Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Oh, what the heck.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 04:55 GMT
Sound familiar?

http://www.iblindness.org/articles/brofman-visionmetaphor.html
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 05:11 GMT
> Sound familiar?
>
> http://www.iblindness.org/articles/brofman-visionmetaphor.html

Yes.

Myopia involves a perceptual distortion where the thinking "I" or ego
thinks of itself too highly and overly emphasises the internal
*imagined* view of reality.

Myopes tend to lack common sense so that what is *sensed* is allowed
to be seen as real.    Instead they project their opinion as what is
real.

Good vision requires an ability to sense reality.

Poor vision involves the habit of prefering a private reality as a
projection created by the overly active thinking mind.

Tis all common sense.
lena102938 - 11 Sep 2007 05:25 GMT
On Sep 10, 11:11 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > Sound familiar?
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Tis all common sense.

From
> http://www.iblindness.org/articles/brofman-visionmetaphor.html

Why do we say, "I see", in order to communicate that we understand?

Answer is very simple :Because you speak English.

It is almost anecdotic.
Probably it explains addiction to 20/20
65% Americans wear glasses
35% Europe.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 06:06 GMT
> 65% Americans wear glasses
> 35% Europe.

do you have a reference for these figures?
lena102938 - 11 Sep 2007 06:54 GMT
On Sep 11, 12:06 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:

> > 65% Americans wear glasses
> > 35% Europe.
>
> do you have a reference for these figures?

Yes, please.
actually i posted by memory
37% Europe

2001 statistic

Ref:

http://www.essilor.com/NR/rdonlyres/F5A2F29A-DDEB-4042-A891-A72760921C73/0/Essil
or_Magazine_2.pdf

Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 13:27 GMT
> On Sep 11, 12:06 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> http://www.essilor.com/NR/rdonlyres/F5A2F29A-DDEB-4042-A891-A72760921...

That figure also includes Central and Eastern Europe.  I'm sure the
prevalence is higher in other European countries.  The first assembly
line refractive surgery procedure was RK surgery, invented by a
Russian surgeon, Fyodorov.  In some countries, even food is a luxury.

It sounds like you would agree with the concept of 20/happy.
lena102938 - 12 Sep 2007 02:28 GMT
> > On Sep 11, 12:06 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> line refractive surgery procedure was RK surgery, invented by a
> Russian surgeon, Fyodorov.

Hello,

Yes, actually not only assembly  line surgerry
the first RK surgerry.
Assembly line surgeries had more side effects  than first RK
first RK was performed by very good surgeons.
assembly line it is assembly line,

I had couple of friends , with RK surgery ( before assembly line )
reahbilitation time was around 1 month (mean doctor advised not to
read )
Results  was 20/20 (even after 4-5 years) , from -7

Lena
Dr. Leukoma - 12 Sep 2007 03:10 GMT
> > > On Sep 11, 12:06 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Fyodorov had an assembly line.  He made lots of money.
lena102938 - 12 Sep 2007 04:35 GMT
> > > > On Sep 11, 12:06 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> Fyodorov had an assembly line.  He made lots of money.

And what ? Why  would not not he ?
Dr. Leukoma - 12 Sep 2007 04:42 GMT
> > > > > On Sep 11, 12:06 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Do you mean to say "why shouldn't he"?  My opinion is that he is
entitled to it.

But, let's consider that RK is a surgical method of putting a minus
prescription onto the eye, and that power increases as time goes by in
up to 40 percent of patients, leading to hyperopic shift.  This shift
is also accompanied by an increase in aberrations that are not
correctable with conventional eyeglasses.  I have seen a few patients
whose vision cannot be corrected better than 20/200 with eyeglasses.

Is that an acceptable tradeoff for not needing eyeglasses?
lena102938 - 12 Sep 2007 05:19 GMT
> > > > > > On Sep 11, 12:06 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
>
> Is that an acceptable tradeoff for not needing eyeglasses?

It is a risk.

I, personally would ruther trust hand of good surgeon
with diamond ( or whatever it was)
knife than Laser in the hands of
not a surgeon or not really good surgeon.

Price 600 per eye looks very suspicious.
Some blood tests more expensive.
Dr. Leukoma - 12 Sep 2007 13:46 GMT
> I, personally would ruther trust hand of good surgeon
>  with diamond ( or whatever it was)
> knife than Laser in the hands of
> not a surgeon or not really good surgeon.

For some reason, I am not surprised to see you state this.  Given what
I have seen, I would choose the latter without question.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 14:00 GMT
> On Sep 11, 12:06 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> http://www.essilor.com/NR/rdonlyres/F5A2F29A-DDEB-4042-A891-A72760921...

that's hardly an authoritative reference.  anyway the statistic does
not say that 65% of americans have refractive errors and 35% of
europeans do.  it says that 65% of americans own eyeware and 35% of
europeans do.  that includes non-prescription sunglasses, OTC reading
glasses, etc.  the difference could be explained by relative wealth,
differences in retail accessability of eyeware, etc.

in more scientific evaluations of the prevalence of ammetropias in
america, I recall that the data is similar to the prevalence of
ammetropias in europe, most likely due to the genetic heritage of
americans.
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 16:04 GMT
On Sep 12, 1:00 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:

> in more scientific evaluations of the prevalence of ammetropias in
> america, I recall that the data is similar to the prevalence of
> ammetropias in europe, most likely due to the genetic heritage of
> americans.-

At first site America does not seem a healthy country.

Obesity.  Myopia.   Morality.   Excessive consumption.  The worship of
money.

