 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / July 2007The Idiots and their Peers
I see that the Idiots like the Stupid Girl Her High Idiot-ness (Brainy) and their Idiot-Peers like the Neil, pclar and all the rest, they will pardon me if I forget somebody of them, are really great idiots. Although one said that they blacklisted me, they continue to f.ck their tongue in replying stupidly to my posts. That's strange. These people have nothing to do in life than preventing people from curing their eyesight. The reader my be interested in their strategy, because they are the good representatives of the Real Evil which has driven mankind mad out of the use of eyeglasses and all that kind of idiotic things. I see that for those who happen to be weak of mind and spirit the things I say are not easily believable, but are easily demosntrable by anyone with a minimum of self-respect and intelligence. The main point is to DROP ALL EYEGLASSES AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, and sacrifice a few days of work or occupation getting accustomed to the new more natural condition. Meanwhile, forget stressful occupations like computer, tv, relatives and stupid friends, also avoid to the very last people with glasses, especially sunglasses in summer, which are really contagious of the strain of imperfect sight. Second point is in learning to continue the swing or sway of eyes and body while regarding objects. Third part is the enhancing of memory and imagination. If you do these three simple things faithfully, in a matter of days, weeks or months you will be cured from your eye condition, regardless the gravity and seriousness. In very bad cases like the old guy of the website, after surgery for example, or in very neglected case, like the idiots professionals who base their life on the use of glasses, it may be possible to fail in recovering full eyesight to normal, but the improvement and the general conditions as well will be pivotal. I would like to finish this message remembering that WEARING GLASSES IS THE MOST IDIOTIC THING YOU CAN DO IN LIFE, AND CONTINUING IN THE STUPIDITY AFTER THAT YOU KNOW THAT YOU MAY TREAT YOURSELF TO DISCARD THEM AND GAIN BACK YOUR PERFECT VISION IS SIMPLY EVEN MORE IDIOTIC. Don't listen to the stupid doctors that put glasses on people. They are ignorant of the true facts of vision and vision healing. Excellently said, my dear friend... As our Leader has stated: "The fact is that, except in rare cases, man is not a reasoning being. He is dominated by authority, and when the facts are not in accord with the view imposed by authority, so much the worse for the facts. They may, and indeed must, win in the long run; but in the meantime the world gropes needlessly in darkness and endures much suffering that might have been avoided." Do not delude yourself with the idiotic Authority... This is a highly recommended thread for all those who are here to seek advice from a 12 year old who suffers from severe multiple personality disorder, who cannot decide who he/she is and now is engaged in conversation with him/herself. If you are a new reader, please note that "Deidara" and "kakuzu" are the same writer, better known as "Revival", as well as numerous other screen names, e.g. Kaze, Bates, Hiroshimo, Nagasaki, Zetsu, Quasimodo,Shaan Iqbal, Frankenstein, and any other imaginable name -- posting over 300 messages on this newsgroup within the last month. This 15-yr old Norweigen girl (or Japanese philosopher, or Pakistani belly dancer -- as you wish) has an ambition to become an ophthalmologist (after her/his own eyes have been butched by some failed procedure, probably cheap LASIK), and s/he is in search for some cult of "sunning" and "palming" that would get him/her out of her misery (after spending months crying, according to her/his own testimony). S/he has not yet decided whom to blame for her plight and has no basic knowlege of biology, medicine, optics or any relevant or related science, but already has a message to humanity: drink lots of water to cure all eye and vision disorders and deseases! This poor creature has so badly traumatized, which resulted in serious mental sickness with additional symptoms as delusions, confusion, hostility and deafness. Sybil was a relatively healthy stable person compared to this Revival, who desparately needs medical attention, but cannot yet decide which of his personalities he should commit to treatment. I am honored to be the first on the list of "evil persons" provided by our Horatio Quazimodus, and I suggest to all innocent lost souls who seek supernatural cures to follow his/her/its leadership and advice. Dear Brainy, Since our friend, layman Neil Brooks has "conversations" with himself, than NO ONE will respond to, I think they are on the same level. > This is a highly recommended thread for all those who are here to seek > advice from a 12 year old who suffers from severe multiple personality [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > our Horatio Quazimodus, and I suggest to all innocent lost souls who > seek supernatural cures to follow his/her/its leadership and advice. > and when the facts are not in accord > with the view imposed by authority, > so much the worse for the facts. > Do not delude yourself with the idiotic Authority... Your Leader Doctor Bates also said: "Noise is also a frequent cause of defective vision in the normal eye. All persons see imperfectly when they hear an unexpected loud noise. Familiar sounds do not lower the vision, but unfamiliar ones always do." "Women who wear glasses for minor defects of vision often observe that they are made more or less color-blind by them." "the lens is not a factor in accommodation" -MT > "Noise is also a frequent cause of defective vision in the normal eye. > All persons see imperfectly when they hear an unexpected loud noise. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > "the lens is not a factor in accommodation" and in the fundamental primate eye, it naturally follows, without doubt, that these statements are true if you are just determined enough. and now for a rousing repeat of our favorite story, "the printers son" by Raphaelson...... you laugh! but someday I will be proven to be correct and placed in the highest esteem alongside my friends Galileo and Stirling Colgate whom I correspond with frequently. Just one mans opinion Best, Grotis X-no-archive: PClar, you are one DENSE DUDE. The true effect of Raphaelson's story of the "Printer's Son", was to make me realize that the public's "attitude" towards prevention was profoundly destructive. Joy was about 1 year old, and I wondered about her future. Would some bone-head like you, trash the second-opinion, and her vision with and over-prescribed minus lens, or would she "wake up" to the your "attitude" in time to use the plus correctly for PREVENTION and keep her distant vision clear through 12 years in school. (Even though it does take strong motivation and insight to do it.) And indeed Bates was quite correct about your habit of over-prescribing that wretched minus. He stated that a person with 20/70 vision, who gets your over-prescribed minus and is told to "...wear it 16 hours a day", will rapidly experience a negative refractive CHANGE leading to 20/200 vision. Thus the issue of Bates was to STOP the natural eyes "adaptation" to that minus lens -- in the first place. But, here for your reading enjoyment is Dr. Raphaelson's excellent commentary on developing the preventive second-opinion, as Steve Leung is now doing it. www.chinamyopia.org It is my intention to help the parents with this issue -- to be guided and supported by second-opinion ODs like Steve. =========================== THE EFFECT OF A NEGATIVE LENS ON THE REFRACTIVE STATE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL EYE. Truth is so obscure in these times, and falsehood so established, That unless we love the truth we cannot know it. - Blaise Pascal THE HISTORICAL OPINION OF THE USE OF A NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE LENS FOR NEARSIGHTEDNESS Over the past eighty years, eye doctors have become increasingly suspicious of negative-lens use for nearsightedness. While the immediate effect is instant clarity of vision, the long-term effect has been recognized to be bad. For instance Dr. Samuel Drucker said: (3) The suspicion began to dawn on me slowly that among the causes of progressive myopia it might be necessary to list concave lenses themselves. From many articles that have appeared in the past on the subject of 'Optical Poison', a familiar term a decade (1930) ago, many other optometrists appear to have the same idea. An optometrist in Ontario (1938) says that, "...he would like to have a law established and enforced that would make it a misdemeanor for any refractionist (optometrist) to prescribe minus glasses for any child unless under very extenuating circumstances." (3) These are strong opinions by individuals who have had direct and prolonged experience with the use of a negative lens and the effect that this lens has on the normal eye. Doctors, some time ago, have correctly deduced the nature of the problem and suggested the correct solution. For example, Chalmers Prentice, wrote the following in 1895: (3) In the nomad, who is reared out of doors, and who follows such pursuits that his vision is mostly used at twenty feet and greater distances, the nerve-impulses to the ciliary (lens) muscle become established so that the easiest vision is for the far point, and in many years of such use, these impulses become more or less fixed; while the child of a higher civilization spends his life within doors, amuses himself with toys, picture books, kindergarten amusements and learning to read. We will assume that such a child generally holds his book or toy 10 inches (4 diopters) from his eyes, in which case the crystalline lens requires a much greater convexity, or higher state of refraction to bring about perfect vision; and this is brought about by an increase in the ciliary nerve-impulse which changes the shape of the ciliary lens. Through long continued use, this impulse becomes comparatively fixed, and in some instances refuses to suspend itself sufficiently to bring about distant vision again, and so myopia has set in. The regular work of the student and those other pursuits which require the use of the eye at the near point, tend to perpetuate this condition and make it progressive. ...Again, the important question, 'How are the advantages of a high civilization to be attained without the foregoing disadvantages?' If the eyes are to be used