Oh, no.  Not at all.  I'm rational and evidence-based.

You?

Nope.  I just believe that you are wrong ... and dishonest ... and
evasive ... and illogical.  LOTS OF OTHER people are right.

You're just not one of them.

Oh, no.  I believe in LOT of things.  I just don't believe that your
brand of faulty logic, dishonesty, and evasion is good or helpful.

I'm sorry.  Can you show me where I said that?

I simply warn people that--as a source--YOU are dangerous.

Again, I single YOU out ... by name.

Actually, when I HAVE provided advice, I can assure you that it has
been both safe AND helpful.

You?

pot ... kettle ... black.

pot ... kettle ... black.

This is based on ... what?  Your assumptions?

That's not what they teach at New England College of Optometry,
Southern California College of Optometry, or several other schools
with whom I've spoken.

Do tell.

Develop ... what??

a) that's an individual, not a plural

b) what's he done ... and can he produce any evidence of it?

So that you don't need to?

Again: singular.  Just Steve Leung ... and he's got nothing going
either.

They'll pretty much all be fine if they can be rid of you.

Come on, Otis.  It's a NEW NEWSGROUP ... just for people like you.

You should be THANKFUL!

                          PrescP.txt

The problem of pure-practice:

Subject:  Prescription Practices -- Under-Prescription and
     Over-Prescription.

    "Those who fall in love with practice without science are like
a sailor who enters a ship without a helm or compass, and who
never can be certain whither he is going."

                      Leonardo da Vinci

    Eye-doctors are trained to deal with a great mass of people
entering a shop.  This is the way it has been for the last 400
years.

    In some ways, you can argue that the general public will
NEVER understand anything other that the instant-sharpness
produced by a minus lens.  Most ODs and MDs know it and therefore
attempt to keep the strength of the minus lens to a minimum.

    The ODs are never trained to cultivate your intelligence or,
more importantly, your motivation on the subject of
true-prevention.

    For me, it necessarily must be your motivation and
intelligence that resolves this issue for you.

    Remarks on ODs.  The limits imposed by the public.

1.  Very few in medicine talk to a person about prevention --
   because they know the person will not take prevention
   seriously.  For that reason, they never engage you in this
   type of "intellectual" choice.  I obviously wish they could.

2.  Under-Prescription:  All know "something" about the bad effect
   of the minus lens -- but they do not know how to express
   their concerns.  So what they do is to "not-prescribe" the
   minus lens if they can possibly do so.  However, if the child
   is at 20/70, they then have no choice and so they use the
   weakest lens possible to bring the distant vision up to
   20/40.  These are "under-prescribers."

3.  Over-Prescription:    The "over-prescribes" are not cautious.
   They will take a child that PASSES the room wall-chart, at
   20/40 put him in a darkened room, and have him reading
   through the small lenses of a "phoropter".  They also
   prescribe to "Best Visual Acuity".  By that I mean the "crank
   up" on the minus lens, and will produce 20/18, 20/15 and even
   20/12 -- because they like the "impression" this has on the
   child and parent.  Thus a child that has 20/40 winds up with
   a -2 to -3 diopter lens, when strictly speaking -- he does
   not "need" it.  That is the major reason why I say you MUST
   check your own vision.

4.  No one in optometry or ophthalmology has ever been able to get
   beyond this simplistic method set up a 400 years ago.

5.  The "box-camera" theory, and "words" like "emmetropia" and
   "ametropia" simply reflect this concept and practice --
   because they grew out of this simplistic practice.

6.  As a practical matter, I realize (as Dr.  Raphaelson stated)
   that the ODs have no choice in the matter -- other than the
   above.  I attempt in every way possible to use NEUTRAL words
   to describe the behavior of the natural eye -- to avoid the
   obvious "combat" and "anger" that develops.  But obviously I
   can not avoid the hubris that develops regardless of my
   wishes.

7.  I hold no hostility against any OD.  I only hope that a better
   method of working towards true-prevention can be developed.
   When I offer my hand in friendship on sci.med.vision, you see
   what the reaction is.  I do not see how I could ever work
   with the "mind-set" of people like Mike Tyner.  The mind-set
   is truly blind.  Equally, I could work with a man like Dr.
   Steve Leung at an Aeronautical College, were a more rational
   and respectful method could be developed for true-prevention.

    As an engineer, I can never deal with a great mass of people
entering a shop.  I can only deal only with other engineers and
scientists who can form deeper judgments and take responsibility
for this difficult but honest preventive work.

    Thus there are two "professions" involved.  The profession of
facts and science -- and the profession of dealing with a great
mass of people, where a "quick-fix" is the only solution.

    I am pleased you have chosen the "high road" in working
towards a better solution for yourself.

Best,

Otis

Subject:  Past Eye Exam

On Jun 27, 12:16 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: