Now that's not as easy a question as it first appears.

Otis IS RELIABLE.  

You can count on him to be wrong.

You can count on him not to answer direct, valid questions.

You can count on him to lie.

You can count on him to omit important information.

You can count on him to fabricate studies.

You can count on him to ignore relevant studies.

You can count on him to mis-state the conclusions OF relevant studies.

You can count on him to spout logical fallacy after logical fallacy
after logical fallacy.

You can count on him to misquote you.

So ... you're asking for a comparison to somebody who HAS proven
themselves QUITE RELIABLE, no?

Dear DarkProto,

Only YOU can be a judge of that.

Otis

Yes.
But who cares?
What kind of a question is that anyway?

No not t all as you were the one who recommended Laser correction for
a twelve year old.
sci.med.vision@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Strange vision problem - 23 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/f9e3178db7cf2
a17?hl=en
* EBMD question. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/79baf84401f77
46b?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Strange vision problem
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/f9e3178db7cf2
a17?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 8:54 am
From: "otisbrown@pa.net"

Dear DarkProtoman,

It is always good to be able to double-check your
prescription against the lens you are provided with.

It is also possible to reverse the OD and OS.

Dr. Leif Hertzog will be very supportive of your
desire to learn how to check in this matter,
and that you were able to detect a
techincal problem with the prescription.

Most ophthamologists support your ability
to learn about this subject.

Others (tragically) do not trust your
technical ability.

Otis

== 2 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 9:19 am
From: "Mike Tyner"

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

Doctor: (hands cover paddle to patient) Cover your right eye for me.

(patient covers right eye and reads the chart)

Doctor: Now cover the other eye.

Patient: (reaches up and covers left eye with his hand) Now I can't
see
anything!

True story.

-MT

== 3 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 10:36 am
From: "otisbrown@pa.net"

Ah, yes.

Ho, Ho, Ho -- good optometric laugh line.

Because SOME patients are stupid, and technically
inept -- you naturally ASSUME that all
patients are stupid and inept.  And should
be treated that way.

Otis

On Jun 21, 12:19 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:

== 4 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 10:55 am
From: "Mike Tyner"

<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote

When you decide who I am, what I do and how I do it, please let me
know.

Some newsgroup participants are stupid and inept. Does that mean they
all
are?

-MT

== 5 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 10:57 am
From: Neil Brooks

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 10:36:55 -0700, "otisbrown@pa.net"
<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote:

Dear Uncle (scr)Otis:

As always, your hypocrisy astounds.  YOU are the king of:

- invent a position held by a (fictitious or otherwise) eye doctor;

- extrapolate from that invented position to the presumed "standard
of practice" of ALL eye doctors.

Nobody else around here does that BUT YOU.

God, but you're an idiot.

== 6 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 10:58 am
From: Neil Brooks

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:54:43 -0700, "otisbrown@pa.net"
<otisbrown@pa.net> wrote:

Gosh, Uncle Otie.

On what basis do you make THAT claim.

Just some little tidbit that you pulled from your a$$?

Par for the course, sadly.

== 7 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 11:29 am
From: DarkProtoman

On Jun 21, 10:58 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What this Otis Brown guy's story anyway? He needs to be crucified
while getting a 10 gigacandela light shined through +100D lenses in
his eyes --w/ atropine eyedrops for good measure--...

== 8 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 11:56 am
From: Neil Brooks

You're okay, DarkProtoman.

Stick around.  I'll buy lunch ;-)

== 9 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 11:59 am
From: DarkProtoman

On Jun 21, 11:56 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Thanks! BTW, I'm just wondering, but what do you mean "you're okay"?

== 10 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 12:30 pm
From: Neil Brooks

That was a bit ambiguous.  Apologies.

I meant that--having seen through Otis's lunacy so quickly--you're
clearly a rational, bright, and perceptive person.

We like that around here.

It takes more than a few of us to offset Uncle Otie's under-medicated
dementia.

So ... you're okay ... you fit ;-)

== 11 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 1:28 pm
From: Dave Bell

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brooks wrote:

Are you saying that is not true, Neil? How can you speak for all
ophthalmologists, any more than Otis can?

Par for the course again, as the sad little cadre of Otis haters
attack
even *correct* and supportive statements, as pclarkii did earlier...

Dark Protoman, you'll just have to learn to live with the poor S/N of
this
group. By all means, tune out Otis' extreme and misleading views, but
you'll also have to learn to ognore the whiners.

Dave

== 12 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 1:49 pm
From: Neil Brooks

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:28:28 -0700, Dave Bell
<dbell@TheSPAMFREEBells.net> wrote:

Gee, Dave.  Maybe it has something to do with all the hours that I've
spent conversing with the teaching ophthalmologists and the faculty at
several of the nation's leading optometry schools ... along with the,
literally, scores of MD's and OD's that I've seen in my life.

Ya' see, Ol' Davie Boy: you'll have to learn a thing or two about me:

1) I started on this forum wayyyy back when.

2) When I know something, I contribute.

3) When I don't know something, I keep my mouth shut.

4) I don't come here merely to bash eye doctors.

5) My dreams of becoming a commercial pilot weren't dashed by myopia.
I DO have vision problems, but I don't pathologically blame them on
some concocted story that gives me a devil to despise.

6) I follow logic, rational thinking, critical thinking, and evidence
to their conclusions.  Not the reverse.

7) I don't use fear-mongering like a cult-leader would.  I show people
erroneous logic, balls-out lies, mis-statements, evasions, and
half-truths.  It's called "impeaching the witness's credibility."

8) I defy you to find one place where I offered anybody any advice
that caused them harm (see #3 above).

If you need/would like me to keep going, I shall.  If you look beneath
all of what YOU call "noise," I've generated plenty of what you call
"signal" in my time.

You?  You just hypocritally doing what it is you accuse ME of doing?

Got it.  Thanks.

== 13 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 1:52 pm
From: DarkProtoman

On Jun 21, 12:30 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Yeah, the first one of his responses to my question said I need a
+1.00D lens OS; +4.50D OD. WTF?!!!!? That'd make my vision twice as
worse!!!! I don't need to be tripping over my feet 24/7!!!!!

The OD DID say why he gave me minus lenses...b/c it corrects the
refractive error. Unlike the "Donder's theory" Otis apparently
subscribes to, which would probably get me killed w/in an hour of
recieving my lenses. I'd probably walk into a bus...

== 14 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 1:56 pm
From: DarkProtoman

Uh...myopic is nearsighted. Your eyes are too strong, causing them to
focus in front of the retina; they need a diverging lens --minus
diopter-- to weaken them, allowing them to focus on the retina.
Farsightedness is the reverse of the above.

== 15 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 3:28 pm
From: Dave Bell

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Neil Brooks wrote:

Bunch of answers to questons I didn't ask deleted...
The statement by Otis still stands:

While most ODs support patients' abilities to learn about their
condition,
there are a few who do not. I would say the case of the gentleman who
was
"fired" by his cataract surgeon, for quesioning the choice of implant,
would support that claim.

My comment, while admittedly adding to the noise, was that you jumped
on
Otis' correct and true statement, painting it with the same tarry
brush
you use when he is indeed wrong. Similarly, when he stated that Dr,
Judy
was correct, pclarkii had to jump in and bad-mouth him,

These are examples of what I termed "ad hominem" attacks: derogatory
comments made on the basis of *who said it*, not *what he said*.

Once again, I find myself mud-wrestling with pigs...

== 16 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 5:12 pm
From: Neil Brooks

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:28:53 -0700, Dave Bell

'Cept the difference here is: you're mud-wrestling with the ones who
DON'T HURT anybody.

Your choice of sides confounds me.

== 17 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 5:30 pm
From: Dave Bell

Neil Brooks wrote:

Of course it does! That's because you won't acknowledge that your
blather about Otis is serving nothing except your own ego.

== 18 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 6:05 pm
From: Neil Brooks

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 17:30:54 -0700, Dave Bell
<dbell@TheSPAMFREEBells.net> wrote:

I believe we've already covered the "Ever seen double for any
substantial length of time, Dave?" question, so ... meanwhile ...
either take your OWN advice and kill-file me OR ... piss off.

If you think it's about my ego, then--again--you haven't been stuck
with double vision (Yes, Dan, I know YOU have).

If you think preying on adolescents (those on "the threshold") is
cool, then YOU (Mr. I Adopt Former Soviet Block Children) and I have
different views about kids, and about society's need to protect them
from predators--older men who, themselves, are at a (very different)
"threshold."

I think I'm done with you.  Take care now.

Buh-bye.

== 19 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 6:07 pm
From: Dan Abel

In article <QKEei.2786$vi5.2281@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net>,
Dave Bell <dbell@TheSPAMFREEBells.net> wrote:

Of course it does! That's because you won't acknowledge that your

blather about Neil is serving nothing except your own ego.

== 20 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 6:37 pm
From: "MsBrainy via MedKB.com"

Dave Bell wrote:

Dave, if you don't want to mud-wrestle with pigs, then don't... it's
your
choice, nobody is forcing you to jump in to the puddle, so don't
complain.
You are doing exactly the same thing you accuse others of doing.  It's
just
your choice of side in this never-ending debate that is puzzling...

--
MsBrainy

== 21 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 7:25 pm
From: Dr Judy

In Otis defense (never thought I would type that), you did state your
refractive error was +1.00 and +4.50 which would be corrected with
plus lense.  Although I have no idea what Otis meant by " according to
Donder's theory".

Dr Judy

== 22 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 8:05 pm
From: "MsBrainy via MedKB.com"

Is this YOUR determination of your refractive error, or is it the Rx
written
by your optomerist?

I suspect there is a matter of terminology here.  You stated that you
are
myopic.  It seems that you determined a "refractive error" as the
negative of
the prescription, which (apparently according to your way of thinking)
will
zero your error and thus correct it.  My understanding is that this is
not
the conventional way of expressing refractive error, but what do I
know, I am
not an optometrist.  Anyway, I believe that this is the source of the
confusion here.

This swapping and flipping stuff is even more confusing... If your
glasses do
not give you the needed vision correction, obviously something is
wrong
despite all the optometrist "assurances".  It's possible that the
glasses fit
the Rx, but the Rx is wrong to begin with.  IMHO you need a new
(perhaps
independent) vision exam.   Again, I am not an optometrist.

--
MsBrainy

== 23 of 23 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 8:18 pm
From: Dave Bell

MsBrainy via MedKB.com wrote:

I was indeed lecturing myself about wrestling pigs. High time I gave
up.
But I'm not really taking sides, you see. I'd would simply prefer to
see
the vacuous bitching silenced. I note that I don't see much in the way
of similar attacks *from Otis*. He may be wrong, and arguably giving
harmful advice, but he doesn't commonly engage in the kind of slurs
the
"other side" does.

Dave

==============================================================================
TOPIC: EBMD question.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/79baf84401f77
46b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Jun 21 2007 6:28 pm
From: Crumb

So the dystrophy that is described as secondary to malnutrition or
metabolic disorder is a different type of dystrophy than those listed
as an example. They really got to correct that as it causes
confusion :-)

I figured the nutritional approach was a bunch of hooey.

The little light at the end of the tunnel was good while it lasted,
though.

Thanks for your reply

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "sci.med.vision"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.med.vision-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to
abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Reply Reply to all Forward Invite sci.med.vision to Gmail

Choose Language
 Auto
 English (US)
 English (UK)
 Deutsch
 Espa?ol
 Portugu?s
 Portugu?s (Portugal)
 Fran?ais
 Italiano
 Nederlands
 Polski
 Svenska
 Norsk
 Suomi
 Dansk
         
 Hrvatski
 Magyar
 Slovensk?
 Sloven? ina
           
 Ti ng Vi t
         
 ?slenska
 Bahasa Indonesia
 Catal?
  esk?
 Eesti keel
       
 Lietuvi
 Rom?n
       
 Tagalog
 Hebrew
 Arabic
 Malay
 Latin

New window
Print all
Would you like to...
Add to calendar
Strange vision problem...
Thu Jun 21, 2007 8:54am

Sponsored Links
Canon 5D Deluxe Package
Dont Overpay For The Accessories 3 Lens 6gb Flash Case $5000 value
www.DigiCombos.Com
Better Eye Care Secrets
Learn How to Improve Your Vision & Relieve Eye Strain - Naturally!
www.Program-for-Better-Vision.com
Laser Eye Surgery
Ground Breaking Technology to safely improve your Vision!
www.phirozedastoor.com
Lumix DMC-FZ7 $274.95
Panasonic Lumix 6MP, 12X zoom Leica lens. Free shipping. $274.95
www.Amazon.com/Lumix6MP
OEM Priced Micro Optics
Micro prisms -Rt. Angle, Amci Roof Lenses-Achromat, Ball, Plano,
www.westportoptics.com
Optical System Design
ZEMAX: Powerful, Accurate Software for Optical System Design
www.zemax.com
Canon EF lenses
Canon EOS Pro Dealer.
New Low Prices on Many Lenses.
www.waltersphotovideo.co.uk
Visian ICL Official Site
Learn about an advanced alternative to laser vision correction
www.VisianInfo.com
More about...
Eye Care ?
Eye Pain ?
Eye Surgery ?
Laser Eye ?

Related Pages
Advanced Medical- FDA clears eye-correction procedure
Reuters - Jul 18, 2007
July 18 (Reuters) - Advanced Medical Optics Inc. (EYE.N: Quote, ...
About these links

? Back to "Groups"Remove label "Groups"Report SpamDeleteMore
actions...--------Apply label:   New label...? Newer 138 of 170 Older
?

Use the search box or search options to find messages quickly!
You are currently using 157 MB (5%) of your 2878 MB.
Gmail view: standard with chat | standard without chat | basic HTML
Learn more
?2007 Google - Terms of Use - Privacy Policy - Program Policies -
Google Home

No not all Dark.Read.As mentioned earlier you deserve to be only in
philosophy group and do'nt poke.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Child & Contacts - Should I take him to another doc?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/ff9dcdea83db4
0b7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2007 5:42 pm
From: "FKS"

My 12 year old son is near sighted and wants to try contacts because
several
of his classmates have started wearing them. He has been seeing the
same
pediatric ophthalmologist since he was born (the doc is good). The way
contacts are presribed at his medical group is that his assistant does
the
fitting and teaches the child how to use contacts.

My son has had two 30 minutes sessions with the female assistant and
he has
not been able to put them in & take them out. I asked her to give me
contacts so that my son could practice at home, but she said, "For
safety, I
cannot give you contacts unless he puts them in & takes them out in
front of
me."

So, we have another session next week but I highly doubt that my son
can
suddenly handle contacts. The point that I'm making is, "Is it a
standard
procedure not to give contacts to me (and my son) in this situation?"
Without contacts, how can my son practice and how can I teach him? I
don't
know how many sessions my son would need.

Can I ask for the prescription and order contacts on-line? Thanks.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2007 6:49 pm
From: DarkProtoman

On 23 Jun, 17:42, "FKS" <f...@fks.com> wrote:

Let me tell you something: contacts are very uncomfortable to wear. My
friend who wears them --I wear specs-- says that when she first got
them, they felt like she had sand in her eyes for weeks. Also, you can
lose contacts *very* easily; I doubt your 12yr old would enjoy
spending a good 15 minutes looking for a plastic disc the size of a
dime, when he could be out playing or studying. Just get him a pair of
stylish Flexon --they're the kind you could run over w/ a freight
train and they wouldn't break-- glasses w/ lenses that are:

Apochromatic --correct chromatic abberations in all three primary
colors; not achromatic, they only correct two primary colors--
Atoric --corrects spherical abberations in all directions; not
aspheric, they only correct the x, y, and z axes--
ECM-9 polycarbonate --even thinner than normal CR-39 polycarbonate--
Anti-reflective coating --reduces glare; you can see clearer--
Anti-scratch coating --duh!--
Photochromic coating --makes the lenses change from clear to dark in
sunlight; w/ contacts you'd need a pair of superexpensive sunglasses--

Something cool you can do w/ eyeglasses you can't do w/ contacts:
widen your eyes, look over the lenses, and sardonically grin and show
your teeth; this creeps all my friends out.

If he really doesn't want to wear eyeglasses, get an opthalmologist to
do wavefront LASIK on his eyes.

Hope this helps!!!

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2007 6:54 pm
From: DarkProtoman

Almost forgot. Dr. Leif Hertzog in Long Beach, CA is my internist's,
and soon to be my, opthalmologist. http://www.hertzogeyeassociates.com

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "sci.med.vision"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sci.med.vision-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to
abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en