at a distance of ten inches, aid them artificially by a ten inch magnifying glass; then the nerve-impulses to the ciliary muscle will be no more than if the patient were leading an outdoor life and viewing objects at twenty feet or more. It is clear that the collective common sense of the profession has indicated the type of problem they face and the nature of the expected solution. In the article "Trying to Get Myopia into Focus", (1987) Dr. Theodore Grosvenor of the Houston College of Optometry, insists that persistent close work causes myopia. He also states that; "Once the eye has started to stretch, it may be too late to keep it from stretching. The ultimate study would be to put reading glasses on first-graders, before anyone has developed myopia." (4) WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED? With this type of scientific understanding of the eye's behavior, you would think that the insightful and motivated optometrist or ophthalmologist could introduce a practical and effective method of solution. Dr. Jacob Raphaelson did exactly that in the following example -- with the following result: THE PRINTER'S SON "It was the year 1904 that I met a mother at a social lodge meeting. She told me about her son's trouble with his eyes in school. I gave her my card and told her to bring him to my office and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles. "She said that she had no money at the time and that her husband was a printer working in another city. She did not expect him home for the next six weeks. I told her all this would not matter, that she should bring the boy over and I would fit him with a pair of spectacles. I told her that she could pay for them when her husband returned home. "She brought the boy in and I examined his eyes. I found that his vision for distance was poor. It was less than 20/40. I made him a pair of plus 1.00 diopter spectacles. She was to pay me when her husband came back home. "In about six weeks she came back and returned the glasses to me. She stated that her husband was provoked with her for getting the glasses. He had tried the boy's eyes with different prints, far and near, and had found him to have perfect vision with his naked eyes. In fact, she said, the boy could see even better without the glasses than with them. "I was surprised that the plus lens could produce recovery that quickly. I could hardly believe this story. I persuaded the mother to bring the boy back to let me check to see if he could really see well with his naked eyes. She again brought the boy in and I checked his vision. I found that the father was indeed right. The boy had good eyes, with 20/20 vision and better. "I was in a dilemma. I did not have the nerve to say anything to the mother. I just let her go. How was I to prove that the boy had poor vision before he received his glasses? And who would believe that vision could be restored by just wearing a pair of plus 1.00 glasses for a few weeks? "My experience with the printer's son aroused my inborn tendency for exploration. It gave me an incentive to try to do special work on children's eyes and on vision restoration. It also enticed me to investigate myopic (nearsighted) eyes because I was myself nearsighted. "On the other hand, this experience was a warning to be cautious in doing such work. For selling spectacles to persons who, supposedly, did not need them was almost a crime. And the fitting of glasses without the advice or consent of a medical doctor to unhealthy or diseased eyes, or even to an unhealthy person who might need or be under medical attention, was, and is now, and encroachment on the medical profession. "To shield myself against possible enmity and involvement, I took the following precautions: First, I quit using the title 'doctor' in any form, in print or verbally. I was to be known as a spectacle fitter and nothing more. Second, I charged a reasonable price for the spectacles I sold but nothing extra for any special work or relief I gave. I did not advertise about this special work. I just did it as a matter of routine whenever or wherever I was given the opportunity. "Thus in 1904 I became an independent researcher on the relationship of the eye's behavior to spectacles, vision, and health. I have kept it up, and will continue to do this work as long as I continue to have the incentive and capability. "Who would believe it? Who would believe that by just wearing a pair of plus one (+1.00) glasses for a few weeks, that normal vision to the naked eye could be restored to children whose eyes have a negative focal state? This was true in 1904, and it is also true now, in this decade of 1950." SCIENTIFIC VERIFICATION With such strong recognition that a negative lens has such a profound and adverse effect, you would think that it should be possible to develop scientific verification for this characteristic of the normal eye. You would be correct. The testing and verification is impeccable -- if we restrict our attention to the FUNDAMENTAL eye's behavior. ++++++++++ On Jul 1, 7:20 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > "Noise is also a frequent cause of defective vision in the normal eye. > > All persons see imperfectly when they hear an unexpected loud noise. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Grotis On Jul 1, 4:41 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > X-no-archive: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > =========================== <snip> > WHY ISN'T THE PREVENTATIVE APPROACH OFFERED? > [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > > read more ?- p.clar: You asked for the Printer's Son again -- you got it! LOL!!! > On Jul 1, 4:41 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > > p.clar: You asked for the Printer's Son again -- you got it! LOL!!! i guess i asked for it! Now, how about a little Stirling Colgate story? and then the story about ironman Keith who has fortitude, unlike his sister Joy. Actually, PClar, I prefer to post the response of intelligent parents who have understood the full implications of the "Printer's Son", and who will act in concert with prevention-minded ODs like Steve Leung. It is a trueism that you can NEVER help a person -- until that person resolves to help himself. That is the REAL implication of Raphaelson's statement of the "Printer's Son". Here is a parent who resolved to NOT let his child develop stair-case myopia from an over-prescribed minus. Otis +++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Prevention-minded parents, I have received this from a parent. I have changed the names of the people to protect them. Best, Otis ================================== From: Ron Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 Subject: Mike's vision 20/70 to 20/30 Dear Otis, I am Ron and my son is Mike. Mike is eight years old now and can read most of the 20/30 line of i-see random Snellen chart. He has been using plus for three months. In 2004 when he was 6. My wife and I took him to see the optometrist in a university. We were told that Mike's vision was farsighted +0.75D both eyes and the eyes were healthy. In 2005 he was 7. We went to the same optometrist. We were told that Mike's farsightedness was gone. We worried he would be myopic soon. But nothing we could do at the time. The optometrist said that they suggest some children to use the hard contact lens to slow down the myopia if myopia grows fast. But he said Mike was not myopic yet and did not need at the time. My wife and I also think the hard contact lens is too dangerous for a young boy like Michael. We do not consider. What we could do was just keep an eye on his vision. At his regular body check early August this year. The doctor told us Mike needed to see an optometrist. My wife and I took him to see an optometrist on the same day. We were told that Mike was R -1.25 D and L -1.00 D nearsighted. That guy said Mike needed a pair of nearsightedness glasses. I told him Mike's refractive state was 0 diopter last year. That guy said ..you know.. he has grown. he has grown taller. his eyes have grown longer. and heredity. so myopia. I thought only the heredity made sense (not any more now). I think the NBA players are much taller. Are they all myopic? We rejected to let Michael wear glasses the guy wanted to sell. We went to two more different optometrists at different places in the week (because I don't really trust some of them ). One said Michael was R -1.25 D and L -1.50 D. Another said he was -1.50 D both eyes. Sure enough he was nnearsighted. We did not go to the university because it takes months for an appointment. We needed to know earlier. My wife and I were very sad. We have been doing everything we can to protect his vision since he was a baby, no close reading at home (in school we don't know and can not control), 12 feet away from the TV and only two or three hours a week, no TV game and no computer etc. Unfortunately, he can not stay away from myopia. In that week. My wife and I searched on the net. We wanted to find some methods to slow down Mike's myopia progress. We found O.K lens then we found plus method on Steve's site and your site. We read as much as possible in a week. Though we read a lot. We could not let Mike try the plus. Because we didn't know too much about this. We worried. So we decided to try the plus lenses by myself first. After a few days using plus lenses. I felt good and my vision improved little. It was no harmful at all. Then we got a pair of +1.50 D lenses for Michael starting. Mike started using plus in the end of August 2006. Mike's vision improved a little bit in a month. I always check his vision at home with the eye charts on the net. I have read a lot about plus prevention on the net. Too bad Steve doesn't update his website any more for some reason. Some people accused him. I have read a lot on your site, your forum, the Yabb vision improvement forum, sci.med.vision and i-see etc. I realize the +1.50 D lenses are not strong enough for Michael when he reaches 20/50 or better. So I gave him a pair of +2.50D lenses on 26 September 2006. He uses plus at home and his class room. He now can read most of the 20/30. Sometimes 4 of 6 sometimes 5 of 6. His vision was about 20/60 - 20/70 three months ago. He has improved a lot through three months. Last week Mike had a vision assessment in the department of health. The optometrist put the -0.50D lenses on Mike's face. Michael could read the smallest line each eye separately with those lenses. The optometrist said Mike was -0.50 D nearsighted both eyes. I asked him if the smallest line was 20/20. He