 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007Incipient detached retina information.
Subject: Things to check for. While we have are second-opinion discussions about preventing ENTRY into myopia -- here is an issue for those who are in "deeper" than -6 diopters. Typically this risk increases as you get older. http://www.sightwise.org/ Best, Otis On Sep 9, 10:02 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: Things to check for. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Otis too bad there isn't a myopia prevention scheme that works. On Sep 9, 7:50 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > too bad there isn't a myopia prevention scheme that works. If, by that, you mean one that makes money for its advocates, that may not be correct. Otis and Steve Leung, for example, sell books. I'm sure there's a hefty margin in those. Fred Deakins sells software. Likewise. If, on the other hand, you mean one that actually prevents myopia, that seems true. There are those who "complain" about my posts. I suggest that they kill-file my posts. But, no, they must post their inane commentary. Q.E.D. Otis On Sep 9, 10:02 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: Things to check for. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Otis On Sep 9, 8:31 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > There are those who "complain" about my posts. I suggest > that they kill-file my posts. > > But, no, they must post their inane commentary. > > Q.E.D. As long as you're here ... and behave like a f.cking idiot ... I'll be here, too :-D Otis Brown is a f.cking idiot. QED [There's that world famous Otis Brown reasoning again....] Hi, >too bad there isn't a myopia prevention scheme that works. Actually as a matter of facts there is, you have to just read a snellen chart everyday with each eye seperately down to the lowest line you can read without discomfort or efforts. It has been proven to work, in fact did you know! I'm not lying so don't say that! Dear Absolutely Correct, Subject: The "character" of the posters -- like Neil Brooks. I posted a NEUTRAL statement -- of value to people who should KNOW about the risks of high myopia. There should have been NO COMMENTARY about that issue -- except to clarify the meaning of this particular site. So what happens: 1. Foul-mouthed Brooks posts his bullshit. 2. And PClar mounts some personal attacks. That is why sci.med.vision is "corrupted". Futher, when they tell you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid entry into a negative refractive STATE -- I suggest their prfound bias -- against science -- comes to the surfact. People do "clear" their Snellen, by these second-opinion methods. But just do not ask Brooks/Pclar to be involved. Better you recognize this intense bias to be against your own personal visual welfare -- and get control of your own life. Just one man's opinion. Otis > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > line you can read without discomfort or efforts. It has been proven to > work, in fact did you know! I'm not lying so don't say that! On Sep 10, 5:23 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > 1. Foul-mouthed Brooks posts his bullshit. There's just nothing as charming in this entire world as the irrepressible hypocrisy of Uncle Scrotis. You're SUCH a f.cking idiot, Otis. Really. Come on, Uncle Scrotis .... you've done it AGAIN: "Dear Judy, Subject: Your majority-opinion that the fundamental does not test-out as dynamic." Nobody in the world USES that terminology OR discusses THAT issue but you, so ... every time you use that as a straw man, you're just a lying f.cking idiot. If the damned "natural" or "fundamental" eye was so "dynamic," then why are you still a 6d myope? You're EITHER wrong, lazy, or stupid (or some charming combination of two or more of the above). You ask the wrong questions, test the wrong things, and arrive at the wrong conclusions ... WHEN you're not lying about the data that you selectively review (alas, you ALWAYS ARE). We know what you would do (the NON sexual part) to avoid INDUCING myopia in an infant macaque, but ... that's not very relevant to ... well ... anything that s.m.v. participants care about, now is it ... especially when you LIE about the very data that YOU use to buttress YOUR lunacy? You're a pathological liar and a f.cking idiot. QED. > Actually as a matter of facts there is, you have to just read a > snellen chart everyday with each eye seperately down to the lowest > line you can read without discomfort or efforts. It has been proven to > work, in fact did you know! I'm not lying so don't say that! Not lying, just confused. Where is this "proof" published? Why isn't it in the news? "MYOPIA CURED BY SIMPLE PROCEDURE!" So newspaper editors are part of the Great Conspiracy to sell glasses? -MT Hi, >"MYOPIA CURED BY SIMPLE PROCEDURE!" Mike, we was talking about prevention here wasn't we? Hmph! >>"MYOPIA CURED BY SIMPLE PROCEDURE!" > > Mike, we was talking about prevention here wasn't we? OK, you no longer believe myopia, presbyopia and cancer can be CURED by easy-peasy rest methods. So, care to tell us how Snellen charts can prevent myopia but blackboards and billboards can't? -MT Hi Mr.Mike, > OK, you no longer believe myopia, presbyopia and cancer can be CURED by > easy-peasy rest methods. They can! No seriously I mean it they can because rest methods really work! Trust me I'm not lying because if I was lying then that is really bad but I cross my heart and also I swear the oath I really am telling the truth: rest methods really do cure the eye defects. And they also are really easy peasy I mean there's nothing easier than resting I mean what can be easier than rest! So that's why I said it's easy peasy. Well okay I am not sure how you cure cancer but I know there is a way, just give me a little bit of time so I can research it because I used to be into all that stuff I mean like curing cancer and stuffs like that do you know what I mean. Well okay curing cancer is a bit more hard but it's not impossible the medical authorities are wrong I know it for sure I really do know it. But anyway the subject started on prevention so I thought we was talking about prevention but then the other people changed it to cure well I don't mind either way is possible, prevention and cure are both possible so it doesn't matter which one you talk about. Okay curing takes tiny winy more dedication than preventing, obviously, but I'm serious though it's not impossible and I'm not even talking about pseudomyopia I mean real myopia that can be cured not kidding! > So, care to tell us how Snellen charts can prevent myopia but blackboards > and billboards can't? Actually that's not fair because you said something which I never even said before in my whole life. Okay sure you can also use the blackboard and billboard, but come on what type