 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007Is Myopia #1 Medical Problem?
Reading the posts on this newsgroup, one may get the impression that myopia is a #1 medical problem, and certainly the most important issue in eye care. This is due mainly to the invasion of a handful of "alternative medicine" advocates who have taken over any discussion here. They are all pre-occupied with myopia and present it as a disastrous disease, while the rest of us chime in to continue the discussion. No, I am not suggesting that myopia is a desirable state of the human eye, nor that it does not create problems and certain difficulties to the myope. But IMO myopia is just a minor problem which is easily, safely and comfortably correctable by simple and effective means. Myopia is not an infectious or contagious disease. It is painless. If corrected properly, it is not a debilitating handicap. It is not dangerous, although some risks are associated with high myopia (which none of the "alternative" treatments eliminate, including medically approved surgery), and it's certainly not life threatening. If I had a choice I would take myopia any day of the week, instead of: Cancer Heart Disease Diabetes Multiple Sclerosis Syphilis Typhoid Small Pox Parkinson Huntington Macular Degeneration Glaucoma Strabismus Diplopia etc. I think we are losing any sense of proportion. Of course it would be wonderful to prevent or cure myopia (and/or astigmatism), if there was a proven way. Since there isn't (short of unproven proposed speculative methods), the prudent way to deal with myopia is to accept it, correct it as possible, needed or desirable, and go on with our lives until a cure or prevention is found. A week or so ago somebody posted here seeking advice regarding LESIK while having Iritis. I think it's a serious matter, but none of the eyecare professionals responded - they were all busy combating Otis, Andrew, Lena and the Norwegian-Japanese what's-his-name-today 15-year- old. The poster remained with no answer, and that's a SHAME. Dear Brainy, Subject: What is important? The eventual results of not-prevented myopia -- are a problem. Myopia is the third cause of blindness -- and established by Dr. Perkins (an ophthamologist -- who did NOT have an ax to grind. But it becomes an issue of prevention -- and the person's motivation to do it correctly. Obviously YOU have no interest, and once you start wearing that wretched minus -- it does become "too late". But expecting anyone "medical" to do ANYTHING about it -- is like asking a MEDICAL person to PREVENT obesity in children -- or young adults. As a matter of physics and science, obesity can be prevented. But NOT by a medical person. No, by the person himself -- IF he has the education and motivation to do it. In the same way, I suggest that PREVENTION is possible. But the person MUST have the insight and motivation to do it CORRECTLY. It is true that is does take a persistent motivation and scientific INSIGHT to do it. And that does become a matter of personal choice. But equally, the real nature of the problem is us -- the general public and our hostility towards plus-prevention. But if "reading" about prevention "bothers" you -- then DON'T read about it. You will feel much better in the morning. I suggest the same thing for the majority-opinion ODs here. Just do not respond. I PERSONALLY wish I had PREVENTIVE information when I was on the threshold. But each of us must decide that issue for ourselves. Prevention is not easy -- by my accounting of it -- but it is possible. Just one man's opnion. Otis > Reading the posts on this newsgroup, one may get the impression that > myopia is a #1 medical problem, and certainly the most important issue [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > Andrew, Lena and the Norwegian-Japanese what's-his-name-today 15-year- > old. The poster remained with no answer, and that's a SHAME. > Myopia is the third cause of blindness -- and established > by Dr. Perkins (an ophthamologist -- who did NOT > have an ax to grind. Unadulterated BS. Care to post a real reference?  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply Dear Scott, Since you alread declared a scientific publication to be: Scott> Unadulterated BS. Care to post a real reference? Otis> Your crystal ball -- replaces reading clinical studies. Otis> But here is the paper -- that you are not going to read: "Morbidity from Myopia", E. S. Perkins, M. D. From: "Sightsaving Review, Spring 1979, 49(1), 11-19 Have a pleasant time bashing serious scientific papers. Otis > "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote innews:1189600239.939017.230260@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Scott > Reverse name to reply > Have a pleasant time bashing serious scientific papers. The World Health Organization, oddly enough, seems to disagree. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs282/en/ SignatureScott Reverse name to reply On Sep 12, 9:19 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Scott, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I think maybe ES Perkins called myopia the FOURTH leading cause of blindness, not the THIRD leading cause. Hi, The study which Otis referenced to was from 1979 so may be at that present time then myopia really was the thrid leading cause but as time passed the statistics changed and now it has moved down to fourth place. Also can I please ask: what is the 3rd and 2nd biggest cause of blindness? The WHO has published the more up to date statistics so that means they will have a different view so obviously there is no controversy here no need to argue over it guys you are all just being a bit childish dont you think calling each others stuff 'BS' and 'lies' and so on and so forth I mean its rather childish considering you are all grown ups and posting on a scientifitc forum. Even at school where we have really immense debates we never sink down to that level of insult. Stay calm, stay assertive, stay sane. On Sep 12, 8:16 am, Atchoo wrote: > Also can I please ask: what is the 3rd and 2nd biggest cause of > blindness? Sure. www.google.com If you actually DO want to become a doctor, your lack of initiative, ability to conduct independent inquiry, and objectivity will make you the equivalent of Otis. [shudder] Hi MsBrainy, Its a really really good point that you have raised here.but I think you are ignoring some things and you are being a bit overly simplistic and just thinking in a slightly strange way, it seems to me. Well sure we can all say, look at the bigger problem and forget myopia, we can keep doing that and keep doing that but at the end of the chain what exactly is the biggest problem in the world. Well I dont know I guess you could say human evil and greed is the biggest problem because it causes so many other things. Anyway lets just quickly take a look at a few of the worlds biggest problems and see just how easily they could have been prevented. Firstly, there is so many poor people around the world, and for what? There is no excuse for this mad state which the world has been corrupted into. Of course I am talking about the huge problem: poverty. It is just such an immense problem and yet it could be so easily prevented, if every people just shared equally all the money and donated even a modest amount to charities and to the third world countries, we could make poverty VANISH! No more greed, no more poverty. I think also that a lot of the Americans and other rich countries(I am not saying you in particular, just in general) are not very aware of the big problem of poverty. And why are they not aware of it? It is because it has not got any effect on them, they are not involved, completely ignorant of it living away their lives without thinking about others. This is a very egotistical way of living obviously, and further so if the people are actually aware of it but just chosing to do nothing about it. Well every week I always remember to give some of my spare lunch money to the poor third world countries and some charities, and I know that it wont make a difference just me alone, but if everyone chimes in then just think for a second, just imagine what we could do for the poor. Secondly, there is another big problem of: pollution. This is another immense problem which could be so easily prevented if everyone were to contribute to stopping the problem, yet it is appauling how many people are completely unaware and just dont care about the situation anymore. Theyve 'got used to it', 'not my problem', and they continue to make excuses. But we can continue to make excuses, or we can actually start to do something about the problem and help out the world. Alone we are nothing, together we are everything. As individuals the solution is a million miles away, yet as an accumalation of individuals we are just one step away. The solution is just in front of us, waiting to be reached, but it is too high. We need to stand together, stand on top of each other and reach the goal. Anyhow there are two problems which you have ignored and not mentioned at all in your post. So what my point is, is that sure we can all start saying: why all the fuss over myopia, there are far bigger problems around! But really it is rather an arrogant and blind statement to make, dont you think? Anyhow, you are making a lie here saying that I am fixated about myopia and not worried about all the other problems. Believe me, I am just as concerned for the problem of presbyopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, blindness, cataract and all the rest. But everytime we get into a cure/prevention discussion it is you ODs who always make it into a conversation about myopia, and ignore the other problems. So dont lay all the blame on me here like you are not playing a part. Take responsiblity for what you have done, and stop being such a hypocrite please. Sorry but I have to use the harsh words, you are really a hypocrite if you are saying that I am fixated on myopia, and you are not yourselves. Wake up, woman. On Sep 12, 8:38 am, Atchoo wrote: > Sorry but I have to use the harsh words As I said, it won't be your WORDS that hurt. It will be your advice. Simplistic, huh? But you're the one that thinks that "the rest methods" will cure anything eye related, win the MidEast conflict, get the Dow over 22,000, and stop global warming. Hm. Odd. Hi, >But you're the one that thinks that "the rest ?methods" will cure anything eye related, win the MidEast conflict, get >the Dow over 22,000, and stop global warming. Straw man argument. Hi, >But you're the one that thinks that "the rest methods" >will cure anything eye related, win the MidEast conflict, >get the Dow over 22,000, and stop global warming. Straw man argument! > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Straw man argument. Ah, good. You're interested in using logic? Let's start with "Burden of Proof." Please don't post here any longer until you can do so without committing this one: Description of Burden of Proof Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form: 1. Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B. 2. Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X. In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data). Examples of Burden of Proof 1. Bill: "I think that we should invest more money in expanding the interstate system." Jill: "I think that would be a bad idea, considering the state of the treasury." Bill: "How can anyone be against highway improvements?" 2. Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers." Jill: "What is your proof?" Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers." 3. "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does." > X-No-Archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Hm. Odd. Don't forget the typing practice. Hi, >They are all pre-occupied with myopia and present it as a >disastrous disease, while the rest of us chime in to continue the >discussion. Actually as a matter of facts I am not at all 'preoccupied with just myopia' I am myself looking at the wider range of eye problems. But you guys are the ones who always turn it into a myopia discussion, not me. So don't start making up this nonsense, like I am the one doing it. Of course yes I do present it as a disastrous disease, well I think it is quite disastrous if you ask me. People is becoming very miserable and unsatisfied by the aid of glasses, people is becoming 'robotic' and their myopia is making them get lots of other side-problems. You dont think its disastrous but I will certainly think it is because it is just such a huge problem and so easily curable and easily prevented. You need to take into account a few variables here: How problem a disease is How widespread it is Does a preventive measure exist Does a cure exist If the following above are true, then have to consider: Feasability and efficacy of preventive measures Feasability and efficacy of curative measures Taking into account all these factors, I have decided the following: Myopia is a fairly big problem, causes other big problems as well; It is VERY widespread (all across the globe, many people suffering from it); And finally and most important is that, YES a cure exists and YES it is easily prevented. Feasability: very good. Now I know what you are thinking: the cure of imperfect sight by rest methods has never been proven statistically to be efficacious, and well that is where the big underlying disagreement lies between the Bates proponents and the ODs. I do think that it is feasable, and I do think that it is highly efficacious and best of all, easy peasy lemon squeezy. But our difference is: I take anecdotal evidence very seriously and believe it proves efficacy. You: dont take anecdotal evidence so seriously and dont believe it will suffice as proof of efficacy. You want me to design a double blind study, comparing two groups, but that in itself is a falsehood and a fallicious request because it is simply not possible. Rest methods is rest methods, you cant have one group 'not resting' and the other group 'resting', it does not make any sense at all. So, I really really hope that makes sense. > But our > difference is: I take anecdotal evidence very seriously and believe it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > resting' and the other group 'resting', it does not make any sense at > all. Bingo! Give the girl a prize! Anecdotal evidence is certainly evidence. When it is published in a journal, it is called a case study. However, in the heirarchy of evidence, a double-blind controlled study is more believable. And I disagree. You can have one group undergo rest methods, while the other group does nothing, just as long as the groups are equivalent. It's like comparing the bifocal group with the single vision group. > Hi MsBrainy, > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > really a hypocrite if you are saying that I am fixated on myopia, and > you are not yourselves. Wake up, woman. > Hi MsBrainy, > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > really a hypocrite if you are saying that I am fixated on myopia, and > you are not yourselves. Wake up, woman. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > place. Also can I please ask: what is the 3rd and 2nd biggest cause of > blindness? Click on the link provided by Dr L and you will see all the causes in a nice, easy to view pie chart. BTW, WHO doesn't list myopia at all. I expect that's because they use a definition of blindness which includes the phrase "with best correction". Dr Judy Dear L, Subject: Table 3 listing Major causes of blind registration in patients up to the age of 65: Clinical Classification % Total ____________________________ Diabetic Retinopathy 15.7 % Cogenital Defects 14.2 % Myopia 14.0 % Glaucoma 7.2 % _____________________________ Best, Otis > On Sep 12, 9:19 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Sep 12, 10:49 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear L, > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Since I cannot find the original paper anywhere, I went by what the International Myopia Prevention Association said about what ES Perkins said. Anyone, the statement is no longer accurate, and the source appears to be unimportant. It just re-affirms that all of your yellowed and dusty copies of studies that you keep in that cardboard box are all from the same era. At some point, the knowledge contained in them becomes obsolete. Subject: Sweeping the problem -- under the rug. L> Anyone, the statement is no longer accurate, and the source appears to be unimportant. Otis> Yes people, the best way to "solve" a problem -- is to IGNORE IT. That is the majority-opinion solution. Second-opinion best, Otis > On Sep 12, 10:49 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Sep 12, 12:36 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: Sweeping the problem -- under the rug. Sorry to see that you respond by sweeping the problem under the rug. On Sep 12, 10:36 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Otis> Yes people, the best way to "solve" a problem -- is > to IGNORE IT. That is the majority-opinion solution. That's a good one, Uncle Otie. In it, you've encompassed many of your more endearing traits: You're a pathological liar: Research is underway, ALL OVER the world into preventing, reversing, or slowing myopia. You don't have the answer (you're still a myope). Steve Leung doesn't have the answer (he's a myope, and ... whether or not he believes his theory affects his kids is just garbage). Deakins doesn't have the answer (he's still a myope). You're a f.cking idiot: While there is crossover between clinicians and researchers in medicine, most emphasize one or the other in their practice. They also exchange ideas freely through trade journals, etc. You're an illogical f.ck: you actually seem to know NOTHING about what eye doctors do, think, feel, or believe, yet you feel comfortable (like your illegitimate daughter, Lena) generalizing across entire populations to support your zealously-guarded position. You're an intellectually weak douchebag: rather than seek to test your hypothesis, you simply assert it, ad nauseum, and avoid direct questions about it. Further, you lie constantly (oh, it only works in a particular SPECIES OF MONKEY who was NOT MYOPIC and had the lens SUTURED TO HIS EYE, but even THAT monkey didn't GET myopic with break periods, etc., etc.). You use an AVERAGE to deceive (yet another lie -- the .5d/year "down rate"), yet have no answer when the data shows that ... some myopes get more myopic; some stay stable; some get LESS myopic ... simply over that few years..... You lie about what people think, do, and say ... in almost every single post. You are -- without exception -- the biggest f.cking idiot that I have ever encountered ... in five continents! Bravo! > On Sep 12, 10:49 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > Since I cannot find the original paper anywhere, I went by what the > International Myopia Prevention Association Excuse me, International Myopia Prevention Association can you give me reference for this org. > Excuse me, > International Myopia Prevention Association > can you give me reference for this org.- Hide quoted text - Try Googling it. It comes up at the top of the page of my search. > > Excuse me, > > International Myopia Prevention Association > > can you give me reference for this org.- Hide quoted text - > > Try Googling it. It comes up at the top of the page of my search. It does. With Petition to FDA . Lena Dear Lena, Subject: The International Myopia Prevention Association Here is the site. http://www.myopia.org/ Donald Rehm is highly SUPPORTIVE of second-opinion (preventive) optometrists. Good, intelligent site on the subject. To help the parent understand the necessity of prevention at -1/2 diopter -- so the child does not go DOWN to -5 diopters in 10 years. And ounce of prevention is worth a pound of "cure". Otis > > On Sep 12, 10:49 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 67 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > To help the parent understand the necessity of > prevention at -1/2 diopter -- so the child does > not go DOWN to -5 diopters in 10 years. Of course, they all do that. -MT Mike, Do you understand the meaning of the words MATHEMATICAL AVERAGE?? For the control group, their refractive STATE went down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. This is AVERAGE. The AVERAGE is a CALCULATED VALUE. Thus for the refractive STATES of these children, the SPREAD would be from say, 0.0 diopters per year, to -1 to -1.5 diopters per year. So yes, no doubt some did not go down, and some indeed went down at a stead -1 diopter per year. But the AVERAGE was -1/2 diopter per year. Other studies have shown and AVERAGE of -0.6 diopter per year. Maybe Lena can explain the concept of mathematical AVERAGE to you. Otis > <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > -MT On Sep 13, 8:43 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Do you understand the meaning of the words > MATHEMATICAL AVERAGE?? Do you understand the meaning of the words PATHOLOGICAL LIAR and f.cking IDIOT?? You're using an AVERAGE value to LIE, Otis. Usually, you skip that step and lie directly. Here's the ACTUAL distribution: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1420&page=33 Notice that: - some myopes get more myopic - some myopes stay stable - SOME MYOPES GET LESS MYOPIC Without intervention ... in 2.5 years' tracking So ... as always ... you're naught but a f.cking liar and pathological idiot (nice that you can label you anagrammatically like that!). I had a friend who slept with his feet in dry ice and his head in the oven. "On average," he said, "it's really quite comfortable." That's a joke, Otis. And so are you. You'd be funny IF you didn't hurt people. Sadly, you do. > For the control group, their refractive STATE went > down at a rate of -1/2 diopter per year. So the existence of a problem guarantees that you have the solution? Oh never mind. -MT On Sep 13, 11:43 