told me that was 20/15. He said Mike didn't need glasses. Otis, is that kind of over-prescription you always say? Anyway, we are so happy about that Michael is just -0.50D nearsighted (may be) confirmed by a professional optometrist though I know his vision level on the eye chart at home, though I don't trust some of them too much. Mike improves his vision by using plus. So do I. But my vision is too bad can not be restored. One thing is certain. Plus prevention works. Mike doesn't do any eye exercise like zooming, sunning and palming etc. He doesn't even know it. I have given him some blue berry extract with DHA since October 2006. I don't know if it helps. Who knows? One more thing is certain. God has been helping us. Thank God. Otis, you are doing great. You are helping a lot of people. Some people overcome myopia with your help. I have learnt much about plus-prevention on your site. Mike can avoid the stair-case myopia. His vision doesn't need to be sacrificed. I can't tell you how excited I am that he doesn't need the nearsightedness glasses in his life even he is just 20/30 now. You are making things better. I have seen some people bash you unreasonably. So I just want to write this letter to say thank you and encourage you. It is not easy for me to type an English letter like this. But I have to. I don't know if Mike will reach 20/20. I believe he will. I will let you know on the day. Thank you very much again Otis. Best regards, Ron +++++++++++++ On Jul 2, 8:25 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jul 1, 4:41 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 165 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >Actually, PClar, I prefer to post the response of intelligent parents >who have understood the full implications of the "Printer's Son", and >who will act in concert with prevention-minded ODs like Steve Leung. Steve Leung is in concert? How much are tickets? Is he going to do his chart-topper, "My Kids Wear Plus, but They're Still Bound for Myopia?" That's a good one. >It is a trueism that you can NEVER help a person -- until that >person resolves to help himself. So ... your myopic niece, Joy Benson lacked personal resolve?? Isn't that the same thing as laziness, then? BTW: isn't it time that you "resolved to help yourself," Otis? I think it's way, way, way past that time. On Jul 2, 10:00 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > read more ? and more and more and more neverending blah blah blah wasting bandwidth and storage space all so as to fulfil the ego of some sick egotistical old man who thinks that anyone really CARES what he has to say. How about instead posting some scientific PROOF, meaning statistically- valid studies performed in humans, showing that minus lenses induce myopia and that plus lenses prevent it! until then, why not post in alt.wishful.thinking PS -- how did that little problem you had with the State of Pennsylvania go? you know, where you were reported for giving medical advise without a license. On Jul 2, 12:41 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > X-no-archive: > [quoted text clipped - 229 lines] > > read more ? On Jul 2, 12:41 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > X-no-archive: > [quoted text clipped - 229 lines] > > read more ? Otis, Quite often you appear to be to quoting 'The Printer's Son' from Raphaelson / Steve Leung and so on and so forth. The story of the Printer's Son is about dealing with people who have hereditary prejudices, and the main point is that convincing people is much harder than it would appear, so just give up and don't fight the prevalent mindset except in privacy. Problem with this is, Dr. Raphaelson gave up too easily. Did he try different ways to communicate with the public? 'What's the use, the public won't listen anyway,' you might wonder... but who do you know that has studied all facets of communication and tried alternate approaches of communication? With due respect, what about Bates? Bates had a dogmatic way with words, stating things in absolutes such as 'always' and 'never'. If one example was found to be tentative instead of 'always' or 'never', then illogical people will dismiss his other teachings based on one example alone. It is one thing to be very smart and publicly demonstrate facts, but it is another matter entirely to change people's beliefs. You cannot always change people's beliefs simply by providing evidence in one way or another. These two men, as great as they may have been, did not know how to communicate using a Socratic-like method consisting of rhetorical questions that force the reader to become an active participant and to find it within as to why a prejudice would need to be changed. I can see your point when you're saying it's 'impossible' to deal with the public. But the example above is where you're both correct and possibly wrong at the same time. I'm not criticizing, just sharing my observation in a platonic way. What you see as impossible, I see as possible. I wish you could see how much difficulty I had in expressing my thoughts articulately without jumbling and tangling things up about a year and half ago, and how much different I am at it now; it's a world's difference. What happened to me was similar to what happened to Charlie in the book Flowers for Algernon- initally very confused and unsure, only to become brilliant at an incredible pace. It's like it nearly happened overnight. It's as if in one year alone, I learned more than I had in the previous 20 years. Now, who would believe me? Probably no one. Because it would seem impossible, yet that was around the time I read and learned about the power of the subconscious mind. It's almost like resurrecting oneself from the dead. And it wasn't long after that, that I acquired a strange habit of being able to repeat exact quotes by famous people... I wasn't taught through school or books or other people to use quotes, but intuitively it made sense that if you quote a famous person that is respected by other people, you could persuade other people. My newfound intuition of how to persuade people was very strange indeed, and I found this quote: "Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead." --Aristotle -- and while it's a harsh statement, it is true nonetheless. This does not mean just academic education, but includes being educated about the world around you, as well as other things like communication and so on. On another newsgroup, I once mentioned that I have taken great measures to cultivate my communication skills. Here is my point of view. I think most people are not good communicators, even though they may believe they are. Since we are dealing with illogical people who won't adhere to logic, you have to deal with them illogically. So, what illogical ways have you thought of? One way of being illogical is to understand that excellent communication may include the need to resort to dirty tricks, or in other words, "to be innocent as a dove, shrewd as a snake." It is communication as a means to an end. If you can't convince them logically, then do it illogically (in a way that is not considered normal logic). This is in fact one of the reasons I have chosen to take a 'multiple personality', as Ms.Brainy likes to say. There is quite simply no other way to deal with these people on sci.med.vision. Start by addressing their hereditary prejudices directly using the Socratic method, rather than trying to convince them about an idea of yours. There are many creative ways to do this. True logic can see the logic even in the illogical, or the possible in the impossible. Stated elsewhere is this: "Socratic method is widely used in contemporary legal education by many law schools in the United States. In a typical class setting, the professor asks a question and calls on a student who may or may not have volunteered an answer. The professor either then continues to ask the student questions or moves on to another student." People often don't pay attention or listen closely until they become active participants. -EAE On Jul 2, 12:41 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > X-no-archive: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to make me realize that the public's "attitude" towards > prevention was profoundly destructive. [snip] On Jul 2, 12:41 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > X-no-archive: > [quoted text clipped - 229 lines] > > read more ? Otis, Quite often you appear to be to quoting 'The Printer's Son' from Raphaelson / Steve Leung and so on and so forth. The story of the Printer's Son is about dealing with people who have hereditary prejudices, and the main point is that convincing people is much harder than it would appear, so just give up and don't fight the prevalent mindset except in privacy. Problem with this is, Dr. Raphaelson gave up too easily. Did he try different ways to communicate with the public? 'What's the use, the public won't listen anyway,' you might wonder... but who do you know that has studied all facets of communication and tried alternate approaches of communication? With due respect, what about Bates? Bates had a dogmatic way with words, stating things in absolutes such as 'always' and 'never'. If one example was found to be tentative instead of 'always' or 'never', then illogical people will dismiss his other teachings based on one example alone. It is one thing to be very smart and publicly demonstrate facts, but it is another matter entirely to change people's beliefs. You cannot always change people's beliefs simply by providing evidence in one way or another. These two men, as great as they may have been, did not know how to communicate using a Socratic-like method consisting of rhetorical questions that force the reader to become an active participant and to find it within as to why a prejudice would need to be changed. I can see your point when you're saying it's 'impossible' to deal with the public. But the example above is where you're both correct and possibly wrong at the same time. I'm not criticizing, just sharing my observation in a platonic way. What you see as impossible, I see as possible. I wish you could see how much difficulty I had in expressing my thoughts articulately without jumbling and tangling things up about a year and half ago, and how much different I am at it now; it's a world's difference. What happened to me was similar to what happened to Charlie in the book Flowers for Algernon- initally very confused and unsure, only to become brilliant at an incredible pace. It's like it nearly happened overnight. It's as if in one