Europeans are just more laid back as a general rule.   Its a more
cruisy place where lifestyle counts more than the size of your car
house boat or wallet.
Zetsu - 11 Sep 2007 16:11 GMT
Hi,

Hahaha Andrew looks like we is the laid back ones then because you and
me is both from Europe! Hahahahaha Europeans are way better than
Americans don't you just have to admit it sometimes! We will kick your
a$$es anyday!
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 12 Sep 2007 06:38 GMT
On Sep 11, 11:04 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 12, 1:00 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> cruisy place where lifestyle counts more than the size of your car
> house boat or wallet.
===================

That is an interesting set of opinions.  But of course there is
nothing more than your personal beliefs to support it.  For example
there are no studies on the "laid-backness" of US citizens versus
European citizens.

So let me guess.  Here is what's is going to happen.
I am going to say "what does laid back and concern for money have to
do with ammetropia, they are unrelated"
And then you are going to jump in with "You are wrong, because
psychological factors DO affect development of ammetropia"
And then I am going to say "Thats BS-- there is no evidence for that"
And then you are going to tell me about some psychological
observations that some wacko eye doctor made who then published some
report about it and so then you take it to mean that it is proven that
ammetropias really are psychological in origin.  And whoever that
wacko doctor is, I'll bet you respect and worship him while everyone
else thinks he is an idiot.
And then I am going to laugh at you and demean what you say, and
present numerous arguments with solid references that contradict your
beliefs.
And then you are going to say I just won't open my mind and that I
will never really see the truth.
And then we will go away with bad recollections of the experience.

Is that what you want?  Well let's just cut it short-- why don't we
just cut to the last point right now and forget and the bullshit
leading up to it.  I think you are wrong and you don't accept my
criticism-- end of story.
Neil Brooks - 12 Sep 2007 16:51 GMT
On Sep 11, 8:04 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Europeans are just more laid back as a general rule.   Its a more
> cruisy place where lifestyle counts more than the size of your car
> house boat or wallet.

Interesting.  Having just spent four months in nine European
countries, I can readily say that your generalization is worth no more
than the bytes used in authoring it.

But ... if it makes you happy .....
Dr. Leukoma - 12 Sep 2007 17:08 GMT
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> But ... if it makes you happy .....

Virtually every patient who has visited me from Europe would like to
live here in the U.S.  In fact, one of them has decided to actually
move here.  On the other hand, I like Europe, and actually did live
there for a short time.  I like the lifestyle, but then I am seeing it
as a tourist.
Zetsu - 12 Sep 2007 17:19 GMT
Hi,

I like the US but I dont like the food because they have really really
big massive hamburgers and if I ever ate one my whole tummy would just
explode and then I will become really fat so thats why I dont want to
live in US and also I live the UK because people here have a lot of
common sense I mean nice good common sense but over in the US there
are so many crazy people I mean really crazy some of the things you
people do! And also I dont want to live in the US because there might
be a bomb and blow up and then I will die. In the UK there are not so
many bombs and explosions and attacks. Anyhow in the US there are lots
of Earthquakes so I am really scared to live there incase there is a
earthquake or a hurricane because I saw on the news there is lots of
hurricans in the US and thats really scary so thats what I really dont
like about the US its just really scary. But I do think that US people
are normally quite friendly, more friendly than UK. But the accent of
US people just really annoys me I dont know why just something about
it gets on my nerves I mean the way you guys say 'War'er', instead of
'water' and you dont pronounce the 't' I dont know why but I just get
really uneasy around the US accent.

Dr Gemoules, where do you lives in US?
lena102938 - 13 Sep 2007 23:33 GMT
> Hi,
>
> I like the US but I dont like the food
Hello,
So do I.
My favorite food is deserts.
I can eat them nonstop (I am not 300 lbs, even not 150lbs.)
I like European style of  cakes and pastries
It is not a lot of it  here at Mid West.
Pastries and cakes  here are awful .
(with some exclusions as Amish cream pie from local bakery).
Dr. Leukoma - 13 Sep 2007 23:44 GMT
> On Sep 12, 11:19 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Pastries and cakes  here are awful .
> (with some exclusions as Amish cream pie from local bakery).

Vienna.  Yummmm.
Ms.Brainy - 13 Sep 2007 23:55 GMT
> Vienna.  Yummmm.

That's exactly what I was thinking when I wrote my previous post.
Ms.Brainy - 13 Sep 2007 23:53 GMT
> On Sep 12, 11:19 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Pastries and cakes  here are awful .
> (with some exclusions as Amish cream pie from local bakery).

I agree with you on this, not the 300 lbs, but the American
desserts.   Forget the Amish.  American desserts contain at least
twice the amount of sugar compared to the European ones.  They are
excessively sweet, whereas the Eurepean are delicately refined.  It
will probably take America some time to realize that less is not only
healthier but also tastier.
Dr. Leukoma - 14 Sep 2007 14:04 GMT
> On Sep 12, 11:19 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Pastries and cakes  here are awful .
> (with some exclusions as Amish cream pie from local bakery).

That's why you have to make your own.  In the big cities like Chicago
one can find quite a few Eastern European bakeries.
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 13 Sep 2007 21:17 GMT
Dr G

Earlier when i was saying that lag of recovery of accommodation was a
myopic characteristic,  I was in fact definately getting a bit
confused.   And i was definately mixing facts and ideas and
definitions to attempt to support my own argument.

I am not sure if there is in fact any relationship between delay of
accommodation and myopia?   Is there one?  Not sure.

So i want to clearly apologise for making things difficult for you.

Regards

Andrew
Neil Brooks - 13 Sep 2007 21:24 GMT
On Sep 13, 1:17 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Dr G
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Andrew

On behalf of myself, and only myself, that's awfully big, and awfully
decent, of you, Andrew.

It's also so unusual around here.  I mean .... Otis has been wrong,
literally, thousands of times, but has never course-corrected OR
apologized.
Dr. Leukoma - 13 Sep 2007 22:03 GMT
On Sep 13, 3:17 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Dr G
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Andrew

Awwwww.  (((Andrew)))

DrG
otisbrown@pa.net - 11 Sep 2007 18:54 GMT
Dear Lena,

Europe,
America,
China -- 88 percent myopic enterning
the university.