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > This is AVERAGE. > > The AVERAGE is a CALCULATED VALUE. this is the calculated average starting with a population of study participants that were selected from clinical exam records! this is not a sample population where the participants were randomly selected and which would therefore include lots of people who have never worn glasses and which have never had a visual complaint. There are lots of those people. those people were excluded from the sample selection methods. ergo the results cannot be applied to the general population at large. light bulb going on Otis? On Sep 13, 9:42 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sep 13, 11:43 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > selection methods. ergo the results cannot be applied to the general > population at large. light bulb going on Otis? Not in sixty-odd years, I'm guessing. According to this: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1420&page=33 26% of myopes, at the USAF Academy, either stayed stable OR got LESS myopic at the end of a 2.5 year period. I repeat: stayed stable OR GOT LESS MYOPIC over 2.5 years. Otis? You're a pathological liar and a f.cking idiot. QED On Sep 13, 5:27 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Donald Rehm is highly SUPPORTIVE of second-opinion > (preventive) optometrists. Rehm -- while coming across as a petulant douchebag in his letter to the FDA -- doesn't seem to have the pathological need to lie that Otis does. There's no evidence that Rehm's ever HELPED anybody, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he's HURT anybody, either. Shame that f.cking idiot, Otis, can't say the same. He HAS hurt people. On Sep 13, 8:27 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > the necessity of > prevention at -1/2 diopter -- so the child does > not go DOWN to -5 diopters in 10 years. I agree that being -5.00D at the end of 10 years of schooling is not very desirable. Its a good thing that it seldom happens! You really believe that -5.00 accurately represents the typical Rx of an adolescent who has been wearing glasses for 10 years, don't you Otis? It's not common at all. Why do you claim it is? The rate of progression of myopia that you quote is on a special subset of children who are termed "progressive myopes." That subset represents about 10-15% of adolescents yet you believe that those are "typical" or average values for the entire population. It is that group of patients, who are already visiting eye doctors and are already wearing glasses, that the study subjects are recruited from for many myopia research studies and that includes the ones where you get your numbers from. The study population is therefore skewed from the beginning and the authors knew that. I realize it's over your head Otis. Maybe I should have the elementary school kid next door explain the topics of sample bias and proper data interpretation to you. On Sep 13, 7:27 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Lena, > [quoted text clipped - 88 lines] > > > - Show quoted text -of Thank you, On the site of International Myopia Prevention Association there are Petition to FDA On Sep 12, 8:49 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear L, > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Sep 13, 8:37 am, sirj4u2...@yahoo.com wrote: [nothing] Oh, no. Not another one.... On Sep 12, 7:30 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > The eventual results of not-prevented myopia -- are a > problem. The real problem is that your language is fallacious. There is no such thing as "not-prevented myopia." There is only myopia and not myopia. > Myopia is the third cause of blindness -- and established > by Dr. Perkins (an ophthamologist -- who did NOT > have an ax to grind. I have to say BS as well. This is from the WHO: "Except for the most developed countries, cataract remains the leading cause of blindness in all regions of the world. Associated with ageing, it is even more significant as a cause of low vision. Glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness globally as well as in most regions, with age-related macular degeneration (AMD) ranking third on the global scale. However, in developed countries, AMD is the leading cause of blindness, due to the growing number of people over 70 years of age." > But it becomes an issue of prevention -- and the > person's motivation to do it correctly. Another misuse of language. You first have to prove that "prevention" of myopia exists. All the published scientific evidence points to the fact that what you propose doesn't work. On Sep 12, 5:30 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: What is important? I actually don't think that WAS the subject, but that never stops you. > The eventual results of not-prevented myopia -- are a > problem. You mean pathological myopia, right? Oh, no. That's right. You don't draw any distinctions (whatsoever, in this life). Distinctions are too complex for your tiny little mind to grasp, aren't they. Well, then ... don't strain yourself, Uncle Otie. > Myopia is the third cause of blindness -- and established > by Dr. Perkins (an ophthamologist -- who did NOT > have an ax to grind. [cough]bullshit[cough] As always, Uncle Otie: you're nothing but a pathological liar and a f.cking idiot. Consistency ... IS the hobgoblin of your little mind.... On Sep 12, 5:30 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Brainy, > [quoted text clipped - 103 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Myopia is an eye infection which results in some physical agencies,but it could be treated if proper medical attention is obtained. people should not think that it is an end of one's life because it is a curable eye infection. > Myopia is an eye infection Nah... it comes from eating too much rice. -MT > <sirj4u2...@yahoo.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -MT No. It's lack of chromium. > > <sirj4u2...@yahoo.com> wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No. It's lack of chromium. Nah, it's a psychological condition, it comes from lack of foresight. Hi, Myopia is a condition of tension, caused by strain of the mind. It is very simple; ask your children to prove it. > Hi, > > Myopia is a condition of tension, caused by strain of the mind. > > It is very simple; ask your children to prove it. I would never abuse my children like that. Hi, Ask your children, who have perfect sight, this: Tell them: look at a letter (any letter anywhere, doesnt matter). Then tell them: stare at the letter and dont allow it to move. Tell them to stay in this way for 20 seconds, or perhaps even that short time will be too long for them to withstand. Soon the immense pain will intrude, and imperfect sight is produced. Tell them: did your sight become poor or sharper? It is simple, ask your children, they are the experts. You would do well to observe them, and question them on how they perceive objects. If they have normal sight, they will see objects in constant motion. This is a fundamental of normal sight. Ask you children to demonstrate; then repeat the experiment on yourself. The truth of the cause of imperfect sight, in all its variations, will become evident. Hi, >I would never abuse my children like that. The abuse is only of a short duration; and the immense pain which will result will stop the child from continuing, by nature. You should not fear the demonstration of truth. It will cause you to remain in the current state of blindness. > It will cause you to remain in the current state of blindness. Thus spake Rishi. -MT > <sirj4u2...