of people are going to stick a blackboard in their house lol that would just look weird I mean seriously though it would. Anyhow the snellen chart is the best because it is a good optimum for the eye and when the snellen chart becomes optimumized many other things also get turned from pessium to optimum so that is why it is traditional to use the snellen chart. It's really easy peasy simple as that! > It's really easy peasy simple as that! Please, what is "rude awakening?" -MT Hi, Wow cool that's really fascinating technique Mr.Mike okay thank you very much for telling me. Okay there is another question please please can you tell me: You know when you say 'remake' what does that mean do you mean like when they have to make the glasses again. And also after that you said 'simple economics' so does that mean that the more remakes you have to make then the more money you lose? But I always thought that you don't actually make or lose money directly, but the company itself loses the money. So why do you need to be weary if there glasses have to be remade? Is it because if you have to remake it too many times then the company will lose their materials and then they lose money; so if it happens to much then they will fire you? Please please can you explain it to me. Hi, Well there used to be this band called 'Megadeath', and they made a really good album called 'Rude Awakening' just before they broke up for the first time back in 2002. It was released by Sanctuary Records. So that is what means 'Rude Awakening'. Hi, Lena actually I know exactly what you are talking about even though other people doesn't understand it I can understand. See my post earlier what was about the court homologous scenario. People's answer depends on what the question is asked. That is common sense, can be observed everyday communication life. > Hi, > > Lena actually I know exactly what you are talking about even though > other people doesn't understand it I can understand. Hello, yes > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That is common sense, can be observed everyday communication life. The more you communicate with Lena the more similar to her you sound, particularly your fluctuating command of English. Nice game, though. > You know when you say 'remake' what does that mean do you mean like > when they have to make the glasses again. Yes. > But I always thought that you don't actually make or lose money > directly, but the company itself loses the money. Why does that matter? Some optometrists do sell glasses. > So why do you need to be weary if there glasses have to be remade? Because instead of spending time fixing their problem I could be wasting it here. -MT Hi, OK thank you for answer. I didn't meaned my question to sound personal in fact, but I just am curious very much. The reason is actually I am thinking of taking work experience in the optometrists company, okay so that is why I am asking you lol. Then I can be familiar with how things work before I even taught it by my employer! > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > line you can read without discomfort or efforts. It has been proven to > work, in fact did you know! I'm not lying so don't say that! So when will you post links to the citations of that proof? We've been waiting several days for it now. Dr Judy Hello, Anyhow you don't need proofs because all the proof you can just demonstrate to yourself! Just follow the directions! Its so easy peasey lemon squeezy just read a snellen chart everyday! Anyhow the proofs was published in very reputable journals what means that the journals would want to verify the results before publish, otherwise they would lose the reputation! Also it was published in some very good journal for examples: New York Medical Journal, Medical Record, the Journal of the Allied Medical Associations of America, Virginia Medical Monthly, and the American Journal of Clinical Medicine Which are all very good and reputable journals so it means they would all have to verify the proof to see that it is not a lie or a joke. If you know what I means! Anyhow yes I cannot post the link may be I will search for it later but the citation is this: New York Medical Journal, July 29, 1911, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 237-238. Also I don't know why the newspaper didn't publish it may be because they didn't know about it. I don't sure. Hi, >Not lying, just confused. How dare you! I am not even confused not even a tiny bit so don't ever say that or I will say bad names for you as well. You should apologize because I am not confused. >>Not lying, just confused. > > How dare you! I am not even confused not even a tiny bit so don't ever > say that or I will say bad names for you as well. You should apologize > because I am not confused. But you believe reading a Snellen chart cures myopia. -MT > >>Not lying, just confused. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -MT Scientific name for method that OD use to find correct prescription when patient looks at snellen is "Forced Choice" Lena > Scientific name for method > that OD use > to find correct prescription when patient looks at snellen is > "Forced Choice" Prescription is not determined by choice of letters. Prescription is determined by choice of blur/not blur. Prescription can be determined without letters. -MT > > Scientific name for method > > that OD use [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -MT "Better this or this " it is "forced choice " technique in neuroscience Hi, Yes you know it is a bit like in a court say if the judge or interviewer asks you: Did you see him shoot the red cloaked man, Or: Did you see him stab him with a knife. Then it is a suggestive question which might confuse the interpretation, so that's why judges have to be as neutral as possible, I mean so they have to ask a question like: Did you see him? What was he doing? Because that is a more neutral question and does not suggest anything, and the person being questioned does not feel obliged to give one answer or the other in this scenario, or obliged to 'please the questioneer', do you know what I mean though? It's a bit like that; with the 'do you see this one clearer or do you see this one clearer' it's a forced choice. If that makes sense to anybody! > "Better this or this " it is "forced choice " technique in neuroscience But in refraction, a third choice (no difference) usually identifies the endpoint. In the "forced choice" paradigm, you are forced to guess and you aren't allowed to say "I can't tell." In refraction, we don't want guessing. "I can't tell" or "both equally clear" means we're finished. -MT Hi Mr.Mike, Do you know when they ask you 'do you see this one better' like 'number 1 or number 2' then they make you say it really quick don't they? Is that because the first impression is usually the most accurate isn't it. Because if