 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2007Pseudomyopia
Dear sci.med.vision, Q1: Does pseudomyopia disprove Dr. Bates' work? Q2: If it does, how? Dear Revival, Subject: Bates cure of his fellow doctors. As Dr. Bates said, he "cured" his fellow doctors of myopia. The head of the department said he did not. (They must have had pseudo-myopia, and could not be myopic.) This issue was resolved by the head of the department firing Bates. This is how medical people solve the problem of pseudo-myopia. Otis > Dear sci.med.vision, > > Q1: Does pseudomyopia disprove Dr. Bates' work? > > Q2: If it does, how? On Jun 15, 11:51 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Revival, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This is how medical people solve the problem > of pseudo-myopia. P1: you didn't answer his question. P2: you didn't answer ANY question. On Jun 15, 2:51 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Revival, > This is how medical people solve the problem > of pseudo-myopia. > > Otis oh how cute you are otis. how do we solve the little problem of the old retired fart who gives people advise that is not consistent with the current research in the field of vision, nor is consistent with licensed practitioners observations? once you were reported to the State of Pennsylvania for practicing medicine without a license-- how did that turn out? Dear Doctor Judy, Thank,You for answer. Yes, I did meant this bit: The bit where he cures myopia, hyperopia and presbyopia? Also Judy what does mean double blind? Does it mean they didn't expect anything. So their is no Placebo Effet. Dear Doctor Judy, Thank,You for answer. Yes, I did meant this bit: The bit where he cures myopia, hyperopia and presbyopia? Also Judy what does mean double blind? Does it mean they didn't expect anything. So their is no Placebo Effet. > Dear Doctor Judy, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So their is no Placebo Effet. what kind of persona are you playing today? the young child? the foreigner who doesn't understand english well? and why post under the name Revival when you have so many others, like WH Bates, like Zetsu, etc. etc. "double blind" means that you try a treatment in one group of patients, and you compare it to another treatment in a different group of patients, and neither the patient nor the people analyzing the data knows which treatment is being used. it is done to eliminate bias among researchers. it is the type of statistical analysis that is done in modern medical research to actually prove whether a treatment works better than another treatment or no treatment at all. The Bates' methods have never been analyzed in such a way-- they are only a collection of his recommendations and some individual success stories. However a number of studies using modern statistical analysis HAVE been performed on other myopia prevention methods (plus lenses like your good friend Otis suggests, bifocals, etc.) and have shown that they are not effective. Otis will tell you why he continues to claim they work even though the data shows they don't-- well of course he WON'T tell you, he will just not answer and ignor the question. Dear Clark, Thank, You for explain "double blind". Sory my tongue French. Yes, English will practice. Zetsu my sister Avatar. Dear Clark, Thank, You for explain "double blind". Sory my tongue French. Yes, English will practice. Yes Zetsu my sister Avatar. > Sory my tongue French. > > Yes, English will practice. > > Yes Zetsu my sister Avatar. how many people does the BS work on? this sh_t is weak! Dear Revival, Do not kid yourself. These majority-opinion ODs are intensly biased by their ability to quick-fix you with a minus lens. Further, there has NEVER been a plus-PREVENTION effort. Never! So no one should ever tell you that their has been a FAIR MINDED effort among pilots who make the measurements UNDER THEIR CONTROL. (And NOT under the bias of the majority-opinion OD.) This is the same issue that Dr. Bate raised. When he he helped his fellow doctors clear their vision with HIS METHODS -- they fired his a.s. That is the real intent of these majority-opinion ODs. To this very day, we do not know if Bates methods (on the threshold) could be successfully used, because they fired his butt. Do not ask people who are that blind about science and facts to help you with prevention -- it is never going to happen. Keep in mind this fact. There are prevention-minded ODs who will work with you on PREVENTION -- if YOU will allow it. But that means that you take more responsibility to: 1. Read your Snellen. 2. Work with with the prevention-minded OD to clear your Snellen. 