year alone, I learned more than I had in the previous 20 years. Now, who would believe me? Probably no one. Because it would seem impossible, yet that was around the time I read and learned about the power of the subconscious mind. It's almost like resurrecting oneself from the dead. And it wasn't long after that, that I acquired a strange habit of being able to repeat exact quotes by famous people... I wasn't taught through school or books or other people to use quotes, but intuitively it made sense that if you quote a famous person that is respected by other people, you could persuade other people. My newfound intuition of how to persuade people was very strange indeed, and I found this quote: "Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead." --Aristotle -- and while it's a harsh statement, it is true nonetheless. This does not mean just academic education, but includes being educated about the world around you, as well as other things like communication and so on. On another newsgroup, I once mentioned that I have taken great measures to cultivate my communication skills. Here is my point of view. I think most people are not good communicators, even though they may believe they are. Since we are dealing with illogical people who won't adhere to logic, you have to deal with them illogically. So, what illogical ways have you thought of? One way of being illogical is to understand that excellent communication may include the need to resort to dirty tricks, or in other words, "to be innocent as a dove, shrewd as a snake." It is communication as a means to an end. If you can't convince them logically, then do it illogically (in a way that is not considered normal logic). This is in fact one of the reasons I have chosen to take a 'multiple personality', as Ms.Brainy likes to say. There is quite simply no other way to deal with these people on sci.med.vision. Start by addressing their hereditary prejudices directly using the Socratic method, rather than trying to convince them about an idea of yours. There are many creative ways to do this. True logic can see the logic even in the illogical, or the possible in the impossible. Stated elsewhere is this: "Socratic method is widely used in contemporary legal education by many law schools in the United States. In a typical class setting, the professor asks a question and calls on a student who may or may not have volunteered an answer. The professor either then continues to ask the student questions or moves on to another student." People often don't pay attention or listen closely until they become active participants. -EAE On Jul 2, 12:41 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: "X-no-archive: PClar, you are one DENSE DUDE. The true effect of Raphaelson's story of the "Printer's Son", was to make me realize that the public's "attitude" towards prevention was profoundly destructive." On Jul 2, 12:41 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > X-no-archive: > [quoted text clipped - 229 lines] > > read more ? Otis, Quite often you appear to be to quoting 'The Printer's Son' from Raphaelson / Steve Leung and so on and so forth. The story of the Printer's Son is about dealing with people who have hereditary prejudices, and the main point is that convincing people is much harder than it would appear, so just give up and don't fight the prevalent mindset except in privacy. Problem with this is, Dr. Raphaelson gave up too easily. Did he try different ways to communicate with the public? 'What's the use, the public won't listen anyway,' you might wonder... but who do you know that has studied all facets of communication and tried alternate approaches of communication? With due respect, what about Bates? Bates had a dogmatic way with words, stating things in absolutes such as 'always' and 'never'. If one example was found to be tentative instead of 'always' or 'never', then illogical people will dismiss his other teachings based on one example alone. It is one thing to be very smart and publicly demonstrate facts, but it is another matter entirely to change people's beliefs. You cannot always change people's beliefs simply by providing evidence in one way or another. These two men, as great as they may have been, did not know how to communicate using a Socratic-like method consisting of rhetorical questions that force the reader to become an active participant and to find it within as to why a prejudice would need to be changed. I can see your point when you're saying it's 'impossible' to deal with the public. But the example above is where you're both correct and possibly wrong at the same time. I'm not criticizing, just sharing my observation in a platonic way. What you see as impossible, I see as possible. I wish you could see how much difficulty I had in expressing my thoughts articulately without jumbling and tangling things up about a year and half ago, and how much different I am at it now; it's a world's difference. What happened to me was similar to what happened to Charlie in the book Flowers for Algernon- initally very confused and unsure, only to become brilliant at an incredible pace. It's like it nearly happened overnight. It's as if in one year alone, I learned more than I had in the previous 20 years. Now, who would believe me? Probably no one. Because it would seem impossible, yet that was around the time I read and learned about the power of the subconscious mind. It's almost like resurrecting oneself from the dead. And it wasn't long after that, that I acquired a strange habit of being able to repeat exact quotes by famous people... I wasn't taught through school or books or other people to use quotes, but intuitively it made sense that if you quote a famous person that is respected by other people, you could persuade other people. My newfound intuition of how to persuade people was very strange indeed, and I found this quote: "Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead." --Aristotle -- and while it's a harsh statement, it is true nonetheless. This does not mean just academic education, but includes being educated about the world around you, as well as other things like communication and so on. On another newsgroup, I once mentioned that I have taken great measures to cultivate my communication skills. Here is my point of view. I think most people are not good communicators, even though they may believe they are. Since we are dealing with illogical people who won't adhere to logic, you have to deal with them illogically. So, what illogical ways have you thought of? One way of being illogical is to understand that excellent communication may include the need to resort to dirty tricks, or in other words, "to be innocent as a dove, shrewd as a snake." It is communication as a means to an end. If you can't convince them logically, then do it illogically (in a way that is not considered normal logic). This is in fact one of the reasons I have chosen to take a 'multiple personality', as Ms.Brainy likes to say. There is quite simply no other way to deal with these people on sci.med.vision. Start by addressing their hereditary prejudices directly using the Socratic method, rather than trying to convince them about an idea of yours. There are many creative ways to do this. True logic can see the logic even in the illogical, or the possible in the impossible. Stated elsewhere is this: "Socratic method is widely used in contemporary legal education by many law schools in the United States. In a typical class setting, the professor asks a question and calls on a student who may or may not have volunteered an answer. The professor either then continues to ask the student questions or moves on to another student." People often don't pay attention or listen closely until they become active participants. -EAE Otis, Quite often you appear to be to quoting 'The Printer's Son' from Raphaelson / Steve Leung and so on and so forth. The story of the Printer's Son is about dealing with people who have hereditary prejudices, and the main point is that convincing people is much harder than it would appear, so just give up and don't fight the prevalent mindset except in privacy. Problem with this is, Dr. Raphaelson gave up too easily. Did he try different ways to communicate with the public? 'What's the use, the public won't listen anyway,' you might wonder... but who do you know that has studied all facets of communication and tried alternate approaches of communication? With due respect, what about Bates? Bates had a dogmatic way with words, stating things in absolutes such as 'always' and 'never'. If one example was found to be tentative instead of 'always' or 'never', then illogical people will dismiss his other teachings based on one example alone. It is one thing to be very smart and publicly demonstrate facts, but it is another matter entirely to change people's beliefs. You cannot always change people's beliefs simply by providing evidence in one way or another. These two men, as great as they may have been, did not know how to communicate using a Socratic-like method consisting of rhetorical questions that force the reader to become an active participant and to find it within as to why a prejudice would need to be changed. I can see your point when you're saying it's 'impossible' to deal with the public. But the example above is where you're both correct and possibly wrong at the same time. I'm not criticizing, just sharing my observation in a platonic way. What you see as impossible, I see as possible. I wish you could see how much difficulty I had in expressing my thoughts articulately without jumbling and tangling things up about a year and half ago, and how much different I am at it now; it's a world's difference. What happened to me was similar to what happened to Charlie in the book Flowers for Algernon- initally very confused and unsure, only to become brilliant at an incredible pace. It's like it nearly happened overnight. It's as if in one year alone, I learned more than I had in the previous 20 years. Now, who would believe me? Probably no one. Because it would seem impossible, yet that was around the time I read and learned about the power of the subconscious mind. It's almost like resurrecting oneself from the dead. And it wasn't long after that, that I acquired a strange habit of being able to repeat exact quotes by famous people... I wasn't taught through school or books or other people to use quotes, but intuitively it made sense that if you quote a famous person that is respected by other people, you could persuade other people. My newfound intuition of how to