@yahoo.com> wrote > > > Myopia is an eye infection > > Nah... it comes from eating too much rice. I thought it was from eating too much ICE. Contracts the muscles, shrinks the palebral fissures, and ... there you have it.... > > <sirj4u2...@yahoo.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I thought it was from eating too much ICE. Contracts the muscles, > shrinks the palebral fissures, and ... there you have it.... You are all wrong folks. Otis knows and has just revealed it on another thread. Myopia is caused by excessive play with testes. In Otis case it became necessary to use the plus for such play. But with adequate treatment this affliction may be prevented, and Otis is dedicated to providing such tratment, although due to his age it's too late for him. > You are all wrong folks. Otis knows and has just revealed it on > another thread. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > is dedicated to providing such tratment, although due to his age it's > too late for him. Lest ANYBODY wonder why I occasionally refer to him as Scrotis..... I can't believe what this news group has devolved into. You guys let a silly old fart (otis) get your goat so that his garbage gets perpetuated, even magnified and multiplied, to the extent that the group is now useless and embarassingly pathetic because you feel duty bound to respond to his absolutely insane, inane and completely nonsensical drivel. Once again I suggest everyone with an ounce of brain or more refrain from responding to any of this malevolent curmudgeon's posts. Let only the imbeciles, idiots, morons and those who are completely demented (or worse) respond to that old toad. Let him only associate ONLY with his own kind. w.stacy, o.d. Hi Bill Stacy, I agree very much! These people (like Neil Brooks f.ex) are very pathetic, they blame others (me Otis Andrew Lena) for their own problems and cant take responsibility to their own stupidities! Thats what I keep trying to tell these people. But they dont listens to me! Hi, >If I have to explain, then you have no business giving advice here. Please can you explain. Okay I'm listening hard now. Please please! Hi, >Let only the imbeciles, idiots, morons and those who are >completely demented (or worse) respond to that old toad. Its funny how [Neil Brooks] seems to fit all of these crtieria! > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Please please! I already explained and you didn't understand it. I won't explain again. Hi, > I already explained and you didn't understand it. I won't explain Please! I will be good, really really good. Please please! > Hi, > > > I already explained and you didn't understand it. I won't explain > > Please! I will be good, really really good. Please please! go back and reread what I said until you understand it. This was the problem with Bates. There was much he did not understand. One cannot expect the student to know more than the teacher, I guess. Hi, >Refractive error must have a genetic component. Howcomes? Sorry. Rishi (Zetsu) Giovanni Gatti is a long-time troll who haunts s.m.v. Otis Brown is another. You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site. Sorry. Rishi (Zetsu) Giovanni Gatti is a long-time troll who haunts s.m.v. Otis Brown is another. You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site. Yes, yes, yes, but..... Myopia is a source of income for optometrists, ophthalmologists, visual scientists, lens and frame manufacturers, and second opinion quacks. It is also the case that many parents do not want to see their children in eyeglasses because they think it causes self-esteem problems. They would leap at the opportunity to do something about it, and therefore are ripe for exploitation. What is unusual here is that we are now hearing directly from the kids-who-hate-glasses" contingent who have been stirred into a frenzy by the Pied Piper of second opinions, the Italian Swami and others, all of whom feed from the trough of myopia treatments. What's even more disgusting is the fact that the prevention methods espoused have never been scientifically demonstrated to work. Well, why go through the trouble when there are legions of people out there willing to believe? Like ducks in a barrel. > A week or so ago somebody posted here seeking advice regarding LESIK > while having Iritis. I think it's a serious matter, but none of the > eyecare professionals responded - they were all busy combating Otis, > Andrew, Lena and the Norwegian-Japanese what's-his-name-today 15-year- > old. The poster remained with no answer, and that's a SHAME. I responded first, and then you. The poster was convinced that the contact lenses were causing iritis. I could not provide a direct answer to the question because I could not. On the one hand, the trauma might provoke iritis, but on the other hand the patient would be using topical steroids following surgery. Steroids are used to treat iritis. One could play it safe and say that LASIK is contraindicated in the presence of eye disease, and if iritis was present, I doubt that the surgeon would perform the surgery. > Yes, yes, yes, but..... Myopia is a source of income for > optometrists, ophthalmologists, visual scientists, lens and frame > manufacturers, and second opinion quacks. If Exercises were in "regulations" as in some other countries income of optometrists, only would go up with very good speed. It would not be like now: everybody can prescribe 20/20 correction. And if you not do it another OD would. Try to function under condition of miopia therapy. When one parent say to another that that OD STOP miopia progression of the child. Guess which OD will have more clients? The one In chain store ? No The BEST. Somebody else income would go down. Hi Mr Brooks, Um yes I know that the burden of proof is not on you I never said it wasnt I dont even remember saying that so dont lie and misquote me because you said thats what Otis does but now you are also lying and misquote me what means you are big hypocrite and loser and you are not never a winner. Anyhow the burden of proof is one the person who wants to try the cure of imperfect sight because when he uses the rest methods he will see his eyesight gets better before his own eyes and that is how it will be proven you dont even need anything else that is all you need just try the rest methods and see the amazing stuff happen all by its own. Also you tell other people off for logical fallacy but it seems you are not quite devoid of them yourself are you now. Please dont be the hypocrite otherwise you will be a big massive loser who doesnt deserves any respect not from nobody. So lets list a few logical fallacies of you now: 1. Straw man argument 2. Lies and misqwotes me 3. Hypocrite for being illogical yourself Wow thats quite a large number for a person who is so infallible and perfect and never has any mistakes, isnt it Mr.Brooks. May you should tidy up your own shuddy work before you lecture Otis. > If Exercises were in "regulations" as in some other countries > income of optometrists, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Somebody else income would go