3. And when you are successful, you will confirm it by passing the DMV tests. See: www.chinamyopia.org For the TRUE preventive second-opinion. Just don't wait until it is too late. (i.e., you even begin wearing that wretched minus.) Just one man's opinion. Otis However a number of studies using modern statistical analysis HAVE been performed on other myopia prevention methods (plus lenses like your good friend Otis suggests, bifocals, etc.) and have shown that they are not effective. Otis will tell you why he continues to claim they work even though the data shows they don't-- well of course he WON'T tell you, he will just not answer and ignor the question. > Dear Clark, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes Zetsu my sister Avatar. Good Lord, what a buffoon. On Jun 16, 11:05 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Do not kid yourself. No. Let Uncle Otie kid you, instead. > These majority-opinion ODs are intensly biased > by their ability to quick-fix you with a minus lens. How's ol' Joy Benson's myopia doing these days. Never in minus. Aggressively in plus. How'd that work out, huh? > Further, there has NEVER been a plus-PREVENTION effort. Never! Ignoring for a moment tests by Chung, Shotwell, Grosvenor, and others that seem to disagree with your position ... and disprove this latest assertion.... Would you kindly take a few moments and answer some perfectly valid questions: http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt Answering them might help you look less like ... um ... an idiot. Or more like one. Either way, it's the right thing to do. Dear sci.med.vision, Q3: Is the general Ratio of Pseudomyopia to True Myopia known? Q4: If it is known, then Which is more Common: a) Psuedomyopia b) True Myopia Dear Revival, Let us assume that you read your Snellen at 20/60, and some over- prescriber gives you a -2 diopter lens. (Which is very impressive and gives you 20/15 vision, BVA) The doctor says nothing about pseudo-myopia, and you never heard of the term. No, you don't want to get stair-case myopia, so you study Bates, use his method, and clear your Snellen to FIRST 20/40, (initial success), and continue to naked eye 20/20. Now you go back to the OD who did not bother discussing prevention, and tell him what you accomplished. To "save face", he then says, "...oh, you had pseudo-myopia. Didn't I tell you that"? Otis > Dear sci.med.vision, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > b) True Myopia > Dear Revival, > > Let us assume that you read your Snellen at 20/60, and some over- > prescriber > gives you a -2 diopter lens. (Which is very impressive and gives you > 20/15 vision, BVA) So why shouldn't the over-prescriber give it a -4D lens, for even better vision? Why not a -20D, then they could see better than almost anybody else in the world? Is that how it works? How come the over-prescriber gave my wife a +1 lens for distant vision? Was he stupid? Why didn't he give her a -2D lens so she could see 20/15? Dear Clark, Serebel, Dan Abel, Neil Brooks, Otis Brown, Doctor Judy, Thank, you all very muts for takeing time answer my questchon. It Very Much Appreciate. Dear Clark, Serebel, Dan Abel, Neil Brooks, Otis Brown, Doctor Judy, Thank, you all Very muts for takeing time answer my questchon. It Very Much Appreciate. > Dear sci.med.vision, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > b) True Myopia Pseudomyopia, if defined as spasm of ciliary muscle, is rare and often associated with head trauma or other neurological disease. Generally speaking, there is not much difference between cycloplegic and non cyclplegic refraction in myopes. In younger myopes (< 35 years old) finding 0.25D to 0.75D less myopia with cycloplegia is not uncommon; this would not be defined as pseudomyopia but as "tonic accommodation". If the myopes are prescribed the lesser correction they often complain of blurred far vision with their glasses, so most doctors would prescribe the noncycloplegic refraction. Knowing that tonic accommodation exists, you can understand why doctors would not be impressed with an eye exercise program that results in up to 1D less myopia. And if you check message board of various "Natural Vision Improvement" websites, you will also note that many report that they rapidly reduced theri myopia by 0.50D to 0.75D then found any more improvement difficult to achieve. Despite Otis' claims that plus lens therapy has not been tested with clinical trials, it has been quite often tested. Interestingly, in the trials where an effect was noted, there is a 0.50D to 0.75D slowing of progression in the first year and then no further slowing in subsequent years. Dr Judy "Pseudomyopia" is normal in people who are young and *farsighted*. It's common in young myopes too. Specific figures require specific ages and circumstances. Most young people accommodate one or two quarter-diopters more than is really necessary. Technically, that is "pseudomyopia." Some of them accommodate a LOT more than is necessary and we call that "pseudomyopia" when it causes symptoms. It's also called "accommodative spasm." -MT > Dear sci.med.vision, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > b) True Myopia On Jun 16, 2:05 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Revival, > > Do not kid yourself. These majority-opinion ODs are intensly biased > by their