persuade people was very strange indeed, and I found this quote: "Educated men are as much superior to uneducated men as the living are to the dead." --Aristotle -- and while it's a harsh statement, it is true nonetheless. This does not mean just academic education, but includes being educated about the world around you, as well as other things like communication and so on. On another newsgroup, I once mentioned that I have taken great measures to cultivate my communication skills. Here is my point of view. I think most people are not good communicators, even though they may believe they are. Since we are dealing with illogical people who won't adhere to logic, you have to deal with them illogically. So, what illogical ways have you thought of? One way of being illogical is to understand that excellent communication may include the need to resort to dirty tricks, or in other words, "to be innocent as a dove, shrewd as a snake." It is communication as a means to an end. If you can't convince them logically, then do it illogically (in a way that is not considered normal logic). This is in fact one of the reasons I have chosen to take a 'multiple personality', as Ms.Brainy likes to say. There is quite simply no other way to deal with these people on sci.med.vision. Start by addressing their hereditary prejudices directly using the Socratic method, rather than trying to convince them about an idea of yours. There are many creative ways to do this. True logic can see the logic even in the illogical, or the possible in the impossible. Stated elsewhere is this: "Socratic method is widely used in contemporary legal education by many law schools in the United States. In a typical class setting, the professor asks a question and calls on a student who may or may not have volunteered an answer. The professor either then continues to ask the student questions or moves on to another student." People often don't pay attention or listen closely until they become active participants. -EAE Dear EAE, Subject: The purpose of leadership -- is to traning leaders, not "followers". I like what you said here, and I will repost it on my conversational site. As you know, I take complete (first party) responsibility for myself, and my actions as a child. I expect to be presented with HARD scientific truth and facts -- so that I can make my choice for prevention -- before my refractive STATE gets out-of-hand. Remember that our converstations stated that if a person chooses to quit cold turkey, then he MUST pass the RQUIRED level of the DMV. In this sense that people like Stirling Colgate have been highly successful. I regard the preventing of a negative refractive STATE for the fundamental eye, at the same level of preventing incipent obesity in young child. This is again a FIRST-party problem, and even more clearly the case. A third-party can do NOTHING for obesity prevention. This is the same case as the "Printer's Son". Anyone understanding THAT issue must recognize that until the FATHER goes through an education on prevention, no prevention will ever be possible. It is NOT the medical-person's responsibility (third-party) to prevent obesity, no, it is the responsibility of BOTH the parent and child. If THEY have no interest and motivaiton, then preventing obesity is impossible. In both cases, it takes good insights about youself to decide to "prevent" or not. You chose to know the facts and prevent. That speaks well of the person's judgment and wisdom on these subjects. Neil Brooks is in a "state" of always attacking me. He believes that he is personally "protecting" people by attacking me. That is tragic for all concerned. Best, Otis On Jul 3, 8:47 am, Edwardo Alphonse Elric <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Otis, > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > -EAE >Neil Brooks is in a "state" of always attacking me. He believes >that he is personally "protecting" people by attacking me. >That is tragic for all concerned. Awwwwwwwww. Poor Uncle Otie, trying to play the victim. I ask legitimate questions that you refuse to answer and you feel attacked. Here they are again. Care to answer them yet?? www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt > Subject: The purpose of leadership -- is to traning leaders, > not "followers". The phrase "the blind leading the blind" pops into my mind here. However, the *actual* subject is, "The Idiots and their Peers". [snip of troll's id] > > Problem with this is, Dr. Raphaelson gave up too easily. Actually, I believe he died. He brought out this theory in 1904. We'll never know, but I speculate that if he was still around, and of sound mind and practicing, that once he read the studies, he would admit to being wrong. That's how most professionals work. They do the best they can with the knowledge available at the time. When things change, they change with them, as necessary and appropriate. Dear Dan, Subject: Your speculation about Dr. Raphaelson. > > Problem with this is, Dr. Raphaelson gave up too easily. Actually, I believe he died. He brought out this theory in 1904. We'll never know, but I speculate that if he was still around, and of sound mind and practicing, that once he read the studies, he would admit to being wrong. Several corrections. He never "gave up", and he never quit. After the "Printer's Son", he did give up on the public walking in off the street -- and I don't blame him. But the critical issue is how he took care of his daughters. And in that respect (since he could control them), he was successful, in the same way that Dr. Colgate was successful. But after the 1904 "experience", he gave up -- as you suggested. I met him in 1967 -- and he had not changed at all. What a courageous man. Best, Otis > In article <1183486938.608654.52...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > knowledge available at the time. When things change, they change with > them, as necessary and appropriate. >Dear Dan, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >on the public walking in off the street -- and I don't >blame him. True. YOU are a member of that group. YOU could walk in. [shivers] >But the critical issue is how he took care of his >daughters. And in that respect (since he could control them), >he was successful, in the same way that Dr. Colgate >was successful. Dr. Judy is right: this is the ANTITHESIS of science. Making statements like this shows that you have ZERO interest in truth and science, but a personal, religious agenda. Claiming that any of these people had any impact on preventing any sort of -opia in their kids is sooooooo clearly a case of "false cause" or "correlation DOES NOT equal causation" or "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Incidentally, your niece, Joy Benson wore the minus, never wore the plus, and is now a myope with a restricted driver's license. What happened there? >But after the 1904 "experience", he gave up -- as >you suggested. > >I met him in 1967 -- and he had not changed at all. I would imagine that to be true of nearly anybody who would associate with you. No matter what they see, hear, or read, I can't imagine that they WOULD ever modify their positions ... on anything. Dear Neil DBG Brooks, Subject: You ALWAYS get this WRONG!!!! Brooks> Dr. Judy is right: this is the ANTITHESIS of science. Otis> No, you can say it is the anthesis of majority-opinion MEDICINE, and I WILL BE HAPPY TO AGREE WITH YOU. Otis> But it is NOT the anthesis of SCIENCE. Sorry you are profoundly screwed up on that issue. Even so, the SECOND-0PINION ODs are open to the concept that a negative refractive STATE can be PREVENTED or avoided. Making statements like this shows that you have ZERO interest in truth Otis> No, you have no clue about scientific truth about RESPECTING the dynamic behavior as a sophisticated system. Let us just say that analysis of this type is beyond your purview. and science, but a personal, religious agenda. Otis> Your majority-opinion again floats to the surface. > On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:48:42 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net" > [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >Dear Neil DBG Brooks, > >Subject: You ALWAYS get this WRONG!!!! For about the 10th time: my middle initial is "D." Nothing more than "D." YOU ALWAYS GET THIS WRONG!!!! (Four exclamation points, right?). >Brooks> Dr. Judy is right: this is the ANTITHESIS of science. > >Otis> No, you can say it is the anthesis of majority-opinion >MEDICINE, and I WILL BE HAPPY TO AGREE WITH YOU. I don't actually want you to agree with me. That would mean that I am wrong. >Otis> But it is NOT the anthesis of SCIENCE. Sorry >you are profoundly screwed up on that issue. Even >so, the SECOND-0PINION ODs are open to the >concept that a negative refractive STATE can >be PREVENTED or avoided. Gee, Uncle Otie. That's not what we were talking about. You claim(ed) that people like Colgate-Palmolive, you, and Steve Leung have prevented myopia in their children. Here: >> Claiming that any of these people had any impact on preventing any >> sort of -opia in their kids is sooooooo clearly a case of "false >> cause" or "correlation DOES NOT equal causation" or "post hoc, ergo >> propter hoc." So ... no. Dr. Judy and I ARE EXACTLY RIGHT. What you're talking about IS THE ANTITHESIS of science. Where's your control group, Uncle Otie? That's how true scientists try to determine if a method (or drug or device) works: a group tests it, and another group does not (or tests a placebo). That keeps people from making false claims of causation ... like you do. Let me help you out here (take a handful of pills, or). Read through this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial Please get back to us with a precis in your own (illiterate) words. Thanks. > Making >statements like this shows that you have ZERO interest in truth [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >system. Let us just say that analysis of this >type is beyond your purview. Let US just say that--as always--you try to change the subject AND the terminology. Nobody's falling for it. So sorry. > and >science, but a personal, religious agenda. > >Otis> Your majority-opinion again floats to the surface. I have no majority opinion. I simply see through your constant stream of lies, logical fallacies, evasions, mis-quotes, faulty assumptions, and omissions. Most people do. On Jul 3, 9:48 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > I met him in 1967 -- and he had not changed at all. of course you did. just like you said you met ted grosvenor (who says he doesn't