At this point majority-opinion PClar will tell you these facts "mean
nothing" -- and you MUST ignore them --as he does.

Read these publised, accepted references -- and weep.

(Where is Bates when we need him?)

Otis

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

      FIRST-YEAR HONG KONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS 87.5 % MYOPIC

o   Goh and Lam (Goh, W.S.  and Lam, C.S., "Changes in refractive
   trends and optical components of Hong Kong Chinese aged 19-39
   years," Ophthal.  Physiol.  Opt., 14:378-382, 1994) found that
   in 2000 first-year students at the University of Hong Kong,
   the prevalence of myopia was 87.5%.

              ******************

MYOPIA PREVALENCE IS ALWAYS HIGHER THAN 92 PERCENT
            FOR TAIWAN MEDICAL STUDENTS

o   Lin et al (Lin, L.K., Shih, Y.F., Lee, Y.C., Hung, P.T., and
   Hou, P.K., " Changes in ocular refraction and its components
   among medical students - a 5-year longitudinal study", Optom.
   Vis.  Sci., 73:495-498, 1996) found that in a study of 345
   National Taiwan University medical students, the myopia
   prevalence increased from 92.8% to 95.8% over the five year
   period.

              ******************

        OPTOMETRY STUDENTS 72 PERCENT MYOPIC

o   Lam and Yap (Lam, C.S.  and Yap, M.  "Ocular dimensions and
   refraction in Chinese Orientals", Proc.  Int.  Soc.  Eye Res.,
   6:121, 1990) found that in a group of optometry students at
   The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the prevalence of myopia
   was 75% in females and 69% in males.

              ******************

    70 PERCENT MYOPIC AT AGES 16 TO 17 YEARS OLD

o   Regarding the prevalence of myopia in Asian countries, Lam and
   Goh (Lam, C.S.  and Goh, W.S., "The incidence of refractive
   errors among schoolchildren in Hong Kong in relationship with
   the optical components", Clin.  Exp.  Optom., 74:97-103, 1991)
   found that in 383 school children from ages 6 to 17 years, the
   prevalence of myopia increased from 30% at ages 6-7 years, to
   70% at ages 16-17 years.

              ******************

                    December 6, 2000

By Liu Shao-hua
Staff reporter
Taipei Times

Subject:   Myopia Increases Among Children

    One of every five children in the first grade in Taiwan's
elementary schools is myopic (nearsighted).  The proportion of
myopics in this group has increased from 12.1 percent in 1995 to
20.4 percent this year, according to the results of a survey
released by the Department of Health yesterday.

    The results also show that 60.7 percent of sixth graders in
elementary schools, 80.7 percent of third graders in junior high
schools, and 84.2 percent of third graders in senior high schools
suffer from myopia.  In addition, the number of seriously myopic
children is also on the rise.  The proportion of seriously myopic
children among sixth graders in elementary schools has increased
from 2 percent five years ago to 2.4 percent this year.

    Serious myopia is defined as exceeding 600 degrees (6
diopters).  Anything over 25 degrees (0.25 diopters) is myopia.
Normal eyesight is zero degrees.

    "We appeal for reductions to children's work load in schools
and the amelioration of visual environments in daily life," said
Chen Tzay-jinn, director-general of the health promotion bureau,
under the health department.

    The survey was conducted by the department, in cooperation
with National Taiwan University and its hospital, and involved a
sample of 12,000 students from four million students between the
ages of 7 and 18 nationwide.  Myopia has been on the increase in
Taiwan ever since the first myopia survey in 1983.  The department
manages the survey every four or five years.

    The growth of nearsightedness among young children is thought
to result from learning to read very young and using computers
very young, Chen pointed out.

    Last year, the department and the Ministry of Education
delivered official documents to kindergartens nationwide demanding
that children not be taught to read or use computers too early.
"But many teachers and parents protested against this appeal,"
said the department officials.    "They questioned exactly what they
were permitted to teach if reading was not allowed."

    "We do hope that parents and teachers can heighten their
awareness of myopia and understand that early learning does not
guarantee students' performance in the future, but it does bear a
strong correlation to defects in vision," Chen said.  The
department also appealed for children under the age of 10 not to
be taught how to use computers.

    Senior high school students suffer the highest rates of
nearsightedness, at over 84 percent.  "It reached a plateau five
years ago and has not changed this year.  But their myopia has
become more serious," Chen said.  According to the survey, 20
percent of third graders in senior high schools are seriously
nearsighted.

    Many people thought operations could cure myopia.    "But the
superficial improvement of vision does not better the health of
the eye.  More importantly, it might reduce people's awareness of
other problems associated with nearsightedness, apart from visual
ones," said Lin Lung-kuang, ophthalmology professor at National
Taiwan University.  "Myopia cannot be cured.  We have to prevent
children from becoming nearsighted.  Don't let them use their
vision too early," Lin urged.

    Because of the public's lack of awareness of myopia, the
department estimated its prevalence would continue to grow.
"Singapore resembles Taiwan in many respects and the extent of its
myopia problem might serve as a warning for us," Chen said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> On Sep 11, 12:06 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> http://www.essilor.com/NR/rdonlyres/F5A2F29A-DDEB-4042-A891-A72760921...
Neil Brooks - 11 Sep 2007 21:18 GMT
On Sep 11, 10:54 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> Europe,
> America,
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> At this point majority-opinion PClar will tell you these facts "mean
> nothing" -- and you MUST ignore them --as he does.

No.  Of course, that's simply untrue.  Of course he doesn't say these
things.  Actually, nobody does.

This is another example of YOU being a pathological liar and a f.cking
idiot. No more, no less.

