 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / May 2007Light Shed On Revival
A few days ago I posted several direct silly questions to Otis. They intended to be silly, however as anticipated Otis never responded to them. Instead, a "Revival" soulmate came to the rescue, attacking me. At that point nobody knew yet what Revival was all about, but the essence and foundation of his/her belief system was already summariezed in that response. Let's look at it. I asked Otis: >>Haven't you memorized by now your private Snellen? >>Aren't you cheating when you continue to use the same familiar private Snellen? >>Is self deception the purpose of your recommended method? -- And here is Revival's response: >What the hell are you talking about, Brainy? [snip] >...even if you had remembered perfectly exactly how the letter looked with normal vision, and you 'imagined' you saw it perfectly, would that really be imagining it? >The answer is: No. >What one remembers perfectly, he imagines perfectly, and sees perfectly. >Simple enough, right? >Think before you speak, -------------- So here it is in a nutshell. It doesn't matter if you really see it or not. It's all in your head and imagination anyway, so vision, memory of vision and imagination are all the same. Makes much sense, doesn't it? What a Beautiful Story! Dear Ms. Brainy. Subject: Reading the answer already provided. Some one (not me) answered your question for you -- and you did not understand the answer. Do you know the meaning of the word "Randomize"??? The IVAC Snellen is randomized. But since you did not check, let me tell you. 1. Had you clicked on that Snellen, you would have found that everytime you clicked on "Display" you got a new series of letters. That is what "Randomized" means, Brainy. To further respond: Brainy> Let's look at it. I asked Otis: >>Haven't you memorized by now your private Snellen? Otis> You can not "memorize" the IVAC Snellen. You read it OBJECTIVELY. Get it??? Brainy>>Aren't you cheating when you continue to use the same familiar private Snellen? Otis> Yet another assumption -- you jumped to. You can not memorize a randomized snellen. >>Is self deception the purpose of your recommended method? Otis> You can not "cheat" a randomized Snellen. If you want an accurate judgment of your visual acuity, then I would suggest using it. Otis> Thus for the person reading it (and is honest with himself) the letters he reads are OBJECTIVE. It would help to have a friend press the "Display", and have his freind read the letters. This is no different than reading a Snellen in and MD's office. Remarks by Revival are not my remarks. But this is an open forum, and it is always good to hear alternative concepts -- even if you do not like them. Otis > A few days ago I posted several direct silly questions to Otis. They > intended to be silly, however as anticipated Otis never responded to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Makes much sense, doesn't it? What a Beautiful Story! On May 28, 7:01 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Ms. Brainy. > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Otis Sorry, I missed your response. Was it posted? I don't think so, but I may be mistaken. Indeed, I didn't check your link and didn't know the chart is randomized, and for that I apologize. Misunderstandings often happen when people evade direct questions and provide no answers. I hope you understand that I don't have the tendency to check every link you post since I have better things to do. More Light on Revival. S/he wrote: >I CAME HERE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SCIENCE AND MEDICS OF VISION. >I did NOT come here TO HEAR YOU PRATTLING ON ABOUT this same old CRAP.. ----------------------- That's a lie. Reviail came here to preach and stir the pot, not to learn. I recommend to Revival, Kaze, Otis et.al. to quit their ridiculous preaching since nobody on this forum is interested, much less be swayed. The Internet is huge, find your place where you are wanted, not here. Dear Brainy, Subject: Ignoring plus-prevention -- and stair-case myopia. There is no doubt that a child can induce a negative refractive STATE in his natural eyes. The proof for that IN SCIENCE is very strong. (i.e., change in refractive STATE as a control system.) So after a child has put his nose on the page reading at -6 diopters (6 inches), and then moves to 4 inches (-10 diopters) and does that for long periods of time, his refractive STATE moves from a positive value to a negative value (as a dynamic system, not as a "failure.) So then he looks up, and sees that negative refractive STATE as blur, i.e, he can read 1/2 the letters on his IVAC Snellen 20/50 line -- OBJECTIVELY. Now the question is this. What should be done? I will agree (as stated here) that a "harried" opthamologist has no TIME for you or for this child. You said it about your LENS implant, and were unhappy with the short shrift you got about it. I would suggest that the parents need to go through and educational process (including the child) about plus-prevention at that time. But since this the ophthamolgist has NO TIME for the child, the child gets a strong minus AT THAT POINT. Same as you get short-shrift. I truly can not "blame" the ophthmologist who gave you short-shrift, but I think that explains why and OD can not offer plus-prevention, UNLESS THE PARENTS ARE PREPARED TO UNDERSTAND IT AND HELP THEIR CHILD ACCORDINGLY. But for reasons of mony and time -- do not expect and majority-opinion OD to help you with this. Otis > More Light on Revival. S/he wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > swayed. The Internet is huge, find your place where you are wanted, > not here. On May 28, 7:18 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Brainy, > > Subject: Ignoring plus-prevention -- and stair-case myopia. How about not ignoring my questions, Uncle Otie: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt > On May 28, 7:18 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt And I still don't know what a fundamental eye is, but Otis won't tell. Meanwhile, the preaching is going on and on... BTW, the child who chooses a 4 inch distance from the print is already myopic, not the other way around. But that's an unimportant detail... Ms.Brainy schreef: > BTW, the child who chooses a 4 inch distance from the print is already > myopic, not the other way around. But that's an unimportant detail... Sorry Brainy, this is not necessarily true, an important detail. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > Ms.Brainy schreef: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jan (normally Dutch spoken) Thanks for the correction, Jan. I spoke from my personal recollection of myself as a child, not from observation and knowledge of children behavior. Coming to thing about it, I have seen children sitting at the table, chin touching the table as they read, write of draw. > BTW, the child who chooses a 4 inch distance from the print is already > myopic, not the other way around. i would have to disagree with your idea that these kids are already nearsighted. when you refract them you oftentimes find that kids, whom their parents report get real close to things when they read or write, are actually farsighted. kids have short arms, and sometimes they just like to get close to things they are working on. otisbrown@pa.net schreef: > Dear Brainy, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for that IN SCIENCE is very strong. (i.e., change > in refractive STATE as a control system.) You never, never, never, never, came up with anything what could be called a scientific proof, not even a proof Otis. "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" (Marcus Porcius Cato) Instead of "Carthaginem" feel free to read "the wrong assumption by Otis how to prevent myopia " Beat it Otis. Jan (normally Dutch spoken, > Dear Brainy, > > Subject: Ignoring plus-prevention -- and stair-case myopia. No, the subject is "Light shed on revival" By all means Revival, hitch your wagon to a moron as Otis, to be sure the earth is flat. > By all means Revival, hitch your wagon to a moron as Otis, to be sure > the earth is flat. ..... and that vodoo medicine is a proven method for curing ailments. Which reminds me of an advice I got from a friend when I was diagnosed with a macular hole: TRY Hypnosis! Dear Brainy, I think Revival saw her vision clear -- why should I doubt her. She could have use a "near Snellen" to check this, but her statement is reasonable. Perhaps she you should read more details of the Bates method. http://www.central-fixation.com/bettereyesight.htm Keep an open mind. Prevention is what the person must learn to do for himself. The error is to think that it can be "prescribed". In fact is can not. That does not mean that people are not successful. It just means that it can never be reduced to a quick-fix in five minutes. As we discussed. Otis > A few days ago I posted several direct silly questions to Otis. They > intended to be silly, however as anticipated Otis never responded to [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Makes much sense, doesn't it? What a Beautiful Story! Dear Brainy, Subject: WHY an OD can not help you (or Revival) with vision-clearing. Any vision-clearing operation can not be done in five minutes in an office. The mistakes that are made here it to ASSUME that EVERYTHING MUST BE REDUCED TO A MAGIC-PILL IN FIVE MINUTES. That is an IMPOSSIBLE situation for all concerned. But when the quick-fixers insist that what they do is "science", I suggest that they got the dynamic behavior of the eye WRONG -- through their false assumptions, and mis-understanding of objective scientific facts. If they provided Rich's "reasons" why no OD can provide plus-prevention -- I would have no argument with them. It is a matter of the person himself determining how much he values his distnat vision (read his Snellen) and his willingness to do the work to clear it UNDER HIS CONTROL. That is the "empowerment" of the person himself to do what is necessary. If these constraints were spelled out, and the person understood them, then perhaps a better PREVENTIVE solution could be developed. Otis ++++++++ >From Rich: MARVELLOUS! Wonderful description of what happens (unfortunately) in the real world. In response to Ms. Brainy's question/concerns: I would also suggest people remain aware of the constraints on Doctor's time placed (primarily) by insurance companies. (I'm speaking in the U.S.) In order to offer affordable insurance (whether paid for by the patient, his/her employer, or the government), insurance companies require Doctors to diagnose, treat, and record for every patient in a VERY short period of time. America's legal system has shaped a Doctor's treatment obligation quite differently than years ago. A doctor's day is packed with patients, plus many other administrative and professional duties. If you have the wealth to afford it (and choose to use it this way), you could probably book 3 or 4 appointments consecutively (paid for out of your own pocket) and get a relaxed, personalized, in-depth appointment... but I have never heard of someone doing so. Rich On May 28, 10:32 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Brainy, > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On May 28, 10:52 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Brainy, > [quoted text clipped - 127 lines] > > > - Show quoted text - well here is Otis giving more unwanted advise-- again! so how about giving me some advise Otis. Here are my questions. don't run off without replying and start another thread-- just answer. 