know you from Adam). why don't you take a lesson from raphaelson's teachings and be courageous by explaining why uncorrected hyperopes, who accommodate 24/7 just to compensate for their ammetropia, do not become myopic (or at least less hyperopic). then continue by explaining why uncorrected myopes, who don't wear their glasses at all, do not revert to emmetropia and oftentimes continue to become more myopic. then explain why the study of Goss et al. (a bonafide myopia researcher rather than an amateur story-teller) showed statistically that overminused myopes did not develop accelerated myopia as you suggest. don't be a quitter Otis (like Joy was apparently). you old friend raphaelson would roll over in his grave if he saw you ducking questions all the time like you do. Plar> of course you did. Otis> (Visited Dr. Raphaelson in Cincinatti in 1967.) I always like to talk to a man in person -- if he has a new concept. His presentation of the "Printer's Son", convinced me that plus-prevention could never be delivered as a medical "product", and must depend on the qualities of intelligence and motivation of the person himself. Plar> ...just like you said you met ted grosvenor (who says he doesn't know you from Adam). Otis> At totally false statement by you PClar. What I posted was a discussion by Ted Grosvenor and Francis Young about these two contradictory results of the "bifocal" studies. Otis> But never said I "met" Grosvenor. Please do not mis-quote me. Otis On Jul 4, 1:15 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 3, 9:48 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > raphaelson would roll over in his grave if he saw you ducking > questions all the time like you do. > Please do not mis-quote me. You ultimate hypocrite. Why don't YOU stop: - misquoting people - lying - presenting half-truths - insulting You do ALL of these things to a pathological degree. Thanks. On Jul 3, 2:22 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear EAE, > > I like what you said here, and I will repost it on my > conversational site. you have another "conversational" site? oh god help us that we never run across that internet location! > I expect to be presented with HARD scientific truth and facts -- so > that > I can make my choice for prevention -- before my refractive > STATE gets out-of-hand. so do I, and I have been waiting for YOUR hard scientific truths and facts but you never post them. instead you just run away and then start reposting raphaelson blah blah blah in some other thread. where are the facts Otis! in humans! that prove minus lenses cause myopia and that plus lenses prevent it. >> and when the facts are not in accord >> with the view imposed by authority, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > "the lens is not a factor in accommodation" Is this possibly Rishi again?  SignatureCheers, Bev +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ "No one's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session." -- Mark Twain >>> and when the facts are not in accord >>> with the view imposed by authority, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Is this possibly Rishi again? More likely the illegitimate love-child of Rishi and Otis. > > and when the facts are not in accord > > with the view imposed by authority, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -MT Yes, please do not speak to me about this again Mike. We have been through this argument many time in past. The noises you are generating is surely hurting my eyes!! > > and when the facts are not in accord > > with the view imposed by authority, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -MT Yes, please do not speak to me about that again Mike. We have done with the argument many time in past. The noise you is generating is surely hurting my eyes!! > > > and when the facts are not in accord > > > with the view imposed by authority, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > We have done with the argument many time in past. > The noise you is generating is surely hurting my eyes!! Mike, Shall I remind you of this self-same character's "contributions" the next time he/she/it asks a seemingly valid question on this forum? Just lemme' know.... What is obvious is that you are simply an idiot, little Neil. Other idiot-man Mr. Tyner stated very politely that I was a fool in saying that I cured my myopia in the daylight and not in the night, advocating for some stupid depth-of-field effect to explain the phenomenon of my good eyesight in the daylight. Now I can confess to you: I start to read quite consistently little writings on the television at four meters in bad light. Guess what? No depth-of-field nonsense is at work here (neither was at work elsewhere). Simply I am becoming more and more accustomed to the relaxed state that eye and mind education provides for those who are intelligent enough to understand it (not you, of course, neither the long list of idiots who talk sheer nonsense in the name of "sci.med"). I can read many pages (although very slowly) of a book under the tiny light of a candle put on a shelf and shaded by it: just the glare against the ceiling helps in discerning black letters on very dark background. The crazy thing is that at the beginning, the blackness of the letters is very shallow, almost transparent. By remembering true black or by looking at a closer distance, slowly slowly the black becomes blacker and letters become more defined despite the almost nil light. When the candleflame dances and makes the page "blink" like a regular lightning rythm, the effect is very interesting, because the eye enjoys that and sees more clearly. Reading under changing light is a good exercise for relaxation of the eye and mind. But I know perfectly well that you and your readers are too stupid to even conceive of this. I don't know what is the use you will do of these precious informations I am deploying, but I think you and your readers will misunderstand them because they go against your conviction of years and years of bad practice. The only hope is that fresh readers will be engaged in their search as I was few months ago, after demonstrating to myself that the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses, contacts or lasers or vision therapy is possible, and it is all but difficult. Unfortunately, people come here to read, as on other mail-lists, after they have been already damaged by bad practice. Wearing eyeglasses is a very bad practice, as is wearing contacts, prisms, lenses of any kind, including sun-glasses, or irreversible processes like surgical operations. But chances are also quite good, at least in non-irreversible cases, that the eyes are strong and can recover if their owner gives to them a good, sustained opportunity. Doctor W.H. Bates wrote some eighty years ago that children under twelve that never wore glasses get a permanent cure in days, weeks or months if they make a daily practice to read a Snellen test card at least once with each eye separately and then with both eyes together. It should be quite easy to check his statement. Anybody here who reads this message and happens to have a child with beginning eye troubles and the child is willing to be cured without glasses is strongly recommended to buy any Snellen eyechart and put it up against a good lighted wall in the home and remembering the child to test his own sight day by day. The work should not be pressed upon the child and strain to see should be avoided. If tiny letters are not seen one day, forget them and stop to bigger letters. The day after they will be more clear, and any day clearer untile the child is cured. If the trouble is with near vision, the eyechart should be reduced by photostatic copies until the tiny ltters become 2 points sized, and the practice is done at the near point. The great pundits here should give to this method a try with some mild patient and see for themselves how miracles are created out of thin air. Instead of ruining the life of their patient selling them ugly glasses, they should teach them the correct principles of eye education. Correct principles of eye-educations are simple and effective. Other principles may be difficult and uneffective. These include eye-therapies by optometrists, behavioral optometry etcetera etcetera. Plus lenses therapy is stupid as well, because condemns the patient to the use of a crutch for their whole life and does not teach eye education also. I am talking here of the spiritual freedom one can attain for himself when becomes able to see 20 or 30/10 in the night and catches a licence plate of a moving car at a hundred meters or when it can read microscopic print at candle light at few cm from his nose. Also, the great freedom of absorbing with eyes wide open the whole colorful landscape of a full sun summer day spent in the Tuscany campaign is something really spiritual and enhancing. This cannot be attained by any visual aids but the greatest of all, that which is provided by a mind at rest. All those who wear glasses cannot understand what I am saying and should abstain from any comments. They are living an unhappy life and will die unhappily, and their last thought will be of contempt. But, if they discard their glasses and wait a few days for their eyes to relax a bit will start to notice where I am pointing. You are officially crowned His High-Idiotness, Brooks!! Other idiot-man Mr. Tyner stated very politely that I was a fool in saying that I cured my presbyopia in the daylight and not in the night, advocating for some stupid depth-of-field effect to explain the phenomenon of my good eyesight in the daylight. Now I can confess to you: I start to read quite consistently little writings on the television at four meters in bad light. Guess what? No depth-of-field nonsense is at work here (neither was at work elsewhere). Simply I am becoming more and more accustomed to the relaxed state that eye and mind education provides for those who are intelligent enough to understand it (not you, of course, neither the long list of idiots who talk sheer nonsense in the name of "sci.med"). I can read many pages (although very slowly) of a book under the tiny light of a candle put on a shelf and shaded by it: just the glare against the ceiling helps in discerning black letters on very dark background. The crazy thing is that at the beginning, the blackness of the letters is very shallow, almost transparent. By remembering true black or by looking at a closer distance, slowly slowly the black becomes blacker and letters become more defined despite the almost nil light. When