you linger onto the answer for a while then you slowly start to get confused and the original imprint of the first impression fades away and you forget. So the more you wait the more unsure you get. But is that true? I mean is that why they try and do the test really fast? So then the prescription will be more accurate. Please please can you explain it please! > But is that true? I mean is that why they try and do the test really > fast? So then the prescription will be more accurate. Some refractionists go too fast. Even so, pausing and giving time to study only increases the chance that people will accommodate unconsciously. I usually point out a single letter or two, to observe while we're checking "one or two." Those who want me to slow down usually want to compare the whole chart, or a whole line, letter-by-letter, each time I flip a lens. They get confused, then frustrated because I don't want to "do it their way." When I do it "their way" my remake rate is very high. When I do it "my way" the remake rate is very low. Simple economics. -MT > > "Better this or this " it is "forced choice " technique in neuroscience > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > -MT Mike, On Question "What is better" physiologically, in most cases, patient will try to answer "what is better" Not "no difference." Answer depends from question, Especially doctor question Question can you read that line assumes Yes or no "No" without trying. (Presuming that brightness we accept by Stevens power low. it seems to us almost squarer root from what we really see) Question "Read that line, please" Presumes "try to read." Answer will be different. I tried it Let presume that IVAC is incorrect It does not make any difference Question "can you read the line" - answer "No" same line: Question what is that letter , (pointing To letter ) 100% correct answers. It is not like i am saying something new , It should be somewhere in textbooks. Lena > On Question "What is better" > physiologically, in most cases, patient will try to answer "what is > better" > Not "no difference." They will, if they know that's what I'm looking for. Technically they're "forced to choose" between a) 1 or b) 2 or c) can't tell a difference. That's a "forced choice". But I don't want them guessing, and I don't want an error level. Those are usually part of the "forced choice paradigm", at least as it's taught in graduate statistics here. -MT > > On Question "What is better" > > physiologically, in most cases, patient will try to answer "what is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -MT No. "forced choice" it is for example two stimulus with question "which one". "that better or that" -forced choice. Everything that I described it is just "old fashioned " method. It is not error or no error. It is encouragement or disencouragement Do you ever tell patient words like "very good"? No, if you do not ask "read the line" I think, they want to hear "very good" > > > On Question "What is better" > > > physiologically, in most cases, patient will try to answer "what is [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > - Show quoted text - What the hell are you talking about. A vision test (at least for literate adults) begins with reading the letters. The patient not asked whether s/he can see, but is required to read the letters. Based on the line in which the blur begins (and the patient can no longer identify the letters), various lenses are provided to enable him to see lower in the chart. At a certain point no additional lens power shows any visual improvement. The "forced choice" you describe is only the final stage, designed to refine the process. It's uaually done on a line which the patient can read, but is given a choice of better or worse clarity. Of course this should not be of interest to you, because your view is that if one can find the memorized way to the bathroom, no correction is needed and the patient is fine. So why are you arguing this? > > > > On Question "What is better" > > > > physiologically, in most cases, patient will try to answer "what is [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > that if one can find the memorized way to the bathroom, no correction > is needed and the patient is fine. So why are you arguing this? It is not a choice It is a panic It is not whole image of Snellen when someone can make real choice It is just cut of image: last line. It is "forced choice" with insuffisient info about vision. It does not makes feel anybody too good. It is trying to make "forced" deccision. t is "forced choice" with insufficient info about vision.(last line not whole Snellen) It does not makes feel anybody too good. It is trying to make "forced" decision on The basis of luck of info > > On Question "What is better" > > physiologically, in most cases, patient will try to answer "what is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Technically they're "forced to choose" between a) 1 or b) 2 or c) can't tell > a difference. Mike, c- not going to work with hyperopes.at the distance Do not know how OD test children For child it is very confusing. Child will try to answer a) or b L >c- not going to work with hyperopes.at the distance > > Do not know how OD test children > For child it is very confusing. > Child will try to answer a) or b It's all too difficult, so I just hired someone else to examine the children and hyperopes. -MT > >c- not going to work with hyperopes.at the distance > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -MT >Do not know how OD test children Mike, Sorry, I just mean that I have never seen it. Lena Hi, Mind well that is is not ordinary retinoscopy, but simultaneous retinoscopy. It is much higher level than just normal retinoscopy, really! Do you really really know how to use it? Can you teach me, then.Give the outline of methodology. Hi Mr.Brooks, >I just gave you the answer, genius: I DON'T see BETTER than my >emmetropic friends. Actually, I see WORSE. Much worse. Well what I is saying is that the person who practice the snellen not get worse but better! I mean they can actually see better! I don't understand how come you don't understand it wow its really really simple. So you said that you see worse than your emmotropic friends, what I am saying is that with the snellen method a person can learn to see better than the emmetropic friends. It is really simple! > Hi Mr.Brooks, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > what I am saying is that with the snellen method a person can learn to > see better than the emmetropic friends. It is really simple! ...except it doesn't work when you look at something other than a Snellen chart. Hi, No no but don't you see that's the whole point which I keep trying to tell you. Please just listen to me for once: You see better all unfamiliar objects, not just snellen! So that means, just forget all about the snellen okay and now lets say a person goes outside and he says 'wow, I can see the trees which are in the distance so good!' so that is the kind of thing what I am talking about when I say 'better eyesight' I am not saying 'guesswork of letters' okay that is just stupid what kind of a cure would that be. And how would a person discard their glasses without having better eyesight. You think they can just rely on memorizing the letter order of a snellen? Come on man use a bit of common sense now, the people who uses the method is not that stupid you know! But do you know what I mean though, here? It's really easy peasy just don't complicate it because it's simple not hard at all! Hi Mr.Mike, >I use it several times a day. Okay really so are you really familiar with simultaneous retinoscopy? If you really are then I will be very impressed because it is a very advanced technique unknown to most optometrists. If you really are familiar with its use then describe to me the methodology. Remember I am not talking about just 'retinoscopy' because 'retinoscopy' and 'simultaneous retinoscopy' are two different things. Don't confuse them okay. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > really easy peasy just don't complicate it because it's simple not > hard at all! Let's try an experiment here: you keep repeating the same thing and we'll all evaluate whether -- by mere repetition -- it becomes any more true. So far, I'd say no. Not at all. Everybody understands your position (which you keep beating to death), but nobody agrees with it. Luckily, most here seem to know a HELL of a lot more about the issue than you do. So far, I'd say you sound as ridiculous as Lena. Saying your pants fit you differently simply does NOT mean that you've lost weight. Lena runs and hides when clearly proved wrong. It would be nice if you would, too. Hi, >Everybody understands your position I don't think everybody understands my position otherwise there would be no need to bring up the topic of 'letter guesswork' or 'snellen memorization'! This is a very silly thing to argument of and also I can't believe you don't understand the simple thing. It's so easy! Hi Mr.Brooks, >You're making an assertion, and I'm calling that assertion inaccurate. Okay look I'm listening okay. What is my assertion? Just tell me straight and I promise I will listen to you. We can settle this quickly just answer directly no monkey business okay. Anyhow does anybody here knows how to use simultaneous retinoscopy? I will be very impressed if anyone can accurately describe the procedure. Hi, >Lena runs and hides when clearly proved wrong. I think she is not cowards like some of the other posters here who hide behind the big words and think they are very impressive because they knows a few medical terminology here and there. Actually as a matter of fact I think Lena has been always polite but you are the one who started the rudeness to her. If you are rude to her then why should she be polite. You are lucky that she doesn't just call you names like you call Otis names all the time. Actually she is a very much more respectable person than many others and I look up to her very much. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > much more respectable person than many others and I look up to her > very much. Style over substance -- something about which I simply don't give a sh.t ;-) Hi, >You are on your own, Quasi. (but you can ask Kaze) See you are calling me name again (Quasi) which means you are very rude and bad and you should not call me names because otherwise I will do the same thing to you! So if you don't want that to happen then you better stop now! Anyway I am not asking people 'how to do retinoscopy because I need to know how' actually I already know how my cousin who is a genius of ophthalmology taught me how to use it. But I just want to see if anyone else knows how to do it. Hi, It is not the matter of 'style over the substence' actually they are both very important. Good and polite style will lead to good and nice substance. They exist together, work together in proper sync. I mean for example if you ask someone: WTF you are such stupid stupid stupid! Now can you tell me why [x] happens and why you are right about [x]. Come on man what kind of an answer do you expect to get. Surely not a polite one! Otherwise you are being very silly and you should know better than that actually. > Hi, > > It is not the matter of 'style over the substence' actually they are > both very important. > > Good and polite style will lead to good and nice substance. You're wrong, ridiculous, full of sh.t, and I simply don't give a sh.t. Bye now. Hi, It only sounds rediculus to you because you have lived in a strange world of yours where style no longer matters to you. But style and substance are more interrelated than you like to believe. I am starting to learn that it is a basic rule of society, cannot be avoided unless you close your eyes to everything around you. Yes perhaps you will say ' no this is a science forum no one cares about style and politeness' but you know very little of the truth if this is the ignorant way in which you are thinking. Politeness leads to friendship leads to substance leads to good discussions. Rudeness leads to spite leads to hatred leads to flame war. You should escape from this illusion and bette wake up, dear friend. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ophthalmology taught me how to use it. But I just want to see if > anyone else knows how to do it. Sorry, you are not Quasimodo today? I was talking to Quasi(modo). P.S. I am afraid that your multiple personality disorder is developing to an acute case (Kaze?) of schizophrenia, coupled with gender identification issues and confusion, as well as lingual deterioration to age 11 with compulsive repetative syndrom. Obviously you didn't go to school today, which left you with too much time on your hands and nothing to play with after exhausting all the boring computer games that daddy bought you. But by all means, don't miss your doctor's appointment tomorrow and don't forget to take your medications. Otherwise you will lose it again and the students will be rolling on the floor again laughing their you-know-what out again. You don't want this to happen again, do you? Hi Ms.Brainy, You are very bad and very rude so I will not be your friend if you carry on behaving in the very unkind manner and if you keep calling me the name (Quasi) and sometimes you also call me a very bad name (Quasimodo) then I will call you names back aswell! So you better not keep doing it or I really really will! > Anyway I am not asking people 'how to do retinoscopy because I need to > know how' actually I already know how my cousin who is a genius of > ophthalmology taught me how to use it. But I just want to see if > anyone else knows how to do it. Ask your cousin about "simultaneous" retinoscopy. Odds are, he or she never heard of it either. Please point us to some link that describes "simultaneous" retinoscopy. Or explain what you mean. -MT > Anyhow does anybody here knows how to use simultaneous retinoscopy? I > will be very impressed if anyone can accurately describe the procedure. You are on your own, Quasi. (but you can ask Kaze) > use a bit of common sense now, the people who uses the method is not > that stupid you know! But do you know what I mean though, here? It's > really easy peasy just don't complicate it because it's simple not > hard at all! Common sense says dreaming is easy and life is hard. -MT > >I just gave you the answer, genius: I DON'T see BETTER than my > >emmetropic friends. Actually, I see WORSE. Much worse. > > Well what I is saying is that the person who practice the snellen not > get worse but better! I mean they can actually see better! You're making an assertion, and I'm calling that assertion inaccurate. Just because I can identify a street sign earlier (from a greater distance) than my emmetropic friends does NOT mean that my visual acuity is better than theirs. Whether or not you say it a thousand times will NOT make your position any more true. Just look at Otis. He's said the same thing thousands and thousands of times and he's still a [wait for it....] f.cking idiot. > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > distance) than my emmetropic friends does NOT mean that my visual > acuity is better than theirs. Neil, If you do not know in advance the name of the street, and even if you do It means that You visual actually at the distance much better than VA of your emetropic friend. Lena > On Sep 10, 4:15 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:> X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Lena That's not what I'm talking about ... and not what I said. If I know the name of the street for which I'm looking, and they do not, then the fact that I can RECOGNIZE IT before they can read it does NOT mean that my VA is better. The can read a few lines below me on a Snellen eye chart. THAT DOES mean that their VA is better than mine. Getting good at reading Snellens doesn't necessarily mean that you've improved your vision. Pattern recognition/blur interpretation are not the same as visual acuity. As I've often said (and, IIRC, Dr. L offered): life ain't a Snellen eye chart.... > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > The can read a few lines below me on a Snellen eye chart. THAT DOES > mean that their VA is better than mine. > > Getting good at reading Snellens doesn't necessarily mean that you've > improved your vision. Pattern recognition/blur interpretation are not > the same as visual acuity. Depends: if unknown new place Pattern recognition/blur interpretation are THE SAME as visual acuity. > As I've often said (and, IIRC, Dr. L offered): life ain't a Snellen > eye chart.... Right Somebody can read few lines more. Snellen is not etalon. who needs all lines on snellen ? Does it makes any difference in life? Lena > > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Lena I think you're simply twisting my words (strangely, that just doesn't surprise me all that much). Recognizing letters and patterns with which you are very familiar doesn't necessarily translate into reading or sharp vision when new targets are encountered. Again: I COULD RECOGNIZE "Walnut" (the street for which I was looking) before my emmetropic friends could READ the word "Walnut" on the sign. That doesn't mean I have sharper vision. I could NOT read the other street signs from anywhere near the distance that they could ... when none of us KNEW in advance what the signs might say. One's a parlor trick. The other is visual acuity. If you don't draw any distinction there, then ...... > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > distance that they could ... when none of us KNEW in advance what the > signs might say. It is almost no point to read the name of unknown street . If you need the street you know the name and can recognize it faster. As a rule my friends who's VA theoretically worse then mine see me first. > > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > It is almost no point to read the name of unknown street . > If you need the street you know the name and can recognize it faster. But ... that's irrelevant. > As a rule my friends who's VA theoretically worse then mine see me > first. If I were sure of what you were getting at with that statement, I'd be in a better position to make a judgment about whether or not IT is relevant. Too many unknown variables at play to do anything with that statement, regardless. The analogy about dieting is exceptionally appropriate here. If the goal is to lose weight, then the metric should not be blouse size, pants size, or "how your clothing fits." It should be weight (measured by an agreed-upon standard and a consistent scale or scales). Subjective vision improvement that is NOT correlated with objectively verifiable vision improvement isn't worth anything to me. If it's worth something to others here, then I'd suggest they patronize the alternative vision websites (exclusively). > X-No-Archive: Yes > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > > - Show quoted text - People with the same refractive error will vary in their Snellen visual acuities based upon variables like pupil size, fissure width (Asians see far better than the refractive error suggests), etc. Obviously, the Bates people put far more emphasis on Snellen acuity. Optometrist, realizing that Snellen is an imprecise measure, tend to look at diopters. The two are correlated. Hi, Well I don't understand what do you mean imprecise measure. Actually I think the snellen is better because it takes the end result measurement. But the instrument you uses just may be measure the amount of dioptres, no good. Only good if you are fitting glasses, then yes. But I think the snellen is very good because it is like the end result of everything (pupil size and whatever and all that stuffs) so it is good. Do you know what I mean? >Obviously, the Bates people put far more emphasis on Snellen acuity. Well actualy as a matter of facts not really! We just put the emphasis on whether the person ends up seeing better or not seeing better. At the end of the day that is what everybody wants surely. I mean who cares about measurement when people can see clearly again. You think they care if it's still got axial length or what not other measurings. No I don't think they will even care not even a tiny bit! They will just be very happy to have gotted very good eyesight. Hi Mr.Brooks, Please please let's forget all about snellen acuity and signboards and this other stuff. What I am saying is that if a person can see things perfectly, I mean anything (not just letters and things he familiar with) then it means the eyesight is cured. I cannot understand howcome you don't understand it because its so simple easy peasy lemon squeezy, you keep repeating the same thing but I am telling you why you are wrong but you not listen to me never. But do you know what I mean. Hi Mr.Mike, Yes you are right it is a chapter in the book. It shows how to do it. > Yes you are right it is a chapter in the book. > > It shows how to do it. I read the chapter. I saw ordinary retinoscopy. What did you see? -MT > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > end result of everything (pupil size and whatever and all that stuffs) > so it is good. Do you know what I mean? No, you wouldn't understand...or try to understand. And, yes, I do know what you mean. You obviously agree with my statement. > >Obviously, the Bates people put far more emphasis on Snellen acuity. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > No I don't think they will even care not even a tiny bit! They will > just be very happy to have gotted very good eyesight. Of course you do. It's all subjective and left to each person to decide. Believe me, I have seen many, many children who were perfectly satisfied with 20/100 or 20/200 vision. This is called 20/ happy. Hi, > Of course you do. It's all subjective and left to each person to > decide. Believe me, I have seen many, many children who were > perfectly satisfied with 20/100 or 20/200 vision. This is called 20/ > happy. I don't think they was happy with the 20/100 vision I think that at the precise moment when they was happy then it meant they havd 20/20 vision because the eyesight is always fluctuating you cant even deny it because its true everyone knows it so dont say its not because its the truth. So may be when they were happy they really did have good eyesight not just subjective or 'mind trick' anyhow that doesnt make sense. Anyway happy is a good emotion very good for eyes. Hi, > Of course you do. It's all subjective and left to each person to > decide. Believe me, I have seen many, many children who were > perfectly satisfied with 20/100 or 20/200 vision. This is called 20/ > happy. I don't think they was happy with the 20/100 vision I think that at the precise moment when they was happy then it meant they havd 20/20 vision because the eyesight is always fluctuating you cant even deny it because its true everyone knows it so dont say its not because its the truth. So may be when they were happy they really did have good eyesight not just subjective or 'mind trick' anyhow that doesnt make sense. Anyway happy is a good emotion very good for eyes. Also I think then at the time when you tested them what was when they had 20/200 I think they suddenly became very nervous that is why the eyesight got worser and then you gave them a very strong prescription which is very bad because then you made their eyes need to produce the error of refraction needed to see through the lens so even if they are normally 20/20 then they might drop to 20/200 because they become nervous wearing the glasses and they dont like it. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 20/20 then they might drop to 20/200 because they become nervous > wearing the glasses and they dont like it. Why is it that you will not go away. You really should, you know. Dear Absolutely Something-must-be-done, L> Of course you do. It's all subjective and left to each person to decide. Believe me, I have seen many, many children who were perfectly satisfied with 20/100 or 20/200 vision. This is called 20/ happy. Otis> It is clear that at 20/70 SOMETHING must be done. Otis> In a school environment -- with no "protective" measures (Bates, plus-prevention) the child's refractive STATE will continue to go down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. Otis> So, if Bates (or second-opinion methods) are to be applied -- then it makes perfect sense to apply them at that point. Otis> The "open" question is this. Can the child clear his Snellen back to normal from the 20/70 level. Otis> The majority-opinion, is no, it is IMPOSSIBLE. Otis> The second-opinon, is that yes, while difficult, it is possible for you to clear your Snellen to pass the DMV level test -- AT THAT POINT. Otis> If your OD believes that "recovery" is IMPOSSIBLE, then have him say so. In which case you should: 1. Find a prevention-minded OD or, 2. Figure out how to do it yourself. There does not seem to be any other possibility. Just one man's opinion. Otis > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 20/20 then they might drop to 20/200 because they become nervous > wearing the glasses and they dont like it. On Sep 11, 2:05 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> So, if Bates (or second-opinion methods) are to > be applied -- then it makes perfect sense to apply > them at that point. OK. You finally concede that plus prevention is on the same level as Bates. I agree. On Sep 11, 12:05 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> The majority-opinion, is no, it is IMPOSSIBLE. As always, you prove yourself to be nothing but a f.cking idiot and a pathological liar. Nobody here ever said that prevention of myopia is impossible. They have said that neither Bates nor your much vaunted "plus lens method" has ever been proved safe AND effective in preventing axial- length myopia. In the latter case, it's been proved INeffective (as your niece about that) and ... when undertaken WITHOUT optometric evaluation, has caused numerous cases of diplopia. Atropine and muscarinic antagonists seem to be effective. Prevention of myopia is being researched all over the world. The mere fact that YOU draw NO DISTINCTION between accommodative and axial- length myopia is only further evidence that you're a f.cking idiot. It does NOT do ANYTHING, however, to make anything that you say any more correct. Dear Absolutely self-reliant, Subject: Do your OWN checking! Re: Learn BOTH methods -- for your own self-confidence. L>Obviously, the Bates people put far more emphasis on Snellen acuity. Otis> Indeed so do all the DMV tests. They REQUIRE that you read 3/4 inch letters at 20 feet. If you can not do that, then you must get a lens so that you can. Otis> Also, Absolutely, since you have this interest, and have a Snellen, there is no problem with verifying your vision. Otis> Consider this a learning process. If you had your own trial-lens kit it would be very simple for you to establish your exact refractive STATE by use of this item. Otis> If you have basic physicis skills, and some patience, I think you could and SHOULD measure BOTH your Snellen and your refractive STATE. Otis> That way you do not have to run to and OD shop -- to have some third party to make a measurement -- when you can be more accurate yourself. (And TRUST the resuts.) Otis > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > No I don't think they will even care not even a tiny bit! They will > just be very happy to have gotted very good eyesight. On Sep 11, 2:12 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> Indeed so do all the DMV tests. They REQUIRE that > you read 3/4 inch letters at 20 feet. If you can not > do that, then you must get a lens so that you can. Oh, I know. That's why some of my patients who read 20/70 in my office can pass the DMV test given by the examiner. They know how to squint. > Otis> If you have basic physicis skills, and some > patience, I think you could and SHOULD measure [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be more accurate yourself. > (And TRUST the resuts.) You know what they say about the doctor who treats himself having a fool for a patient. Unfortunately, if you want lenses made, then you'll have to get a prescription. But I digress. Otis must be feeling really down today to take such a cheap shot at optometrists. First, he agrees that there is no difference in whether a person use Bates techniques, or plus lenses, just as long as they avoid the optometrist and minus lenses. There's his real agenda on full display. > On Sep 11, 2:12 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > There's his real agenda on full display. It's important not to lose sight of .... the fact that Otis lost sight. That's why his dreams of commercial aviation were dashed. That's why he lives his life in this quixotic quest, tilting at optometric windmills, and ... all the while ... lying his a.s off and generally being a [wait for it] ... f.cking idiot along the way. L> But I digress. Otis must be feeling really down today to take such a cheap shot at optometrists. Otis> Bullshit. Make that arrogant majority-opinion ODs and it would be more accurate. As you know I TOTALLY support SECOND-OPINION optometrists like Steve Leug and others. But I think the person himself should go through a "learning process" (at the 20/70 level) and take a much greater responsibility to "work" the preventive method. Otis> In that sense, it is like "weight loss", in that the person himself can take a considerable responsiblity to take actions to clear his Snellen (and check with his trial-lens kit). But that is of course "empowerment" -- if the person has BOTH the interest and motivation. Otis> Clearly people like Dr. Colage (at age 14) had the scientific insight to "take control", clear his vision (when necessary with the plus), pass the REQUIRED DMV level, and therefor avoid ANY need for a minus lens -- in the first place. First, he agrees that there is no difference in whether a person use Bates techniques, or plus lenses, Otis> Provided: 1. The person reads his Snellen -- at say 20/70. 2. Learns how to operate a trial-lens kit, and confirms his refractive STATE. Then. 3. Works with his chosen method and clears: a. His Snellen and confirms the change of STATE b. With his trial lens kit. Thus, done correctly, the person can control his refractive STATE himself -- with the education and motivation to do so. I mean, what the hell, you have no interest in doing it for him -- as you stated, many, many times. That necessarily forces him to figure out how to "do for himself". L> just as long as they avoid the optometrist and minus lenses. Otis> No, "L", he must clear his Snellen, (obviously under his control), pass the REQUIRED Snellen, and having done so, he has no need for anything you have to offer. Otis> He just has to be more technically competent than you are -- concerning the dynamic behaivor of the fundamental eye. Otis> Success favors the preared mind. Otis > On Sep 11, 2:12 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > There's his real agenda on full display. On Sep 11, 12:36 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> Bullshit. Oh, you PROFANE little f.cking idiot, you. Put down that monkey and go wash your mouth out with soap. On Sep 11, 2:12 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Absolutely self-reliant, > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Did you say something important? > Well what I is saying is that the person who practice the snellen not > get worse but better! I mean they can actually see better! I don't > understand how come you don't understand it wow its really really > simple. I don't understand how you don't understand wow it really really DOESN'T WORK. -MT Does anybody can give http where nicely explained how to measure and read things like that: Habitual near phoria: 4 eso. Binocular x-cyl: +1.75 net (11 exo) @ 16 inches. Accommodative lag (PRIO): +1.25D lag @ 24 inches (7 exo). (from some paper) Hi, > I don't understand how you don't understand wow it really really DOESN'T > WORK. No I promise it really really does please you have to listen because I am telling the truth not even joking it really works! I know it's really really hard to belief me but it's really true and if you used the technique the way what I said then I promise you will get the same results! Also if you use the snellen chart in the schools and the children read it everyday then they will never ever get bad eyesight not ever in their whole life! > No I promise it really really does please you have to listen because I > am telling the truth not even joking it really works! I know it's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > children read it everyday then they will never ever get bad eyesight > not ever in their whole life! This is a joke, right? -MT Hi, No I promise I am really telling the truth it really works not even a joke I am really serious completely I cross my heart okay. If the children read it everyday then they will never ever get bad eyesight it's really true they will have super duper eyesight for all their lifetime I know it really really! > Mind well that is is not ordinary retinoscopy, but simultaneous > retinoscopy. It is much higher level than just normal retinoscopy, > really! Do you really really know how to use it? Can you teach me, > then.Give the outline of methodology. No, I thought you meant retinoscopy. You'll have to tell me how "simultaneous" retinoscopy is different. Apparently I slept through that chapter of ophthalmic optics. Virtually all the citations for this "higher" technique were from Bates' books. But he describes pretty standard retinoscopy (of the time) and the word "simultaneous" only appears in the chapter heading. The only non-Bates source referred to multi-axis retinoscopy performed by instruments. I don't think that's what you mean. -MT > > On Question "What is better" > > physiologically, in most cases, patient will try to answer "what is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -MT "Better that or that?" or no difference on the last line. It would have at least some meaning if person can really evaluate it on Whole Snellen. (it what it was made for in "ancient" time) Like "I can see almost everything" Little bad on the 20/20 