ability to quick-fix you with a minus lens. Nope. controlled, blinded studies prevent bias from tainting the results. Biased information includes things like individual case reports, hearsay claims, etc. But you know all that-- you just refuse to acknowledge the truth. > Further, there has NEVER been a plus-PREVENTION effort. Never! oh what a bunch of BS. There has been such efforts, just as there has been efforts to study the effects of bifocals, hard contact lenses, removing glasses to read, undercorrection, overcorrection, etc. And you know what the statistical results are too-- you just refuse to acknowledge the truth. > So no one should ever tell you that their has been a FAIR MINDED > effort among pilots who make the measurements UNDER THEIR > CONTROL. (And NOT under the bias of the majority-opinion OD.) pilots? what the hell that does that matter? are you going back to your old claims that your plus prevention scheme works only on intelligent pilot-engineers who are enrolled in a 4 year college? maybe it does work on that "unique" group of people, but for the other 99.9% of the general public it DOESN'T work. Its been proven-- you just refuse to acknowledge the truth. > This is the same issue that Dr. Bate raised. When he > he helped his fellow doctors clear their vision with > HIS METHODS -- they fired his a.s. i don't know the story about dr. bates, and you probably don't either but that never stops you from talking about it though. maybe he was fired because he didn't understand the scientific method and how to "prove" a treatment scheme with controls and eliminating bias. > To this very day, we do not know if Bates methods (on the > threshold) could be successfully used, because > they fired his butt. speaking of butts, why don't you get OFF yours and spend some effort PROVING, using real scientific methods, that Bate's schemes work? if you provide the data and the statistics and a valid study design, I will believe you. otherwise you are just like some homeless crackpot who walks around carrying a "the world is coming to an end" sign > Do not ask people who are that blind about science > and facts to help you with prevention -- it is never > going to happen. please explain how Bates and plus prevention has anything to do with science. > Keep in mind this fact. There are prevention-minded > ODs who will work with you on PREVENTION -- if > YOU will allow it. But that means that you take more > responsibility to: > > 1. Read your Snellen. you mean memorize the chart? > 2. Work with with the prevention-minded OD > to clear your Snellen. where kind I find a prevention-minded OD? most of them are dead. there is this guy in China who you keep quoting. > 3. And when you are successful, you will > confirm it by passing the DMV tests. I see. so passing the 20/40 BMV criterion is what we should use as proof? > Just don't wait until it is too late. (i.e., you even > begin wearing that wretched minus.) didn't work for your niece Joy did it? why not. On Jun 17, 8:35 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > didn't work for your niece Joy did it? why not. Perhaps not surprisingly, it didn't work for Uncle Otie either (-6.00d). Or for Steve Leung (myope of unknown degree). Or for (pilot) Fred Deakins (myope of unknown degree). It does make one wonder, doesn't it.... > > So no one should ever tell you that their has been a FAIR MINDED > > effort among pilots who make the measurements UNDER THEIR [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > fired because he didn't understand the scientific method and how to > "prove" a treatment scheme with controls and eliminating bias. Obviously, he was fired because he wasn't a pilot and wasn't treating pilots. If he had treated pilots instead of vision doctors, he wouldn't have been fired. > > 3. And when you are successful, you will > > confirm it by passing the DMV tests. > > I see. so passing the 20/40 BMV criterion is what we should use as > proof? Why on earth would anybody go to someone who has experience and training in vision, when they could go to some clerk who probably got minimal OJT training, and who does 60 different things besides vision screening instead? Sometimes I bring up the fact that the people that Otis thinks should be getting the plus lens treatment aren't actually old enough to apply for a license to drive at the DMV, but what relevance could that have? > Dear sci.med.vision, > > Q1: Does pseudomyopia disprove Dr. Bates' work? What bits of his work? The bit where he claims the oblique extraocular muscles, not the ciliary muscle is responsible for accommodation? The bit where he cures myopia, hyperopia and presbyopia? The bit where he cures cataract and glaucoma? > Q2: If it does, how? The existence of peudomyopia neither proves nor disproves Bates. To disprove Bate's work would require double blind clinical trials with randomized subject assignment to treatment/ no treatment or to treatment/placebo groups. Dr Judy |
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.