the candleflame dances and makes the page "blink" like a regular ightning rythm, the effect is very interesting, because the eye enjoys that and sees more clearly. Reading under changing light is a good exercise for relaxation of the eye and mind. But I know perfectly well that you and your readers are too stupid to even conceive of this. I don't know what is the use you will do of these precious informations I am deploying, but I think you and your readers will misunderstand them because they go against your conviction of years and years of bad practice. The only hope is that fresh readers will be engaged in their search as I was few months ago, after demonstrating to myself that the cure of imperfect sight by treatment without glasses, contacts or lasers or vision therapy is possible, and it is all but difficult. Unfortunately, people come here to read, as on other mail-lists, after they have been already damaged by bad practice. Wearing eyeglasses is a very bad practice, as is wearing contacts, prisms, lenses of any kind, including sun-glasses, or irreversible processes like surgical operations. But chances are also quite good, at least in non-irreversible cases, that the eyes are strong and can recover if their owner gives to them a good, sustained opportunity. Doctor W.H. Bates wrote some eighty years ago that children under twelve that never wore glasses get a permanent cure in days, weeks or months if they make a daily practice to read a Snellen test card at least once with each eye separately and then with both eyes together. It should be quite easy to check his statement. Anybody here who reads this message and happens to have a child with beginning eye troubles and the child is willing to be cured without glasses is strongly recommended to buy any Snellen eyechart and put it up against a good lighted wall in the home and remembering the child to test his own sight day by day. The work should not be pressed upon the child and strain to see should be avoided. If tiny letters are not seen one day, forget them and stop to bigger letters. The day after they will be more clear, and any day clearer untile the child is cured. If the trouble is with near vision, the eyechart should be reduced by photostatic copies until the tiny ltters become 2 points sized, and the practice is done at the near point. The great pundits here should give to this method a try with some mild patient and see for themselves how miracles are created out of thin air. Instead of ruining the life of their patient selling them ugly glasses, they should teach them the correct principles of eye education. Correct principles of eye-educations are simple and effective. Other principles may be difficult and uneffective. These include eye- therapies by optometrists, behavioral optometry etcetera etcetera. Plus lenses therapy is stupid as well, because condemns the patient to the use of a crutch for their whole life and does not teach eye education also. I am talking here of the spiritual freedom one can attain for himself when becomes able to see 20 or 30/10 in the night and catches a licence plate of a moving car at a hundred meters or when it can read microscopic print at candle light at few cm from his nose. Also, the great freedom of absorbing with eyes wide open the whole colorful landscape of a full sun summer day spent in the Tuscany campaign is something really spiritual and enhancing. This cannot be attained by any visual aids but the greatest of all, that which is provided by a mind at rest. All those who wear glasses cannot understand what I am saying and should abstain from any comments. They are living an unhappy life and will die unhappily, and their last thought will be of contempt. But, if they discard their glasses and wait a few days for their eyes to relax a bit will start to notice where I am pointing. > > and when the facts are not in accord > > with the view imposed by authority, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > All persons see imperfectly when they hear an unexpected loud noise. > Familiar sounds do not lower the vision, but unfamiliar ones always do." He was sort of half right, the literature clearly demonstrates that vision can be impacted by noise, it relates to attentional processes. Familiar sounds we can inhibit but it is unwise to inhibit the unfamiliar sound of an oncoming truck ... . > "Women who wear glasses for minor defects of vision often observe that > they are made more or less color-blind by them." > > "the lens is not a factor in accommodation" > > -MT > He was sort of half right, the literature clearly demonstrates that vision > can be impacted by noise, it relates to attentional processes. Familiar > sounds we can inhibit but it is unwise to inhibit the unfamiliar sound of > an > oncoming truck ... . So, how many lines of acuity does one lose? In PSWG, Bates' spurious pronouncements outnumber the verifiably "true" statements by about 10 to 1. The most blatant are usually preceded by "it is universally found that in EVERY case" yada yada. -MT >> "Women who wear glasses for minor defects of vision often observe that >> they are made more or less color-blind by them." >> >> "the lens is not a factor in accommodation" > > He was sort of half right, the literature clearly demonstrates that vision > > can be impacted by noise, it relates to attentional processes. Familiar [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > >> "the lens is not a factor in accommodation" Mike T, I can see where you're coming from. In fact, a certain man named Tomasz Zurek, who wrote a rather biased research paper, said that Bates "claimed that perfect vision could only result from relaxation of these eye muscles." Why should I take his word for it? Where is the cited quote? Regardless of if Bates said such a thing or not, Bates' work still has to be looked at from a chronological perspective. If he said that earlier, maybe he corrected it later on? Such is the scientific world, going through a trial-and-error, 'hierarchy of fact' procedure. I'm sure Zurek didn't look through every page of Bates' own work, but people easily assume that just because Bates said one thing means he always believed in it that way. It's the people themselves that are partly to blame, because they don't realize that later observations can supersede previous observations. In addition, you have to learn 'how to read' Bates' own language used in his own scientific studies... remember he lived in the late 19th century to the early 20th century when language instruction may have been a little different and as a child he may have not been taught not to use absolutes like the rest of us modern-day people... he may have had a somewhat different understanding of his usage of absolutes than we do when we read them. Absolutes are words such as 'only, 'always', 'never', 'exactly' this long, etc. He uses them loosely, because sometimes he means it, other times he doesn't... I have countless examples I could show and others have agreed with me on how Bates sometimes has inconsistent usage of his absolutes in his language. Don't discredit him because of this. What's important is the ideas themselves. They are very original, and they obviously work, so I have no complaints... it's just that people are creating unnecessary problems and misconceptions by: 1) interpreting everything Bates says literally, and 2) not evaluating Bates' own statements from a chronological, trial- and-error, hierarchy-of-facts perspective Now, when a renowned and brilliant scientist has written thousands of pages addressing his own scientific observations, it's very likely you'll find a change of mind here and there about a few things. It would be unfair to discredit Bates (or any scientist for that matter) under such premises, yet both 1 and 2 as shown above are Zurek's own mistakes in his research paper. 1 and 2 are needed in order to intelligently filter through the massive volumes of Bates' own works. Simply put, Zurek isn't all that bright. Credit to Spock for the above posts. > I can see where you're coming from. I doubt that you can. > In fact, a certain man named Tomasz Zurek, who wrote a rather biased > research paper, said that Bates "claimed that perfect vision could > only result from relaxation of these eye muscles." Why should I take > his word for it? Where is the cited quote? Better still, where does it actually happen? We "relax" those same eye muscles when we dilate with tropicamide, several times a day. I don't recall anyone _ever_ saying their vision became "perfect." > Regardless of if Bates said such a thing or not, Bates' work still has > to be looked at from a chronological perspective. If he said that > earlier, maybe he corrected it later on? I haven't seen that "corrected" edition. I've only seen the 1929 vanity publication "PSWG." > In addition, you have to learn 'how to read' Bates' own language used > in his own scientific studies... remember he lived in the late 19th [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > had a somewhat different understanding of his usage of absolutes than > we do when we read them. He also had a different understanding of physics. > What's important is the ideas themselves. They are very original, and > they obviously work, so I have no complaints... If you think they "work" then your standards are no better than Bates'. -MT Mike, >Better still, where does it actually happen? >We "relax" those same eye muscles when we dilate with tropicamide, several >times a day. I don't recall anyone _ever_ saying their vision became >"perfect." I apologize if I was not being clear in my earlier post; I had been referring to the fact that the data in concern contains the error of assuming that Bates made any such statement in the first place. A critic can make the statement "Bates claimed that perfect vision could only result from relaxation of these eye muscles.", yet without providing a citation or reference, it remains an assumption. >I haven't seen that "corrected" edition. I've only seen the 1929 vanity >publication "PSWG." PSWG was published in 1920. To which edition do you refer? > PSWG was published in 1920. To which edition do you refer? Sorry. Mine says 1920, by the "Central Fixation Publishing Company." -MT > > He was sort of half right, the literature clearly demonstrates that vision > > can be impacted by noise, it relates to attentional processes. Familiar [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So, how many lines of acuity does one lose? When I used the Bates Method I gained two. The last 3 exams have resulted in the clinicians remarking