1. What is your professional training, or professional experience, that allows you to give people advise on how to manage their vision and eyecare problems? What Optometry, Ophthalmology, or Optics training and/or experience do you have? 2. Why is it that many myopes who do not wear their minus lenses and are therefore walking around with net plus power on their eye 24/7, do not become less myopic. This is optically the same as wearing plus lenses all the time. Why is it that they don't revert to emmetropia? Why is it that they oftentimes become even more myopic? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! 3. How come hyperopes (far-sighted people) who wear no correction do not become more myopic (=less hyperopic) over time? They are straining to see, in exactly the same way that others do who get very close to their reading material. They do it 24/7. It's the same as wearing glasses that are overminused. Your theory predicts their refraction should change, but it doesn't. Actually, they manifest even more hyperopia around age 40. How can this be? Could you be wrong? 4. How come, in a study published by Goss et al. (Am Jour Optom Physiol Opt. Feb;61(2):85-93, 1984) children who were overminused on purpose did not become more myopic than children who wore their proper spectacle prescription? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! 5. How come, when myopic patients were undercorrected so as to leave them slightly myopic even with their glasses on they continued to develop myopia, and actually at an accelerate rate (Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vision Res. 2002, 42: 2555-9.) Your "theory" predicts the opposite! 6. How come the Hong Kong Progressive Lens Myopia Control Study (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2002;43:2852-2858) concluded that using bifocal lenses on children has no effect on myopia progression? Your "theory" predicts the opposite! On May 28, 7:52 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: WHY an OD can not help you (or Revival) with > vision-clearing. A more relevant question is why neither of you can be helped with lucidity. On May 28, 7:32 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > I think Revival saw her vision clear -- why should I doubt > her. I'm pretty sure that Mike Tyner does NOT have elephants on his lawn. Why should I doubt him?? The problem is ... it's not reasonable to believe that the absence of elephants on Mike's lawn is at all a result of his daily use of elephant repellent spray. That's known as an "after that; therefore, because of that" or "post hoc, ergo, propter hoc" or "false cause" or "correlation does not equal causation" fallacy. You make those all the time. You are a person of deep faith, Uncle Otie. It's a shame you can't separate that from what you call science. Yes, strain at the near point will produce far-sightedness, and strain at the distance will produce near-sightedness. See: http://www.iblindness.org/forum/index.php/topic,405.0.html > Yes, strain at the near point will produce far-sightedness, and strain at the > distance will produce near-sightedness. See: Why is it then that infants are born farsighted? Was it from the strain of trying to see in the womb? DrG Revival via MedKB.com schreef: > Yes, strain at the near point will produce far-sightedness, and strain at the > distance will produce near-sightedness. See: Aha, so all the people who are wearing spectacles or other corrections are doing this without a good reason. And you the follower of that oracle of I-blind are the ones who are held to save them. What a laugh you are, Jan (normally Dutch spoken) "Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" (Marcus Porcius Cato) Instead of "Carthaginem" feel free to read "the wrong assumption by Otis how to prevent myopia " > Yes, strain at the near point will produce far-sightedness, and strain at the > distance will produce near-sightedness. See: You may be looking for the less popular newsgroup, faith-based.anecdotal.debunked.vision.theories In that case, I stand corrected. Well, one of the reasons I am here is to learn more about the science and medics of vision. So I appreciate your correction. But there is no need to be rude. Revival via MedKB.com schreef: > In that case, I stand corrected. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > But there is no need to be rude. It would be nice if you mentioned to whom it concerns. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) I was referring to Jan's comment: 'What a laugh you are'. That sounded a bit rude. > I was referring to Jan's comment: > > 'What a laugh you are'. > > That sounded a bit rude. Again--presuming, for argument sake, that you are NOT Otis posting under another name (a pattern of which you DO seem fond ... inexplicably)--I don't understand why you feel so compelled ... so comfortable ... to continue attending a party where it has been made abundantly clear that you are neither welcome nor wanted. You have every /right/ to continue to post here ... as does Uncle Otie ... but ... what kind of pathologic personality stays on when there is nearly (total?) unanimous sentiment that they are not wanted. It seems a bit sociopathic/antisocial/narcissistic/nihilistic to me. What say you? > In that case, I stand corrected. > > Well, one of the reasons I am here is to learn more about the science and > medics of vision. Then sit back, stop posting, and read. Get Otis to do the same thing. You won't learn anything if the two of you try to hijack every single thread to your Bates/plus lens agenda. You'll only learn how quickly people resent you ... and for good reason. > So I appreciate your correction. > > But there is no need to be rude. I beg to differ. There is ample need, though ... nothing I said was rude. "Then sit back, stop posting, and read." Well, that is what I've been trying to do! But it's hard to learn with people like you attacking every word that comes out of Otis's mouth. If it happened a couple of times I wouldn't mind, but for the past like 7 years it's been going on. I think there's a limit to how much one must accept as the 'tolerance level'. Normally I don't post on this forum, I just like to read through things. Recently, I got fed up of you and decided to post. Unfortunately, S/N ratio still hasn't improved... > "Then sit back, stop posting, and read." > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > for the past like 7 years it's been going on. I think there's a limit to how > much one must accept as the 'tolerance level'. Then why do you expect more from me? > Normally I don't post on this forum, I just like to read through things. > Recently, I got fed up of you and decided to post. > > Unfortunately, S/N ratio still hasn't improved... Then maybe you have some insight into how I, and others on this forum, feel. Again: why don't you direct some of that negative energy toward Uncle Otie. If he left (and we could keep others of his sort silent), much learning and good conversation would take place here. Meanwhile, try /harder/ to sit back and read, and--if Uncle Otie posts again--ask him to refrain. Then see how productive this forum can be. Neil Brooks schreef: > and--if Uncle Otie posts again--ask him to refrain. If only Otis dad had considerate this. Jan (normally Dutch spoken) > > "Then sit back, stop posting, and read." > > > > Well, that is what I've been trying to do! > > I think there's a limit to how > > much one must accept as the 'tolerance level'. And Otis exceeded the limit years ago. > > Normally I don't post on this forum, I just like to read through things. > > Recently, I got fed up of you and decided to post. > > > > Unfortunately, S/N ratio still hasn't improved... And you have certainly done your part to worsen the ratio. [Note that my responses are to Revival, Neil's words are enclosed in quotes.] > Unfortunately, S/N ratio still hasn't improved... Cause = you and Otis' other iblindness buddies. go back to your personal little forum and post success stories to one another. > "Then sit back, stop posting, and read." > > Well, that is what I've been trying to do! > > But it's hard to learn with people like you attacking every word that comes > out of Otis's mouth. You disagree with his methods. Therefore you have shown you don't want to learn from Otis. Why are you pretending that you do? > If it happened a couple of times I wouldn't mind, but > for the past like 7 years it's been going on. I think there's a limit to how > much one must accept as the 'tolerance level'. And? He's dangerous. > Normally I don't post on this forum, I just like to read through things. > Recently, I got fed up of you and decided to post. > > Unfortunately, S/N ratio still hasn't improved... No. With your arrival and Otis's constant dribble and long long long long long long incredibly long rambling lectures that never answer a question straight, S/N issues will continue. Tell me, what do you class as Signal? Otis? You? Bwahahaha. Cya Simon > But there is no need to be rude. If you build an entire system of beliefs on anecdotes and unfounded assumptions, never bothering to test them, you should expect a rude reception in a science newsgroup. Preaching debunked dogma is rude, too. -MT > > But there is no need to be rude. > > If you build an entire system of beliefs on anecdotes and unfounded > assumptions, never bothering to test them, you should expect a rude > reception in a science newsgroup. Preaching debunked dogma is rude, too. Sometimes rudeness is the only tool left in these discussions. Everything else has been tried for years with Otis. > In that case, I stand corrected. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200705/1 I see. So apparently your approach is to go around giving everyone advice, and tell everyone what the true cause of myopia and hyperopia is, and then afterwards try to learn about the science and medicine involving vision-- right? Don't you think you ought to understand the background and underlying science about a subject BEFORE you make up your mind? Kinda putting the cart before the horse aren't you? Just follow Otis' credo. "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
|
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.