Otis?  You're the only one stupid enough to wonder whether there's a
lot of myopia in the world.  Everybody gets that.  There is.

Far, far worse, though: you're the ONLY ONE who tries to use
prevalence data IN AN EFFORT to validate your theory.  It doesn't.
It's simply irrelevant.  It only establishes that there IS a problem.
It neither supports nor contradicts a theory all by itself.

Prevalence has nothing to do with whether what you say is true, valid,
effective, or safe.

But ... as a pathological liar and a f.cking idiot ... I guess you
wouldn't know that ... no matter how often it's brought to your
attention.

QED
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 21:52 GMT
> X-No-Archive: Yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
>
> QED

Neil

Its pretty obvious that Otis is more or less right on this one.

Already people here are wanting to believe that Eastern Europe is so
backwards that the only reason for the statistical difference is
poverty etc.

People cannot believe there is a difference.     P.Clar has already
argued they must be same because he believes Americans and Europeans
share similar genes.

Otis is right.

The behavioural argument gets eliminated as soon as posssible.

And even if a difference is proven they still will find some reason
why it is meaningless because facts are irrelevant.   Opinion is what
counts on this newsgroup.

Otis is Otis.

And you are you.     You become irrational when faced with even
reasonable statements by Otis.

I think there *is* a certain reality that suggests Europeans do have
better vision.

Your response to Otis really says something about who you have become
now than it does anything else.

Halycon days?    Gone forever it seems.

Andrew
Neil Brooks - 11 Sep 2007 21:57 GMT
X-No-Archive; yes

On Sep 11, 1:52 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > X-No-Archive: Yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 65 lines]
>
> Andrew

Re-read what I wrote.  You're flat-a.s factually wrong.

High incidence anywhere in the world is neither proof OF or
contradiction OF a proposed method of prevention.  All it proves is
that we have a problem with no apparent solution.

No practicing optometrist is going to argue that there's lots of
myopia in this world.  If you agree with Otis, then you're saying that
PCLar and others deny it exists in large numbers.  That's just flat
stupid.  To each his own, though.

If you want to argue THAT point further, please do it in a mirror.
You can't prevail.

Thanks.
Neil Brooks - 11 Sep 2007 22:00 GMT
X-No-Archive; yes
> X-No-Archive; yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 85 lines]
>
> Thanks.

Let me go one step further here, Andrew: do you know what positions
like the one you just took DO to your credibility around here?

I don't imagine it helps.

Arguing that a problem EXISTS does NOT provide evidence of efficacy
for ANY proposed solution.  It only establishes that a problem exists.

Wow.  Are you a non-native English speaker?  I'm starting to wonder....
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 12 Sep 2007 01:37 GMT
> Arguing that a problem EXISTS does NOT provide evidence of efficacy
> for ANY proposed solution.  It only establishes that a problem exists.

Neil i never for one moment wanted to suggest otherwise.   I am sorry
that you thought i was

Andrew
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 12 Sep 2007 06:06 GMT
On Sep 11, 4:52 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Opinion is what
> counts on this newsgroup.

wow.  i can't believe you wrote that!  Unless you ascribe to it.

there is WAY much more data to support a genetic basis to differences
in visual performance than there is to support a psychological basis.
It is YOU who comes here with nothing more than OPINIONS while it is
the "majority opinion" eye doctors and researchers who have the more
solid proof for what they say.

All you bring to the table are opinions.  Why should you expect anyone
to believe you?  More authoritative information sources than you have
proposed more likely theories regarding the behaviour of the visual
system.

You and Otis are both wackos.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 12 Sep 2007 06:23 GMT
On Sep 11, 4:52 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> People cannot believe there is a difference.     P.Clar has already
> argued they must be same because he believes Americans and Europeans
> share similar genes.

no.  that is not at all what I said.  I said that I recalled studies
on ammetropia prevalence that showed that prevalence in European was
similar to prevalence in America.  I went on to discuss that such a
result would not be surprising since the heritage of most Americans is
from European immigrants.   I did NOT say that the prevalences are the
same and that the cause of it is genetics.
Dr. Leukoma - 12 Sep 2007 13:17 GMT
On Sep 12, 12:23 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 11, 4:52 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> from European immigrants.   I did NOT say that the prevalences are the
> same and that the cause of it is genetics.

The prevalence of myopia in Western Europe and America is practically
the same.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 12 Sep 2007 16:37 GMT
> On Sep 12, 12:23 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> The prevalence of myopia in Western Europe and America is practically
> the same.

that's what i was saying.
http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/m/myopia/stats-country.htm
lena102938 - 13 Sep 2007 23:16 GMT
> On Sep 12, 12:23 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> The prevalence of myopia in Western Europe and America is practically
> the same.
DrG.
Please don't  discard Eastern  Europe,

The truth is : medicine overall was and is VERY BAD
for average person (if the person has serious disease)
But it is separate story.

That "VERY BAD" is not about all of the medical services.
Glasses were very cheap and easily available.
If someone needed "eye" doctor, that someone makes a
call and has appointment  almost the same day.
Children visited only  Pediatric ophthalmologist

Starting at 1st (6 year old). grade and till 18 (including college)
Once a year, it was a must,
Every class (all over the country )
instead of visiting the classes at school goes to doctors.
Here it is  "general physical examination"
They call it "dispanserization"
All Doctors are Pediatric doctors.
List of doctors and tests that kids were visiting  in that day :
Surgeon, General Pediatric, Fluorography,
Orthopedic, Ophthalmologist, Othalaringologist ,  Dentist,  blood
test.

Anyway "unaccessibility" is not an explanation for
difference in statistic.
Lena
Dr. Leukoma - 13 Sep 2007 23:43 GMT
> > On Sep 12, 12:23 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

It was just some statistic I had read, and wasn't trying to be
prejudicial.
Ms.Brainy - 13 Sep 2007 23:45 GMT
> > On Sep 12, 12:23 am, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Congratulations Lena.  So you CAN write coherently, it seems.  Why
don't you follow your own example and write in a way that makes sense
and understood as a new "lena Style"?  I am addressing here the style
only, not the contents, but at least we'll be able to figure out what
the contents are.  Did you think that your regular style is cute or
sophisticated?  It is not.
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 13:40 GMT
> It is almost anecdotic.
> Probably it explains addiction to 20/20
> 65% Americans wear glasses
> 35% Europe.- Hide quoted text -

Is myopia more prevalent in the U.S.?  What is the percentage of
people who wear glasses in Singapore?
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 16:16 GMT
> > 65% Americans wear glasses
> > 35% Europe.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Is myopia more prevalent in the U.S.?  What is the percentage of
> people who wear glasses in Singapore?

Whats singapore got to do with it?

In Singapore myopia amongst the young is approaching 80% IIRC.    And
tellingly even none ethnic singaporeans (they are mainly two ethnic
groups anyway) for example families  coming from India who have good
vision quickly follow the singaporean pattern.

America is a high myopia country relatively.

Myopia seems present in authoritarian countries over more laid back
countries.   By authoritarian i mean excessive rules legislation and
"big brother" influences about what can be said and done against the
state.    Many countries have a much more tolerant attitude about what
can be said without fear of some kind of back lash.   In these
countries the media is not controlled so much by big buisiness or the
government and so forth.

There is no explosion of myopia of the same magnitude in Australian
schools for example.

Myopia seems a cultural event before it is a genetic event.

The correlation for heritability of myopia is very poor for ordinary
"school" myopia as opposed to exstremely high myopia which arguably
runs in family groups.  (Ashkenasi Jews for example).

A.
Scott Seidman - 11 Sep 2007 16:29 GMT
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com wrote in news:1189523816.803089.146600
@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:

> The correlation for heritability of myopia is very poor for ordinary
> "school" myopia as opposed to exstremely high myopia which arguably
> runs in family groups.  (Ashkenasi Jews for example).

Bingo-- and this is one reason why those who argue that the myopia
prevention voodoos du jour can stop retinal detachment associated with high
myopes (the only REAL health issue surrounding myopia, IMO) are wrong.  Two
different animals.

Signature

Scott
Reverse name to reply

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 17:00 GMT
> andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote in news:1189523816.803089.146600
> @r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> myopes (the only REAL health issue surrounding myopia, IMO) are wrong.  Two
> different animals.

Scott

As far as I can see there may not actually be such a thing as
"familial high myopia" as opposed to "school myopia"

I mention its possibility just to prevent unnecessary argumentation
and distraction.

The gene evidence for "familial high myopia" is very weak at the
moment.

Heritability via observation of family myopia also does not show much
at all.   Myopia does not follow a typical genetic pattern in
families.

Studies where a very very high myope has been identified and then gene
searching has been carried out have only found very large gene
**ranges**  which are not shared in other families.

The evidence could easily be interpreted that there is something
peculiar about these particular families that acts to create the
myopia - and when **no study whatsoever** is done to determine that
possibility then it seems that a gene **is** being looked for, rather
than anybody actually looking for the underlying cause of myopia.

Indeed i know for a fact that when a person has -50D myopia the
assumption is made by the gene researchers that this is
***definately*** a genetic cause and they decide they have no reason
to look for environmental causes.   Its an assumption to help them
find a gene.  And they dont find a gene.

Meanwhile they select for example closed communities such as the
Armish or Ashkensi jews or an immigrant family (these are the only
western studies i know of)

Meanwhile a *possible* subtle effect for a high myopia gene has been
found in the Han chinese.

So i would say it is highly questionable if "famial high myopia" even
exists.

Andrew
DoctorRick - 11 Sep 2007 05:27 GMT
>> Sound familiar?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>Tis all common sense.

Do you believe that psychological factors cause the eye to develop
anatomically and physiologically so that it becomes ammetropic, or do
you believe that psychological factors affect the brain so as to alter
visual perception regardless of retinal image quality?
Mike Tyner - 11 Sep 2007 13:30 GMT
> Myopes tend to lack common sense

How did you measure "common sense"?

Does "common sense" decrease as myopia increases? Is "common sense" the
opposite of IQ? Citations, please.

> Good vision requires an ability to sense reality.

Maybe so. I can't measure the ability to sense reality. Somehow I doubt you
can, either.

> Poor vision involves the habit of prefering a private reality as a
> projection created by the overly active thinking mind.

All poor vision results from this one cause?

> Tis all common sense.

In a pig's eye.

Doctors, tell your patients that their vision will improve if they just
don't think so hard.

-MT
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 15:57 GMT
> <andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Does "common sense" decrease as myopia increases? Is "common sense" the
> opposite of IQ? Citations, please.

Ever heard of emotional IQ?    Regular IQ is not a gaurantee of a
persons ability to be able to live a balanced and happy life - common
sense is needed for that.

> > Good vision requires an ability to sense reality.
>
> Maybe so. I can't measure the ability to sense reality. Somehow I doubt you
> can, either.

But you do!    You use a Snellen chart to check a persons accurate
perception of  reality.

As a general rule i have found that myopic people are not good
listeners.   To understand what i mean by that you would yourself need
to be a good listener.   But i dont think you are.   However your
overall perception of reality is probably not so bad.  But you do
limit what you can believe based on what you have already learnt.   In
that regard you are a very inflexible and somewhat cranky
person:-)     It tends to come with age.

> > Poor vision involves the habit of prefering a private reality as a
> > projection created by the overly active thinking mind.
>
> All poor vision results from this one cause?

Not exactly no.   Thats more a myopic quality.