that my visual acuity in right eye is very good for someone my age and with my pathologies. I was originally prescribed some glasses but knowing nothing about this vision stuff I went to the local library. The only book there was "Better Eyesight Without Glasses". Thankfully I knew nothing of the controversy. So I did the exercises, religiously, and since then no doctor has ever prescribed me glasses, even though at my age 48, I should be presbyopic, and given my multiple visual pathologies - exotrope, 3rd nerve palsy, right optic nerve damage, ptosis left eye, finger vision right eye - I should be having more problems. I have had some intractable problems like monocular diplopia and blurring irrespective of distance but all the specialists have simply said is "get used to it, with your condition you're lucky to see as well as you do" (6\5 left eye). So rant against Bates all you like but keep in mind that out here there are thousands of people who have been glasses for many years and threw these away after trying some different than the standard treatments. What I find particularly annoying about the conventional medicine attitude towards Bates is that it is similiar to their attitude towards many non-conventional therapies. The problem for conventional medicine is ongoing research is establishing that many of these so called voodoo medicines actually work very well. The arrogance and often hubris of conventional medicine is one key factor that has made many people seek out unconventional treatments. Granted Bates was a nut and many of his followers aren't that much better. I have an saying in relation to such matters: behind old wives' tales one can often find a nagging truth. I don't care about theories of vision, the idea implicit in your first post was that vision remains a separately functioning sensory system and that is just plain wrong. Brains don't work like that but if you spend all your life studying just one aspect of brain function it is easy to end up with that false belief. To a man with a hammer ... . Vision is not just about acuity. For example, after mild brain injury there can problems with smooth eye pursuit. Schizophrenics have altered saccade dynamics, people with ocular muscle issues report strange vision experiences, attentive processes can impact on vision. As for "verifiably true", I'd like to know how that can be so absolute. Having read thousands of primary research articles, mostly in relation to neuroimmunology, I am no longer surprised that what was once "verifiably true", no longer remains so. For decades everyone thought immuno privilege re the CNS was verifiably true. It aint, it never was, we now know much better, but it has only been in the last decade that this has changed. The same is true of the self-nonself theory of immunology. Tis bollocks yet today many, perhaps the majority of clinicians, still think of immunological processes within this paradigm. These were fundamental theories in immunology and in the last decade these have been completely debunked. So much for "verifiably true". Once you start proclaiming that something is "verifiably true" you stop thinking about that something. At that point you stop being a scientist and begin becoming a dogmatist. I do not think Bates is the solution but on the evidence I've seen I am prepared to admit that for some people Bates clearly works. It worked for me. The attitude of some here reminds me of the attitude physicists had towards Marconi's experiments. "It is theoretically impossible, it can't work!". It worked, so they changed their theory. Physicists are trained to be scientists, doctors are not. > In PSWG, Bates' spurious pronouncements outnumber the verifiably "true" > statements by about 10 to 1. The most blatant are usually preceded by "it is > universally found that in EVERY case" yada yada. > > -MT > >> "Women who wear glasses for minor defects of vision often observe that > >> they are made more or less color-blind by them." > >> > >> "the lens is not a factor in accommodation" >> > He was sort of half right, the literature clearly demonstrates that >vision [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >When I used the Bates Method I gained two. Good. Instead of asking the question that you were ASKED, answer the question that you WISH YOU HAD BEEN ASKED. Good. >The last 3 exams have resulted in >the clinicians remarking that my visual acuity in right eye is very good for >someone my age and with my pathologies. Does that mean that your underlying (particularly your cycloplegic) refraction had changed? If so, do you know whether it changed in any way that differs from the normal outcome (some get better, some get worse, some stay the same) over time? >I was originally prescribed some >glasses but knowing nothing about this vision stuff I went to the local >library. The only book there was "Better Eyesight Without Glasses". >Thankfully I knew nothing of the controversy. So I did the exercises, >religiously, That's really the only way to do them, by the way. >and since then no doctor has ever prescribed me glasses, even >though at my age 48, I should be presbyopic, Unless you aren't. My uncle just got reading glasses two years ago, at age 58. He has a doctoral degree, and has been in accounting for over 30 years. >and given my multiple visual >pathologies - exotrope, 3rd nerve palsy, right optic nerve damage, ptosis >left eye, finger vision right eye - I should be having more problems. Because you have those problems with your eyes, you "should be having more problems" ?? Have you met Otis? You two would have lots to talk about. >I have >had some intractable problems like monocular diplopia and blurring [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >there are thousands of people who have been glasses for many years and threw >these away after trying some different than the standard treatments. Throwing away your glasses is not indicative of underlying vision improvement. It's just indicative of having thrown away your glasses. In case you care. >What I >find particularly annoying about the conventional medicine attitude towards [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >very well. The arrogance and often hubris of conventional medicine is one >key factor that has made many people seek out unconventional treatments. Most eye doctors that I've talked to have absolutely no interest in dissuading people from trying the Bates methods. They simply tell them not to get their hopes up. >Granted Bates was a nut and many of his followers aren't that much better. Have you met Otis? > I >have an saying in relation to such matters: behind old wives' tales one can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >if you spend all your life studying just one aspect of brain function it is >easy to end up with that false belief. To a man with a hammer ... . Have you met Otis? >Vision >is not just about acuity. For example, after mild brain injury there can >problems with smooth eye pursuit. Schizophrenics have altered saccade >dynamics, people with ocular muscle issues report strange vision >experiences, attentive processes can impact on vision. I'm fairly comfortable with the notion that most eye doctors understand these things. >As for "verifiably true", I'd like to know how that can be so absolute. >Having read thousands of primary research articles, mostly in relation to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >today many, perhaps the majority of clinicians, still think of immunological >processes within this paradigm. In well-designed trials with adequate sample sizes, you can get a fairly good idea about which things work and which things don't. Controlling for variables--using peer-matching, etc.--is of significant help. Something like Bates method lends itself fairly well to fairly conclusive testing. False negatives would be very unlikely. >These were fundamental theories in >immunology and in the last decade these have been completely debunked. So >much for "verifiably true". Once you start proclaiming that something is >"verifiably true" you stop thinking about that something. At that point you >stop being a scientist and begin becoming a dogmatist. No. That's simply untrue by definition. People use these "verifiable truths" as elements in new hypotheses, then test those hypotheses, too. The original hypothesis is always subject to revision and modification. Unless, of course, you're Otis. Have you met Otis? >I do not think Bates is the solution but on the evidence I've seen I am >prepared to admit that for some people Bates clearly works. What evidence have you seen? >It worked for >me. But, if you're as rational as you seem to claim, then how would you explain that untreated groups--say: of myopes--may get better, may get worse, and may stay the same, in the USAF Academy test, over 2.5 years? Given that, how can you state, with certainty (a certainty that you just decried in your post) that your intervention mattered one whit? >The attitude of some here reminds me of the attitude physicists had >towards Marconi's experiments. "It is theoretically impossible, it can't >work!". It worked, so they changed their theory. Physicists are trained to >be scientists, doctors are not. Yeah, Marconi. Good one. How many times were the skeptics right? You don't hear much about that, do you? Have you met Otis? > >> > He was sort of half right, the literature clearly demonstrates that > >vision [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Good. Much more importantly, what does the good doctor suggest that loud noises cannot impact on vision dynamics? I cannot answer the lines question because I was simply pointing out that sensory modalities do interact in ways that are quite surprising. The doctor's remark suggested that this is a silly idea. I may have misunderstood him on tha tscore. I was simply making an observation about complex this can get, an interesting aside, and you have to turn it into a question that you want addressed? My original post was not addressing that issue at all, it was addressing the issue of polysensory integration, so you have erected a straw man. > >The last 3 exams have resulted in > >the clinicians remarking that my visual acuity in right eye is very good for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That's really the only way to do them, by the way. Yeah, its like taking medication or undergoing therapy. You have to get it right. > >and since then no doctor has ever prescribed me glasses, even > >though at my age 48, I should be |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message