down. IF I'm understanding you correctly, then ... as usual ... you're just touting the Vast Ocular Conspiracy Theory again. Spend MORE time on proof of efficacy and safety and LESS time bashing eye doctors and others in the industry and MAYBE more people will take you seriously. "Doctors are greedy, evil, and corrupt" doesn't prove that you have any safe, effective alternative. Why is it so difficult for people like you, Otis, and Atchoo to understand that? Hi Mr.Brooks, Just for the good measure, I forgot one other of your logical fallacy: 4: You make big universal statement and generlazations May be if you want to be taken seriously then you should stop making lots of logical errors in your own thinking and start fixing them and then stop being a big fat loser because that is what you are! > Try to function under condition of miopia therapy. > When one parent say to another that that OD STOP miopia progression of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Somebody else income would go down. In other words, a totally hypothetical situation at the present. Here's another scenario: When one parent say to the other that quack OD down the street put bifocal lenses on every child and not work. Child still get nearsighted, and parent spend too much money. In real life, I had an OD from another city tell me that he gets lots of Asian kids from my town. He does overnight orthokeratology and advertises in the Asian newspapers. I said: "That's nice." > > Try to function under condition of miopia therapy. > > When one parent say to another that that OD STOP miopia progression of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > OD down the street put bifocal lenses on every child and not work. > Child still get nearsighted, and parent spend too much money. wild word > In real life, I had an OD from another city tell me that he gets lots > of Asian kids from my town. He does overnight orthokeratology and > advertises in the Asian newspapers. I said: "That's nice." .........................! is it ortho-K for hypermetropia ? > is it ortho-K for hypermetropia ? Not ususually, although I know it's been tried. It would not be like now: everybody can prescribe 20/20 correction. Dear Lena, Subject: Your precient observation of "human nature". Try to function under condition of miopia therapy. When one parent say to another that that OD STOP miopia progression of the child. Guess which OD will have more clients? The one In chain store ? No Otis> Finally, you realize that: 1. Prevention (and clearing of Snellen) is not going to be done by a majority-opinion OD -- EVER. 2. Prevention (at the threshold) is possible, but not if your child is slammed into a -11 diopter lens with 20/60 vision (Snellen). 3. When the "community" thinks that putting a child into a -11 diopter lens is "...perfectly OK". 4. The person himself must look at the science of the natural eye's behavior -- to determine the true effect of a minus lens on the eye's refractive STATE. 5. If there is to be prevention (at the threshold) the parent is going to have to develop a greater understanding about these issues (and the arrogance of the majority-opinion). So the purpose of this SCIENCE forum, is to provide the public with the SCIENCE of the natural eye's behavior. That way a more reasonable choice could be made by the parent educated in the nature of the preventive choice for his child. Just one man's opinion. Otis > > Yes, yes, yes, but..... Myopia is a source of income for > > optometrists, ophthalmologists, visual scientists, lens and frame [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Sep 12, 12:00 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Subject: Your precient observation of "human nature". Your spelling -- as always -- sucks. > 1. Prevention (and clearing of Snellen) is not going to > be done by a majority-opinion OD -- EVER. Right. Things that have been proven to be both safe and effective are NEVER implemented by optometrists. In fact, if you go into the office OF an optometrist, all they'll ever do is talk about football with you. Otis? How CAN one man BE such a f.cking idiot? > 2. Prevention (at the threshold) is possible, but not > if your child is slammed into a -11 diopter lens > with 20/60 vision (Snellen). Or, apparently, if the person is your niece, Joy (currently a myope with a restricted driver's license, despite avoidance of the minus and use of the plus). Hmmm. > 3. When the "community" thinks that putting a > child into a -11 diopter lens is "...perfectly OK". I don't know what the community thinks, but I'd certainly trust my infant child's vision to reputable eye doctors before ever trusting it to you. > 4. The person himself must look at the science > of the natural eye's behavior -- to determine the > true effect of a minus lens on the eye's refractive STATE. Of course, you mean: what happens if a monkey with perfect vision has a corrective lens sutured onto his eye and has to wear it constantly for weeks at a time? So what? > 5. If there is to be prevention (at the threshold) the parent > is going to have to develop a greater understanding > about these issues (and the arrogance of the majority-opinion). So, is it your SISTER or your BROTHER who's the idiot, and who raised your idiot niece? > So the purpose of this SCIENCE forum, is to provide > the public with the SCIENCE of the natural eye's behavior. Actually (, you f.cking idiot), this is NOT monkey.med.vision and your science is one great big f.cking mess. > That way a more reasonable choice could be made > by the parent educated in the nature of the preventive > choice for his child. My questions (www.nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt) paint an even fuller picture ... as would anybody watching your behavior here for a day or so.... My GOD, but you're a f.cking idiot, Otis. It's astounding. > Reading the posts on this newsgroup, one may get the impression that > myopia is a #1 medical problem, and certainly the most important issue > in eye care. This is due mainly to the invasion of a handful of > "alternative medicine" advocates who have taken over any discussion > here. These are what are called "trolls". We need a "troll faq" listing these trolls and showing how to kill-file them on popular news readers, and a "troll guard" who posts the FAQ in response to anything the troll posts (once per discussion thread, with the "troll guard" account also included in the kill-file so it doesn't bother people who've set up their news readers properly). It is sad that these trolls have rendered this newsgroup unusable. Every single message in this newsgroup today is either one of the trolls or people responding to trolls (people, DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!). I have a serious question about contact lenses and eye allergies and the merits of various 1-day disposable lenses given my particular lifestyle, but it seems pointless to post, since all the responses that I will get will be from trolls insisting that I just need to buy their book or nutritional substitute or whatever and do some eye exercise or whatever, responses having nothing to do with the question I want answered. Once again, people, please do NOT feed the troll. Respond ONCE per thread that a troll posts in that X is a well-known s.m.vision troll, but do NOT engage trolls in discussion. They love it. It's what gives their pathetic little lives meaning as they sit in their undies in their mommies basements jacking off in front of their computer. If they had any life, they'd be out living it. Instead, they "live" on their computer and gratify themselves by getting people to respond to them. There is nothing you can tell a troll that will change his mind, because the content of what he is posting is irrelevant in the end. What he cares about is getting a response. Getting a response is the closest thing he has to "love" in his pathetic little life. Don't respond (other than with a quick pointer to the Troll Faq), and he will eventually tire of trolling this newsgroup and go start trolling sci.med.dentistry with screeds about "mercury" fillings, or rec.cats with screeds calling neutering of family pets as "barbaric" and insisting that cats not allowed to roam outdoors are being "tortured", or whatever else will get him the response he so needs and desires. - Elron On Sep 12, 9:07 am, "L. Ron Waddle" <penguincathed...