> Doctors, tell your patients that their vision will improve if they just
> don't think so hard.

Not exactly.  It is the thinking style.     Different vision problems
have different thinking styles.

Neil for example is angry........and yet he seems to imagine he is not
angry.  He pushes that emotion away from him as if it does not exist
or he does not want to see it.    He also finds it hard to see the
obvious detail of his hysterical reaction to Otis - even though Otis
is very annoying - and wants us to believe he has some well balanced
reasoned justification for his more or less insane rantings on the
list.   He seems to have been driven insane by Otis.  Spasm of
accommodation is linked to hysteria in the literature.   Its a
detail.  He refuses to see the details.    Instead he is hung up on
the worthy cause of saving humanity from Otis.  But at his expense and
detriment to his well being i believe.

Leucoma disputes anything i say even if he would agree with you.
For example i say that it is known that myopes have a longer recovery
period for accommodation and he says "i dont know if that is known".
He must surely know of accommodative lag tendencies in myopia.    He
disputes my definition of myopia and clings to his own one - and then
has to admit mine is not wrong but his is.    He is just argumentative
and somewhat silly with me.   He wants to be right - even if he
obviously is not.   Meanwhile he feels superior to me.

Hyperopia and anger.  (they push away the anger)
Myopia and ego centricicity *and* insecurity  (the person defensively
needs to be right)

Andrew
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 17:16 GMT
On Sep 11, 9:57 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Leucoma disputes anything i say even if he would agree with you.
> For example i say that it is known that myopes have a longer recovery
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> and somewhat silly with me.   He wants to be right - even if he
> obviously is not.   Meanwhile he feels superior to me.

The problem is that you provide so much ammunition.

For example, the discussion of accommodative lag involved your use of
the term incorrectly.  You should have used the term accommodative
infacility to refer to the prolonged recovery time.

School myopia, pseudomyopia, true myopia, axial myopia, are all real
words and have different meanings.  Whenever I want you to be more
precise, you retreat into the fog of generality.  If you have
pseudomyopia, you can benefit from reading glasses, biofeedback,
relaxation techniques, palming, sunning, hypnosis, and even atropine.
If you have a long eye, you will most likely find those efforts
ineffective.

I don't feel superior to anybody.  You must feel inferior to me, and
to Mike, and to a number of others.  I think the reason for this is
that you are essentially out of your depth in matters relating to
vision when you attempt to argue with vision professionals and visual
scientists, which is completely understandable.

I notice that Dr. Brofman appears to have a pretty good business
lecturing about male and female eyes, etc.  Are you attempting to
follow his example?
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 18:02 GMT
> The problem is that you provide so much ammunition.
>
> For example, the discussion of accommodative lag involved your use of
> the term incorrectly.  You should have used the term accommodative
> infacility to refer to the prolonged recovery time.

Dr G.

At this stage i think you are talking complete bollocks.   But i am
open to learning otherwise.

I said:

"it is known that myopes have a
lag of recovery of accommodation."

You replied

"I don't know that
myopes have a lag of recovery of accommodation.  I do know that long-
standing myopes either do not need to accommodate, or accommodate
less, and so their facility of accommodation (same thing) may be
temporarilly impaired from disuse."

My meaning was *obvious*.     Any school boy could understand what i
meant.

You appear to want to do anything - no matter how ridiculous - to
argue against me.

And you said you would kill file me.   What happened to that?

Its looking like the best option for you.

Alternatively I suggest you stick to the facts and set aside your
prejudices that i am some kind of idiot.

Andrew
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 18:12 GMT
On Sep 11, 12:02 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> "I don't know that
> myopes have a lag of recovery of accommodation.  I do know that long-
> standing myopes either do not need to accommodate, or accommodate
> less, and so their facility of accommodation (same thing) may be
> temporarilly impaired from disuse."

And you point is what?  You wish to make that point that you were
right.  Right?  You're the pot and I'm the kettle?

> My meaning was *obvious*.     Any school boy could understand what i
> meant.

It wasn't and still isn't obvious what you meant.  You keep changing
definitions to avoid being wrong.

> You appear to want to do anything - no matter how ridiculous - to
> argue against me.

As I said, you keep providing ammunition.

> And you said you would kill file me.   What happened to that?

I changed my mind because you said something about me that was
incorrect.  If you don't want me to respond, then leave my name out of
it.  Got that?

> Alternatively I suggest you stick to the facts and set aside your
> prejudices that i am some kind of idiot.

There you go again, calling yourself an idiot.
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 19:37 GMT
> On Sep 11, 12:02 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> It wasn't and still isn't obvious what you meant.  You keep changing
> definitions to avoid being wrong.

Dr G.

So there you go.

You *were* talking bollocks.

Earlier you admitted you knew what i meant

>>the discussion of accommodative lag involved your use of
> the term incorrectly.  You should have used the term accommodative
> infacility to refer to the prolonged recovery time.

So it was obvious then and now it is not?

I dont have a problem about admitting i want to be right.

but the fact is you are plainly wrong and you refuse to admit it.

You **knew** what i meant.

You just wanted to create the illusion of being superior to me.

You still want to create the illusion of being superior to me.

All i am doing is dealing with the plainly visible facts of your own
behaviour.

Any idiot can see that.

Andrew
Neil Brooks - 11 Sep 2007 21:46 GMT
On Sep 11, 11:37 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> All i am doing is dealing with the plainly visible facts of your own
> behaviour.
>
> Any idiot can see that.

Andrew,

THAT is clearly an untested hypothesis, BUT one with an easy
resolution:

Otis?  DID you follow what Andrew was saying?

Thanks.
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 18:14 GMT
On Sep 11, 12:02 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> At this stage i think you are talking complete bollocks.   But i am
> open to learning otherwise.