line. Showing one-two last lines in a time without whole Snellen makes people feel not really good, they just see the last line, they do not understand that the rest of the Snellen they can see, they "panic" try decide, it makes them fill that they see Really bad. It is just simple psychology. Lena > On Question "What is better" > physiologically, in most cases, patient will try to answer "what is > better" > Not "no difference." Lena, You wouldn't be throwing out hasty generalizations again, would you? Or is this based on your vast experience as a clinician? Or is this based on you starting with a position, and then fabricating points in SUPPORT OF that position. I'm pretty sure I know which, but ... please answer anyway. > Actually as a matter of facts there is, you have to just read a > snellen chart everyday with each eye seperately down to the lowest > line you can read without discomfort or efforts. It has been proven to > work, in fact did you know! I'm not lying so don't say that! Exactly. If you memorize everything you need to see, myopia is much less important.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Hi, > Exactly. If you memorize everything you need to see, myopia is much less > important. It is not the question of memorizing because the person who has cured the imperfect sight will know he is cured if all the rest of the stuff can be seen good. Also Even if the person read the unfamiliar chart he will still get the same results. So it is not about memorizing you should not say that because it is wrong in fact. Dear Absolutlely Bashed, Subject: Majority-opinion ODs bashing the messager -- so they can ignore the message. You ask why they do "Bates Bashing", or "Otis Bashing". And now, absolutely bashing of Bates. The real issue is that they wish to IGNORE the science supporting second-opinion methods. So when you see "Otis Bashing", it is truly science bashing. Otis > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the same results. So it is not about memorizing you should not say > that because it is wrong in fact. Hi, >But you believe reading a Snellen chart cures myopia. It's true I'm not lying it's really true it actually works and it prevents myopia. Even if you don't believe me I don't care but I'm telling the really real truth. You should not be rude to me in fact you should not say I am confused because that is not nice I never said anything bad of you in fact I always said good stuff about you like 'Mike is kind and helpful' but you just call me names back and even when I am good. > >But you believe reading a Snellen chart cures myopia. > > It's true I'm not lying it's really true it actually works and it > prevents myopia. Even if you don't believe me I don't care but I'm > telling the really real truth. Ah, yes: proof by assertion. It's true because some MPD guy SAYS it's true. > You should not be rude to me Actually, we all SHOULD be rude to you. SCIENCE newsgroups are for discussing science-based things. "Proof by Assertion" ... just ain't science. Please visit: faith.vision. Thanks. > in fact > you should not say I am confused because that is not nice I never said > anything bad of you in fact I always said good stuff about you like > 'Mike is kind and helpful' but you just call me names back and even > when I am good. Incidentally, as somebody with visual acuity problems, I've gotten REALLY, REALLY good at "reading" (more like "interpreting") street signs from quite a ways away. People are amazed at how quickly I can find the street for which I'm looking, and from what distance. They assume that my VA must be better than their 20/20. It's not. I've just gotten really really good at guessing when a particular blur looks the same as the particular blur that I seek ought to look. Walnut St., for example, has a certain fairly well-established blur pattern that I can recognize before most emmetropes can identify the actual characters. So ... have I improved my vision in this manner? Not at all. I've simply compensated for it with a certain amount of pattern recognition enhancement. Otis? Care to chime in with something like "whether or not you believe the fundamental eye to be dynamic...." now (, you f.cking idiot)? Why does "Atchoo" post under so many different aliases or allow multiple people to post under his/her/its account?? Hi Mr.Brooks, > Actually, we all SHOULD be rude to you. SCIENCE newsgroups are for In actual facts you shouldn't be rude because that is bad and not nice. Also if you be rude then it means you are bad and you should not be rude otherwise I will tell you off. Mr.Brooks but I am not talking about just the interpretation okay actually I am talking about the actual eyesight I mean if you read the snellen chart everyday then it prevents myopia from ever happening and also makes it better if you already gotted it. > It's not. I've just gotten really really good at guessing when a > particular blur looks the same as the particular blur that I seek Come on man don't you think people will know whether their guesswork has gotted better or their actual eyesight? I mean how stupid do you take people to be man that's very silly of you I can't even believe it because that is just dumb! > Why does "Atchoo" post under so many different aliases or allow > multiple people to post under his/her/its account?? Hello! I hope you are not calling me Atchoo because that is name calling and if you call me names then I will call you names back! So you shouldn't do it ever again! Actually there is only one person and it is me. You should not make stuff up about me because that is very rude and also lying as well. Hi, I know that proofs by assertion is not the real proof because it is just one person saying something and he might be lying or doesn't know the truth, but I promise I am telling the truth though and I do know the truth which is that myopia prevention is easy peasy lemon squeezy just read a snellen chart every day and you will have good vision for the whole of your entire life. I know it's really hard to believe me because it's sound to easy and to simple but it's true. Also I am not saying just believe me (proof by assertions) actually I am saying try it and see it is true for yourself because that is better than just me telling you and that way you can see it for yourself okay. Also the other proof was in a good and reputable journal which means it is good proof and you should be happy for it. > I know that proofs by assertion is not the real proof because it is > just one person saying something and he might be lying or doesn't know > the truth, but I promise I am telling the truth though and I do know > the truth which is that myopia prevention is easy peasy lemon squeezy > just read a snellen chart every day and you will have good vision for > the whole of your entire life. Oh. Yo |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message