@yahoo.com> wrote: [snip] Generally, your points are very true, Elron. Sadly, on this forum, it's been proven many times that the primary trolls (most particularly, Otis Brown) need no goading. If you looked at the history of his postings, he's unaffected by response or silence. You should ask your question re: contacts. Through the smoke and haze, you'll find excellent answers from competent people. > On Sep 12, 9:07 am, "L. Ron Waddle" <penguincathed...@yahoo.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You should ask your question re: contacts. Through the smoke and > haze, you'll find excellent answers from competent people. Fair enough, but please only respond *once* per thread that Otis is a troll. I can kill-file Otis. I can't kill-file a half dozen people calling him an idiot. If Otis posts 20 times on a thread and I kill-file his trolling for newbies, I can see the actual content of the thread if there is only one response to his troll. But if the other 20 posts on the thread are replies to Otis, then I have 20 posts to read that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. -Elron > Reading the posts on this newsgroup, one may get the impression that > myopia is a #1 medical problem, and certainly the most important issue [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Typhoid > Small Pox "Smallpox (also called variola) is the only disease that has been completely wiped out throughout the world." > No, I am not suggesting that myopia is a desirable state of the human > eye, nor that it does not create problems and certain difficulties to > the myope. actually when one ages past their early forties, being slightly myopic can be highly desirable. otherwise a real dependance on reading glasses occurs that is even more debilitating than being a little blurry at distance. you are making a very valid point. some people argue vehemently that much more effort should be spent on "curing" myopia. and even some idiots claim there already is a cure-- if you just try hard enough. but the point is, if you were made "king" and you were in control of limited funding and limited resources with which to conduct biomedical research, what diseases would you spend your money for? I bet most of us would have to agree that myopia prevention is not on the A list. and that doesn't mean that nobody will work on it-- of course they will. researchers investigate all areas of biomedicine. its just that there are so many other diseases that are so much more problematic, expensive, and cause personal pain and suffering, for example cancer and heart disease. it's just not a national priority, at least for the U.S. >but the point is, if you were made "king" and you were in control of >limited funding and limited resources with which to conduct biomedical [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >example cancer and heart disease. it's just not a national priority, >at least for the U.S. I couldn't have said it better myself. SignatureMsBrainy On Sep 12, 1:20 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote: > you are making a very valid point. some people argue vehemently that > much more effort should be spent on "curing" myopia. and even some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > example cancer and heart disease. it's just not a national priority, > at least for the U.S. You might not say that if THIS were YOUR story: " When I was 16 years old I went through a personal "crisis" and felt my life was "over". [Most people would have regarded it as a normal "bump" on the road of life!] But that personal disaster spurred my interest in "nearsightedness". The standard (i.e., box-camera) explanations did not "ring true", and I had to wonder if the pressure to prescribe an immediate solution was "driving" this process - and I sought to determine if that were the case." The person who wrote this tragic tale ... had contracted The Dreaded Myopia. Because of that, his lifelong dream of flying commercial aircraft was decimated. If you were unaware of the final outcome, the person eventually became profoundly insane and a danger to others. Remember THAT when you minimize the impact of myopia on its sufferers. > If you were unaware of the final outcome, the person eventually became > profoundly insane and a danger to others. > > Remember THAT when you minimize the impact of myopia on its sufferers. i remember that case. the guy became pathologically-obsessed with attempting to cure myopia. He started recommending treatments over the internet and selling books. he ended-up getting arrested and charged for illegally practicing medicine. yes. putting up with mental illness-inducing myopia is a terrible disease-- not for the afflicted one but instead for their friends and associates who have to endure their twisted personality. regardless, i still have to favor the notion that it is better to provide research funding to diseases like cancer, cardiovascular disease, and erectile dysfunction that causes immeasurable suffering across the entire population. Hi Mister pclar, Yes if you have a slightly myopic state is desirable but that is only if you do not know the rest methods of cure which will leave you with zero refractive error, I mean completely cured no need to have it either way just be completely emmetropic just have very nice perfect sight instead of being slightly myopic or hypermetropic or this and that and whatnots. >you are making a very valid point. some people argue vehemently that >much more effort should be spent on "curing" myopia. and even some >idiots claim there already is a cure-- if you just try hard enough. You are saying something very wrong here. I have never said that more effort should be spent on curing myopia you have taken my words wrongly if you say that because I never actually said that in fact. I think that all eye problems should be treated with equal attention and care not just one disorder or the other I mean balanced research for all the disorders. Also you are wrong because you said that I said 'effort' should spent which is wrong in itself because the cure of myopia is the very opposite; to learn how to not exert effort and stop exerting the effort and to quell the mind of its interferences. Nor have I ever said "there is a cure; if you just try hard enough' that is wrong, it should be the other way round then