Let's discuss the relationship between accommodation and convergence.
We'll see if you are willing to learn anything.
Zetsu - 11 Sep 2007 18:14 GMT
Hi,

>And you said you would kill file me.   What happened to that?

They keep saying they will but they never do they keep saying:  OK now
I am really angry and I am going to kill file you now for ever but
then they never do its strange how they keep going against their own
words sometimes I wonder why they still havent kill filed me may be
its because they dont know how to use a kill file well its quite easy
take directions from your friend 'The Real Bev' I am sure he will be
happy to explain, but anyhow even if you dont use kill file then why
dont you just ignore I mean you people are making out that we are
forcing you to reply to our posts I mean thats just so dumb it really
is just pathetic just grow up all of you just grow up please  just for
once I mean sometimes I find it hard that I am actually speaking to
real grown ups in this group I mean some of you just act so childish
it is just rediculus.
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 18:17 GMT
> Hi,
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> real grown ups in this group I mean some of you just act so childish
> it is just rediculus.

Hello,

Who is "you people?
Zetsu - 11 Sep 2007 18:24 GMT
Hi,

Well you know who I mean well actually I dont like to name names but
well okay these is some of the people:

MsBrainy
Dan Abel
Neil Brooks
DrG

And also some others who act really hard like: oh look at me Im really
going to use a kill file now well please go on hurry up and stop
delaying and procrastinating please just kill file me I dont mind I
dont even need silly people to reply to my posts because that is just
silly okay if you know what I mean. Anyhow you should act more mature
because otherwise you are very bad and hypocrite and silly and lots of
other bad things which I dont even want to say because they are so
bad.
Neil Brooks - 11 Sep 2007 18:45 GMT
> Well you know who I mean well actually I dont like to name names but
> well okay these is some of the people:
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> other bad things which I dont even want to say because they are so
> bad.

I think it's time for you to get depressed and wildly drunk again.

Yup.  Just looked at my watch.  It's time.

GO!

PS: yeah, that Dan Abel ... quite a rabble rouser around s.m.v. ;-)
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 14:25 GMT
> Sound familiar?
>
> http://www.iblindness.org/articles/brofman-visionmetaphor.html

Oh, this is something interesting from a Google search.  It's a chat
between Dr. Brofman and a poster who is suffering from diplopia as a
result of a couple of head injuries.  Check out the part about the
male and female eye.

http://bodymirror.proboards42.com/index.cgi?board=vision&action=post&thread=1173
701027&quote=1174914934&page=1

andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 16:20 GMT
.  Check out the part about the
> male and female eye.
>
> http://bodymirror.proboards42.com/index.cgi?board=vision&action=post&...

Dr G

There are psychotherapies based on these differences.

These differences are easily revealed.

A.
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 16:56 GMT
On Sep 11, 10:20 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> There are psychotherapies based on these differences.
>
> These differences are easily revealed.

If I were interested in psychotherapy, I would be on a psychotherapy
discussion group.
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 17:14 GMT
> On Sep 11, 10:20 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> If I were interested in psychotherapy, I would be on a psychotherapy
> discussion group.

I noted you were claiming that the idea of a "male eye" versus a
"female eye"
was something ridiculous.

It is not.

As a generalisation it can be said the left hemisphere has "male
qualities".  Ie logic reason, analysis.  Obsessing over details in
this moment of time as if this moment of time was **so** important.

The right brain is more feeling intuitive and concerned with the
bigger picture aspects of life.  For example an awareness of this
moment between our births and our deaths.

Patching an eye stimulates the contralateral hemisphere by some
process that is not obvious.

Please open your mind to the science here

You have a strong habit of limiting what you can believe based on your
opinions about what is true or false.

You cannot learn about what you dont know about if you exclude what
might be possible because you know for a fact it is not possible.
You just cant know that.
But you can *think* that your thoughts represent reality.  Thoughts do
not represent reality.   They are opinions of reality only.

You are being short sighted here.

A.
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 17:27 GMT
On Sep 11, 11:14 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > On Sep 11, 10:20 am, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> A.

You sure know how to fill in the gaps with lots speculation (hot
air).  Anyway, I am enjoying your commentary on the subject in this
thread I started.

Anyway, I digress.  The cranial nerves controlling eye movements do
not originate in the cortex.
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 21:10 GMT
>>The cranial nerves controlling eye movements do
not originate in the cortex.

Attention drives eye movement.

Each eye has to be precisely aimed based on the picture *detected*.
The point of best human vision is **tiny** and yet it is perfectly
aligned for **both** eyes when the vision is normal.

This requires some kind of mental control as a feedback system between
what is mentally sensed and what appears at the retina.

There are two eyes.  Each precisely pointed.   There must be two
independant feedback centres that then coordinate together.

3 processes working simultaneously in best vision.

The eyes cannot be as rigidly linked as you are suggesting

Andrew
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 21:36 GMT
On Sep 11, 3:10 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> The eyes cannot be as rigidly linked as you are suggesting

What is it I am suggesting?  Tell me.
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 11 Sep 2007 22:05 GMT
> On Sep 11, 3:10 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > The eyes cannot be as rigidly linked as you are suggesting
>
> What is it I am suggesting?  Tell me.

Dr G

You said:

"The cranial nerves controlling eye movements do
not originate in the cortex".

In response to my:

> I noted you were claiming that the idea of a "male eye" versus a
> "female eye"
> was something ridiculous.

> It is not.

> As a generalisation it can be said the left hemisphere has "male
> qualities".  Ie logic reason, analysis.  Obsessing over details in
> this moment of time as if this moment of time was **so** important.

> The right brain is more feeling intuitive and concerned with the
> bigger picture aspects of life.  For example an awareness of this
> moment between our births and our deaths.

> Patching an eye stimulates the contralateral hemisphere by some
> process that is not obvious.

