lots of near work and the development of myopia. perhaps you should take periodic breaks and shift your visual attention to more distance tasks, say once an hour or so. what doesn't work is-- reading glasses, bifocals and undercorrection. those have been proven scientifically. basically you are looking for an answer to a question that no-one has found an answer for yet. Dear Kazekage, Subject: The PREVENTIVE second-opinion. You will not likely get correct answers on this majority-opinion site. I would suggest clicking here: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/i-see/ Log on, and post your questions. Just remember, that ANY change in medicine (or fundamental science) is always fought against by the majority-opinion. See: www.chinamyopia.org To confirm that there are second-opinion ODs who do not agree with the majority-opinion here that a negaitve refractive STATE of the natural eye can never be prevented. Think for yourself. Otis > Hi friends, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > -Kaze On May 13, 5:36 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Kazekage, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I would suggest clicking here: You might be interested in noting that OTIS has NOT improved HIS vision by any means, so .... why would you listen to him? > On May 13, 5:36 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > You might be interested in noting that OTIS has NOT improved HIS > vision by any means, so .... why would you listen to him? And furthermore, Otis had his niece, whose name is Joy, follow his method when she was a child yet she still turned out to be nearsighted and requires eyeglasses to obtain her drivers license. Why would you listen to anything he has to say-- except to be sure that you NOT try what he is suggesting. Friends, Thank-you for all your generous replies, Please allow to make one amendment. Earlier you asked whether I am aware of any specific reason causing the deterioration of my eyesight. I replied, 'Eyestrain'. That night, I decided to look deeper into anything that I may attribute to this deterioration. After hours of lying in bed, running through my past within a lucid dream, I ran into something interesting. I am able to recall that at the time my vision began to worsen, there was a specific homework project to which the deadline was very near approaching. I had been told that there would be 'grievous consequences, should you not meet the deadline'. This occurred roughly 4 years ago, when I was 11. This is only one example of many similar cases in my academic past, where I have been stressed to complete difficult project works. Therefore, allow me to make a modification to my previous answer; it was not 'eyestrain' that caused my troubles. I now feel sure that it was, even if in the slightest way attributed with; mental-strain. "But you may try, Kaze. People have always aspired to some miracle remedy that will cure or prevent diseases, retard aging, improve their mental capacity and give them youth and health. Snake oil is an old remendy, but today's trend is "natural". Good luck, Kaze. My story, and the stories of the dozens who left their money at the Bates Institute, are nothing but anecdotal tales. " Thank-you!! I found your story very interesting Madame. "what she is referring to is the likelihood that the eye exercises proposed at i-see are worthless. it doesn't matter how motivated you are to change your vision if there isn't any method that affects it. to be frank with you, there has been lots of work at finding ways to stop or slow myopia development and nothing has been found to work. however, the folks at "i-see" believe their is a method regardless of whether it is supported in science or not. " Sir, have you tried out these eye-exercises? Do they work? My concern is not whether it is supported in science, or whether it contradicts science, for me it: Either: Works. Or - Does not work. The way I see it: Science is flawed. Science is not always correct, science is made up of theories. Theories are either: True, or they are: False. Theories that are true are called: Facts. Facts are never flawed. A fact is only ever true. A fact is never false. However, theories are not facts until they are proved. On the other hand, there are: 'Things that work', and: 'Things that don't work'. Science plays no part here. Things that work: Work, and science that tries to contradict it is always wrong. Things that don't work may be partly correct, or they may be entirely incorrect. Science disproves, or corrects, such things. Hopefully I am making sense!! "have you asked your eye doctor what to do? if he told you that no-one knows of anything thats effective, then he's telling the truth. " He is telling the truth? And how are you so sure? "they have no proof that it does, but no scientific study has ever been done to PROVE that it doesn't." Then my hopes are not in vain!! =D "furthermore, recently the State of Iowa (in the US) took legal action against a company selling a vision improvement program and basically shut them down. their program is also based upon the Bates method. go to this link -- http://www.allaboutvision.com/buysmart/see_clearly.htm " "based upon the bates method" - What is that and how do you know it is? "basically you are looking for an answer to a question that no-one has found an answer for yet. " You may well not have. But are you speaking for EVERYONE in the whole wide world?! "PS - there is no evidence that a subjective feeling of eyestrain has anything to do with development of myopia. " Sorry, see my amendment. "do you do lots of near work (reading, computers, etc)?" Umm, not very much I think. I am more of a outdoor person !! =D Highly appreciative and acknowledgeable of all advice given, -Kaze > Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200705/1 Theories are False, if there were true there will be a Fact. > Therefore, allow me to make a > modification to my previous answer; it was not 'eyestrain' that caused my > troubles. I now feel sure that it was, even if in the slightest way > attributed with; mental-strain. Now I understand why studies have been so inconclusive on this matter. It's hard to find "normal" advocates. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply >Hi friends, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Thanking you for your kind advice, You cannot improve your vision by "natural" means. If you have to get stronger glasses, then that's your fate. Either that, or go around with blurry vision. Myopia is not caused by mental strain or eye strain. At the very most, I've seen references to studies which seem to correlate increased myopia with close-up visual work. No actual causation can be assumed from the details of such studies that I've seen. You didn't really specify how "rapidly" your vision is worsening (if your current prescription was reached gradually over 4 years, that's not rapid). In any case, if you're concerned, then see an opthalmologist, who can more thoroughly determine if there's any kind of pathology with your eyes. If nothing is found, then you're simply destined to require glasses (or contacts - a second opinion on that might be worth getting). I don't think you're even old enough to be a candidate for laser surgery. I began wearing glasses myself at age 10. My vision was fine up to around that age. It's simply in my genes. I started with a very light prescription, and today, over 20 years later, my prescription has stabilized at about -3.75 in each eye (with contacts). My eyes were not always even, and I started out with enough astigmatism to warrant correction. You're far too young to be drawing any drastic conclusions about where your vision is headed. You may end up stabilizing more early than I did, or you may indeed get progressively worse as time goes on. Only time will tell, and at 15, you've not yet experienced enough of that to guess. And make no mistake about various "natural" treatments. Things like homeopathy, acupuncture, therapeutic touch, chiropractic - they're all frauds. The only effect any of them can have is as a placebo. The placebo effect is a strange phenomenon where people who think they are receiving effective treatment have reduced symptoms (typically reduced pain), and heal themselves more effectively, within limits. In the US, all pharmaceuticals are test against placebos (usually in the form of a sugar pill) before being judged effective. The Bates vision scam doesn't even have the placebo effect to draw on. You can't see better simply by believing that the treatment works, because it doesn't, and visual acuity is all too easy to test empirically on the spot. Signature- Mike Ignore the Python in me to send e-mail. Thank you for the informative reply, Mike! "You cannot improve your vision by "natural" means. If you have to get stronger glasses, then that's your fate. Either that, or go around with blurry vision." =( "Myopia is not caused by mental strain or eye strain. At the very most, I've seen references to studies which seem to correlate increased myopia with close-up visual work. No actual causation can be assumed from the details of such studies that I've seen." Yikes, well I've never done any actual studies on it. I guess it's probably not mental strain, I was just imagining it. But like I said, I spend more time outside (where I focus at long distances) and I hardly spend very much time doing close up work (except when I go on this forum for a short time to reply). So I guess I amone of the 'outliers' in that correlation graph? " You didn't really specify how "rapidly" your vision is worsening (if your current prescription was reached gradually over 4 years, that's not rapid)." Sorry, my bad. I got glasses around the same age as you but then my prescription was quite low, I can't remember but I'm guessing about -0.5 and - 1 (left and right). It stayed like that for a couple of years, but now it's suddenly started to deteriorate quickly, in fact I think I can even feel it getting worse by the second! =0 "If nothing is found, then you're simply destined to require glasses (or contacts - a second opinion on that might be worth getting). Like I said, the doctor won't let me wear contacts because of other health reasons. "I don't think you're even old enough to be a candidate for laser surgery." Nah, I'm pretty sure I am - some of my friends at school have had it done? "You're far too young to be drawing any drastic conclusions about where your vision is headed. You may end up stabilizing more early than I did, or you may indeed get progressively worse as time goes on. Only time will tell, and at 15, you've not yet experienced enough of that to guess." So, vision is kind of like a random flow of water? You don't know when the 'waterfall' will stop and you'll catch on a branch or rock (as in stabilize)? Or can scientists at least give you a rough guess of how your headed? (Like a weather forecast)? "The only effect any of them can have is as a placebo. The placebo effect is... In the US, all pharmaceuticals are test against placebos (usually in the form of a sugar pill) before being judged effective." Omg, we were studying the 'placebo effect' just last week at school. I wish I'd been listening! =P "a strange phenomenon where people who think they are receiving effective treatment have reduced symptoms (typically reduced pain), and heal themselves more effectively, within limits. " Within limits, but if it works, it works, right? Can it be explained by science now, or is it still a strange phenomenon? If the placebo effect exists, then why can't other natural forms of healing exist, that can cure (currently what is known to be) the incurable? Who's to say Otis' plus lens thingy actually works!? (Calm down, Neil - I'm kidding, alright?) "The Bates vision scam doesn't even have the placebo effect to draw on. You can't see better simply by believing that the treatment works, because it doesn't," And can you prove that? (I'm not trying to start anything, I'm just asking!) With great debt, -Kaze > Who's to say Otis' plus lens > thingy actually works!? good question. only otis will say that. scientific studies have tested it and found plus lenses to be ineffective: Shotwell AJ. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1984 Feb;61(2):112-7. Plus lens, prism, and bifocal effects on myopia progression in military students, Part II. Abstract: Military academies routinely lose a percentage of their pilot- qualified students to myopia during the 4-year academic program. This study investigated the progression of myopia during such a program and evaluated the usefulness of reading glasses to prevent myopia progression and subsequent acuity loss. A group of students at the United States Naval Academy comprised three randomly divided groups: a placebo group (no. 1 pink tint), a plus with prism group (+1.25 D with 2 delta base-in each eye), and a bifocal group (+1.50 D near addition). All the lens powers were relative to the experimental subject's distance refraction and were for use full-time when reading. The pre- and post-test refractive errors at distance were determined using 1% tropicamide HCl. At the end of 4 years, the tropicamide refraction showed approximately -0.25 D of myopic shift in all groups. There were no significant differences between the myopic shifts in the controls and experimental groups. > Thank you for the informative reply, Mike! > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200705/1 Here is an alternative explanation. Myopia is caused by the eye responding to a blurred image via a genetically patterned response. It is well-understood by eye researchers that hyperopic defocus occurs at the level of the retina during close work. The eye senses this as a long-term problem and tries to make a structural adjustment to reduce the defocus, and thereby elongates. Whether it does and by how much is genetically determined. There is no need to evoke the term "strain" in this model. It you have any real interest in this, then I suggest you read papers by Hung and Ciuffreda, as well as Stone and Flitcroft. There is also an interesting discussion at the Wildsoet website (UC Berkeley). DrG Dear Kaze, Subject: The dynamic natural eye. Some people are nay-sayers, and think everything in science is IMPOSSIBLE. Others, who pay attention to the objective facts concerning the dynamic behavior of the NATURAL EYE, read their Snelle (at 20/70 -- about -1.25 idopters), get very busy with a plus, monitor their Snellen, and slowly get their refractive STATE to change in a positive direction, i.e., the Snellen slowly clears. Here is the example of how it is done. http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/AboutUs.txt Just think of this as the intelligent second-opinion. This man did not bother attempting to "argue" natrual vision CLEARING. He simply knew what he had to do -- AND DID IT. That is how you resolve this issue of the natural eye's dynamic behavior, and preventing a negative refractive STATE of the natural eye. Just one man's opinion. Otis > Thank you for the informative reply, Mike! > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200705/1 On May 16, 9:45 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Some people are nay-sayers, and think everything > in science is IMPOSSIBLE. Actually, some people just look at things objectively and rationally. Take, for instance, THESE questions. Please answer them, if you would: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt > Others, who pay attention to the objective facts concerning > the dynamic behavior of the NATURAL EYE, read their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i.e., the Snellen slowly clears. Here is the example > of how it is done. So ... it DIDN'T work for your myopic niece, Joy ... because .... ? Dear Kaze, Ask yourself this -- who has more credibilty, a flake like Neil Brooks who is not a scientists, and has not a clue, or scientists like Dr. Stirling Colgate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Colgate If you want to believe nay-sayer Neil Brooks, who have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF, and just shoot their mouth off. But I always prefer the credibility of scientists like Stiling, Francis Young and William Bates. Further, there are optometrists like Steve Leung at: www.chinamyopia.org Who will help children AVOID ENTRY INTO A NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE STATE -- if you will LET THEM. But if you sit on your butt to long, well you will lose your distant vision permanently. No one can resolve this issue of you, of course, but just consider successful prevention the second-opnion. Best, Otis On May 16, 12:45 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Kaze, > [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Colgate I didn't see any credentials in vision science. Sterling Colgate "cured" himself of myopia at age 14. But you insist that myopia can't be reversed. Have you rejected Dr. Colgate's claim? -MT All of your so-called experts are either dead and/or worked 30 years ago when much less was known about refractive errors. Have you read anything on the topic recently? Obviously not. Now as for the only current "second opinion" example you can think of, Steve Leung, he is simply a fanatic living in Asia whose opinions are not accepted by any of his coherts. Probably you are the only person who quotes his opinions. Where is the proof for any of what you claim? We both know the answer-- there isn't any. You just want us to accept it on faith. This newsgroup is "science" "medicince" "vision". It isn't about faith or alternative medicine or science-fiction. You are a freak. Take your troll friend Kamekaze and go away to your little seldom-visited corner of the internet and post your messages to each other there. >Dear Kaze, > [quoted text clipped - 148 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - On May 16, 6:24 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Kaze, > > Ask yourself this -- who has more credibilty, a flake > like Neil Brooks who is not a scientists, and has > not a clue, or scientists like Dr. Stirling Colgate Ah, you're BACK to attacking the messenger while ignoring the message. Just stick to the relevant, logical, scientifically- important points that I'm raising, won't you? > If you want to believe nay-sayer Neil Brooks, who > have NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF, and just shoot > their mouth off. Actually, I'm using the scientific method to try to help you flesh out, defend, and modify your hypothesis. For example: a scientist would JUMP at the opportunity to answer questions like these: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt While a fraud would consistently ignore them. > Further, there are optometrists like Steve Leung at: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE STATE -- if you will > LET THEM. Leung's covered in my questions, so ... ibid > But if you sit on your butt to long, well > you will lose your distant vision permanently. Or, according to the ACTUAL statistics and studies that Otis likes to mis-quote, you could shift hyperopic, or not change at all. Sort of ... slips your mind from time to time, doesn't it, Otis? > No one can resolve this issue of you, of course, > but just consider successful prevention the > second-opnion. Like your myopic niece, Joy, for instance? |
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.