it would be correct I mean like this: there is already cure-- if you dont try and learn to stop trying. You should never ever say to 'try' or 'effort' because these are very bad words which also cause the imperfect sight to happen in the first place because if you didnt try to see then you would have very good eyesight all your life. >but the point is, if you were made "king" and you were in control of >limited funding and limited resources with which to conduct biomedical >research, what diseases would you spend your money for? I bet most If I were made king, obviously I would not waste money on myopia and eye problems, of course there are far worser problems which exist in the world, I dont know why you think I am disagreeing with you because I am not, not at all. Yes if I had a choice between: research cancer or: research myopia, I would choose the research cancer because it is so much more important and like you said it causes direct pain and suffering. Thats a completely valid point, no dispute with you there mate. >of us would have to agree that myopia prevention is not on the A list. Of course it wouldn't be on the A list. I am not disputing that at all, please do not get me wrong here. There are far more important things to be thinking about than an inability to see at the distance, yes of course that is logical common sense anyone with half a wit would think the same. >problematic, expensive, and cause personal pain and suffering, for >example cancer and heart disease. it's just not a national priority, Pclar, I am not disputing with any of the points, they are completely valid and totally very very good no doubt about it! But this is a newsgroup about vision so I think that its not relevant to talk about cancer and things like that; because they are not really that much related to the headline of this newsgroup which is science medicine vision. On the other hand if this was a newsgroup about health in GENERAL, then well yes of course I would not be obsessing over ammtropias, I would be obsessing over bigger things like poverty and pollution and war and crime and things like that. But do you know what I mean though. On Sep 12, 2:26 pm, Atchoo wrote: > Yes if you have a slightly myopic state is desirable but that is only > if you do not know the rest methods of cure which will leave you with > zero refractive error, Please provide proof of efficacy. Thanks. > if you do not know the rest methods of cure which will leave you with > zero refractive error, I mean completely cured no need to have it > either way just be completely emmetropic just have very nice perfect > sight instead of being slightly myopic or hypermetropic or this and > that and whatnots. You've never seen it happen. You've never made it happen. Several doctors have told you it doesn't happen. Yet you go on, blithely assuring the world that fixing eye problems is "easy peasy." Frankly, I'm glad my kids have a more cynical outlook. If your cousin is an ophthalmologist, you should ask to follow him around for a few days as he sees patients with real problems. You could probably work it into a paper for school credit. If you did this a few times, you'd learn that it's cruel to tell a -6.00 myope that she's too stupid to fix her own problem. Is English your first language? You need to look up the word "trite". When you say "easy-peasy lemon squeezy" is literally _trite._ You talk about being good, and being polite, but you need to know it's offensive in any language to throw out trite phrases when you talk with people about their disability. Someone will hit you in the mouth. You need to believe me. Human refractive errors are more durable and obstinate than you realize. > myopia is the very opposite; to learn how to not exert effort and stop > exerting the effort and to quell the mind of its interferences. This sounds like zen meditation. It's mysticism. WhatEVER the method, if it works, then some group of people who did it must actually show a measureable difference compared to some group of people who DIDN'T try it. > On the other hand if this was a newsgroup about health in GENERAL, > then well yes of course I would not be obsessing over ammtropias, I > would be obsessing over bigger things like poverty and pollution and > war and crime and things like that. But do you know what I mean though. Ametropias do not care whether you obsess over them or not, for the most part. -MT > > if you do not know the rest methods of cure which will leave you with > > zero refractive error, I mean completely cured no need to have it [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > learn that it's cruel to tell a -6.00 myope that she's too stupid to fix her > own problem. More cruel to have that many people with vision -5 and worse and do nothing. Not even try to stop progression Worsen presbiopia by progressives. It is age in one case and genes in other. Sure it genes. Nothing can be done to slow down progression. In last 20-30 years - mass gene mutation > Nothing can be done to slow down progression. Hey, maybe something can. Maybe even meditation, or medication. Atropine works but the side-effects are nasty. Bifocals work, a little, but not well enough to justify making every kid with normal vision wear glasses. They only seem to work for esophoric kids, so there ARE mainstream optometrists who will suggest bifocals on esophoric kids. But licensed professionals must _know_ there is solid foundation before recommending anything to Mom and Dad. Because Mom and Dad will go straightaway to some other doctor and ask "is this guy crazy?" That's how it's done. Why wouldn't I want to be the only doctor in town who could stop myopia? -MT Dear Lena and Mike, Subject: An INFORMED choice of the parent and child. Re: Learning enough to ACCEPT the need for prevention. Re: I understand that you can not make the recommendation. Re: That means that the parent will have to understand the need to use the PLUS (no minus, no bifocal) when the child is at 20/50. MikeOD> Hey, maybe something can. Maybe even meditation, or medication. Otis> That is a choice. Perhaps not a good one. But if the person using this (or any other method), monitors his IVAC Snellen, can clears from 20/70 to normal, then that method is RIGHT for him. MikeOD> Atropine works but the side-effects are nasty. Otis> Agreed! To examine the retina, OK. For anything else -- risky at best. MikeOD> Bifocals work, a little, but not well enough to justify making every kid with normal vision wear glasses. Otis> Agreed! I certainly do not support the use of a minus lens on a child with a Snellen of 20/50. But I would suggest that the parents consider INSISTING that their child BEGIN wearing a plus for reading -- with the child and parent confirming the child's Snellen reading. Otis> This is exactly what T. Grosvenor suggested some time ago. Otis> It is obviously easy to make the recommendation -- but difficult to implement it correctly. Otis> And implementation surely depends completely on the understanding that the parents will have on the subject. Otis> Clearly Raphaelson's experience defines the limit to this preventive method -- and that should be understood at the start. Just one man's opinion. Otis > > Nothing can be done to slow down progression. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -MT |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message