Perhaps you could clarify why you did respond with:

""The cranial nerves controlling eye movements do
not originate in the cortex".

So that your thinking is clearer and i dont have to second guess you.

Thanks

Andrew
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 23:26 GMT
On Sep 11, 3:10 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> >>The cranial nerves controlling eye movements do
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Andrew

Here are some excerpts from the conversation.  Can you explain this
some more, Andrew?  I think I feel asleep in neurology when they were
discussing the male-female eye system in the brain.

=========================================
Posted by janbossuyt on Mar 12, 2007, 1:03pm

I'm currently suffering from persistent and even worsening doublesight
( seeing things twice ) , due to 2 bicycle accidents , causing me
serious trouble when driving ( car , bicycle ) and frequent
headaches . Can anyone provide some clues as to the cause and cure ? a
recent treatment by an optometrist didn't help
grateful thanks
jan bossuyt

Posted by Martin Brofman on Mar 12, 2007, 2:59pm
The male eye and the female eye are not communicating and not working
together. Which male and which female have not been working together?

The headaches indicate a sense of separation from someone.

Posted by kwikkie on Mar 26, 2007, 2:15pm
Since ca. age 16 i have doublesight disorder. I have pondered on your
reaction Martin, but it doesn't make sence to me yet.

"The male eye and the female eye are not communicating and not working
together. Which male and which female have not been working together?"

Can you explane a bit more??????

Posted by Martin Brofman on Mar 26, 2007, 3:37pm
If the male eye and female eye have not been communicating, I would
look at which male and which female have not been communicating, or
not working well together. For example, was it your mother and your
father? Was it difficult for you to be open to both at the same
time?
=========================================
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 12 Sep 2007 01:08 GMT
> On Sep 11, 3:10 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> some more, Andrew?  I think I feel asleep in neurology when they were
> discussing the male-female eye system in the brain.

Leukoma

Here are some facts.

If you patch a person and interview them they will often give
different answers and different responses depending on which eye is
patched.   For some people these differences are spectactular and can
be very helpful to resolve long standing confusions and personal
problems.

As i explained to you earlier these responses appear to be connected
to the way the different ways the hemispheres process information.
Either way whatever the reason the responses can be simplisticly
separated on male or female type responses.

Right eye responses tend  to be judgemental logical masculine

Left eye responses tend to be feeling emotional female.

Once the different responses are recorded it is then possible to
attempt a more integrated or balanced view of a given response so that
when patched the differences are less exstreme and less unsettling for
the person.

These are facts.

I can demonstrate this to anybody who is seriously interested in
*learning* more about this.

What exactly is your point here?

This is supposed to be a science newsgroup.

If you prefer to play around with people then why not take up sport or
something?

Your constant abuse of me is unbecoming of a man who calls himself a
doctor.

A.
Dr. Leukoma - 12 Sep 2007 03:09 GMT
On Sep 11, 7:08 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > On Sep 11, 3:10 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 66 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I thought you were going to explain how this was going to help a man
with double vision from a brain injury.

Also, I would appreciate if you would quit trying to be a victim.
It's not going to work.  For the past  week I have observed you trying
to pick a fight with every doctor on this forum.  I'm giving you a
stage with all of the props, complete with a patient, and a man you
probably consider a mentor.
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 12 Sep 2007 04:25 GMT
> I thought you were going to explain how this was going to help a man
> with double vision from a brain injury.

Well what do we actually know here from your text if we take it at
face value?

The man has double vision after two accidents.

1.  Brain injury is not proven

2, Double vision could be caused by none damaging trauma.

3. It is a fact that people with brain injury function better when
relaxed, and that in the early stages of recovery they are prone to
difficult emotional swings which they find hard to control, which in
time do tend to settle down.

4,  He got no help from the optical experts he visited.

5.  He is looking for something alternative for some reason

6.  It makes sense that the traumatic effects of the accidents could
possibly have some influence on his vision which in time he will
recover from.

Dispite all of this you have already decided the man is beyond help.

The only reason Doctors on this list have problems with me is because
they all seem to approach data with the same predecided set in
concrete set of beliefs as you do.

Nobody is forcing you to reply to me.

Andrew
andrewedwardjudd@hotmail.com - 12 Sep 2007 05:09 GMT
>>I would appreciate if you would quit trying to be a victim.
It's not going to work.

Dr G

Thats not really how i see it.

I think you are the victim here.

For some reason you are unable to agree with anything i say - even a
definition of myopia seems to have caused you problems.

I think you want to see me as a fool but that does not make me the
victim.   Its more a statement of reality that i am hoping might alert
you to your arrogant behaviour.

You seem to actually believe this nonesense about you knowing
absolutely more about vision than i do.   But to maintain that belief
you have to warp reality and it catches you out time after time.

You are doomed to be a victim here until you see me as i am.

Andrew
Dr. Leukoma - 12 Sep 2007 03:35 GMT
On Sep 11, 7:08 pm, andrewedwardj...@hotmail.com wrote:

> I can demonstrate this to anybody who is seriously interested in
> *learning* more about this.

Certainly you assume that there are people reading this who are
seriously interested, otherwise why are you here?
Mike Tyner - 12 Sep 2007 00:18 GMT
> The eyes cannot be as rigidly linked as you are suggesting

Of course you're right. It's ridiculously easy to make them move
independently. What were we thinking.

-MT
Ms.Brainy - 11 Sep 2007 19:58 GMT
> Sound familiar?
>
> http://www.iblindness.org/articles/brofman-visionmetaphor.html

Especially I liked the Affirmations... :-)
Dr. Leukoma - 11 Sep 2007 20:06 GMT
> > Sound familiar?
>
> >http://www.iblindness.org/articles/brofman-visionmetaphor.html
>
> Especially I liked the Affirmations... :-)

Straight from Brofman's mouth into Andrew's ear. :D
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.