 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / September 2007School Children's Eyes
SCHOOL CHILDREN'S EYES THE cure and prevention of imperfect sight in school children is very simple. A Snellen Test Card should be placed in the class room where all children can see it from their seats. They should read the card at least once daily with each eye separately, covering the other eye with the palms of the hands, in such a way as to avoid pressing on the eyeball. The time required is less than a minute for both eyes. The card measures the amount of their vision. They will find from time to time that their eyesight varies. Some children are very much disturbed when they cannot see so well on account of the light being dim on a dark or rainy day and although they usually learn the letters by heart they do not always remember or see them. It is well to encour. age the children to commit the letters to memory because it is a great help for them to see them. When a child can read the Snellen Test Card with each eye with perfect sight, even although they do know what the letters are, it has been found by numerous observations that their eyes are also normal and not nearsighted, farsighted nor do they have astigmatism. Many children find that when they have difficulty in reading the writing on. the blackboard that they obtain material help after glancing at the Snellen Test Card and reading it with perfect sight. When the eye is at rest, perfect rest, it always has perfect sight. A great many teachers and others condemn the method unwisely because they say that the children learn, and because they know what the letters are, they recite them without actually seeing them. With my instrument I have observed many thousands of school children reading the Snellen Test Card apparently with perfect sight, the test card that they had committed to memory, and in all cases never did I find anything wrong with their eyes. About ten years ago I challenged a Doctor, a member of the Board of Education, to prove that the children deceive themselves or others by saying that they see letters when they don't. To me it is very interesting that the most wicked child in school no matter how he may lie about other things with great facility and gets by with it, was never caught lying about his eyesight. I believe that every family should have a Snellen Test Card in the home and the children encouraged to practice reading it for a few minutes or longer a number of times every day. Some children are fond of contests and quite often a child who can demonstrate that his vision was the best of any pupil in the class had a feeling of pride and satisfaction which every one in sporting events can understand. - August 1922 > About ten years ago I challenged a Doctor, That was when you were, what, five years old?  Signature~RT I wasn't born yet. Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are trolls who haunt s.m.v. Rishi has published, and is trying to sell worthless books. Otis is pathologically dishonest and actually hurts people. Following his advice can induce double vision in those not working closely with an eye doctor. Lena102938 uses anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for ANY actual information. It seems she now has to wear glasses and has developed a pathological (and ILLOGICAL) resentment toward the industry that "foisted these glasses upon her." You'd do well to ignore them and wait for responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who DO also participate in this site. > THE cure and prevention of imperfect sight in school children is very > simple. Deceptive, unfounded garbage.. -MT Is it garbage to preserve the perfect sight of children? Is it garbage to save them from a lifetime of glasses? Is it garbage when it has been proven? What worthier cause could there exist, than the happiness of a child? > Is it garbage when it has been proven? It wouldn't be, if someone would step up and prove it. Believing in "proof" doesn't make it appear. -MT Deceptive in what way, unfounded in what way? Well it is proven but you have to search it: New York Medical Journal, July 29, 1911, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 237-238 > Well it is proven but you have to search it: > > New York Medical Journal, July 29, 1911, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 237-238 Something peer-reviewed ... and maybe from this century ... might be more persuasive. It was from this century; less than 100 years ago. The journal was very reputable and if they published bullshit crap, their reputation would be destroyed. The most pesuasive evidence, now we come to that, is in the demonstration itself. > The journal was very reputable and if they published bullshit crap, > their reputation would be destroyed. The most pesuasive evidence, now > we come to that, is in the demonstration itself. So why can't we find those "demonstrations" in modern journals and textbooks? In 1911 medical textbooks still had chapters on leeching. Science changes. Bates does not. -MT Changes, but not always for the better. Some of 1911 textbooks were crazy. Some of 2020 medical textbooks will be crazy. Lots of textbooks nowadays are crazy. But a reputable journal usually isn't crazy, otherwise they wouldn't have reputation. Reputation is made by proof. >So why can't we find those "demonstrations" in modern journals People think the Bates system has already been disproven. No one is inspired to bother with such old stuff. They think it must be quackery. It goes on in a chain; the more time passes, the less people want to conduct studies. > People think the Bates system has already been disproven. No one is > inspired to bother with such old stuff. They think it must be > quackery. It goes on in a chain; the more time passes, the less people > want to conduct studies. So where are the confirming studies from 1920? 1930? 1940? When nobody is able to produce similar results, it becomes "unproven." It's illogical to believe in "100% cure" when you can't replicate the results. -MT >So where are the confirming studies from 1920? 1930? 1940? The method of using snellen cards in schools was condemed. Naturally people thought, it mustn't work if it has been condemed by the authorities. But the authorities only didn't like it because it seemed so ridiculous; regardless of whether it worked. The results are replicable. Put up snellen charts in all classrooms in the world; see for yourself. > The method of using snellen cards in schools was condemed. > Naturally people thought, it mustn't work if it has been condemed by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The results are replicable. Put up snellen charts in all classrooms in > the world; see for yourself. You have been misinformed. -MT It is not a matter of informing or misinforming; It is a matter of demonstrating a truth of vision. > People think the Bates system has already been disproven. You are looking at it wrong. Bates people think their system has been proven, or they think that it doesn't need to be proven. Disbelievers in Bates simply disregard it because there is no evidence for it. The burden of proof is on you. The burden of disproof is not on everyone else. Sorry-- you need to do a little work before anyone will take you seriously. Its that way in real life too. Yes okay the proof of one journal is not satisfactory then. That is understandable. What is not understandable is that you will not even try this simple thing. It takes under 20 seconds out of 24 hours in a day, to make well of this practice. That is not a big time. You must demonstrate it; any one child will do. Have the child read the snellen each day, as directed. See it for yourself. >Disbelievers in Bates simply disregard it It is not a matter of disbelievers or believers, see. I mean a state of general belief, that the Bates system has been disproved. The general idea has simply contaminated minds, inflicting potential researchers, drives them away. >you are Rishi who is an idiotic Italian Not Rishi, do you want a picture or what. > Not Rishi, do you want a picture or what. If you are not Rishi, you are his parrot. -MT > > Not Rishi, do you want a picture or what. > > If you are not Rishi, you are his parrot. > > -MT I, for one, don't think he is Rishi, but he's certainly a follower of Rishi. His command of the English language flactualtes from excellent to ridiculous. Rishi cannot "parrot" excellent English, but Zetsu (aka Quasimodo) can easily adopt Rishi's style, or any other style, as he does routinely. At least for some time now he has settled on 'Zetsu', no more Revival, Alphonso, Deidara, Kakuzu and the rest. But his style changes from post to post. An advice to Zetsu: Look up the meaning of the word "demonstrate". Another advice to Zetsu: Repeating the same flawed argument does not make it stronger or more convincing. > If you are not Rishi, you are his parrot. Unfair. One of my dearest friends has TWO parrots -- an African Gray and a Macaw. I babysit them rather frequently. BOTH make dramatically more sense than Atchoo. I used to have a pet parrot. > I used to have a pet parrot. Let me guess: it died of boredom ... or got sick and f.cking tired of being your intellectual superior and flew the coop? It died. > Reputation is made by proof. Which only proves you know nothing about the reputation of central fixation and "rest methods." -MT I mean, reputation of the medical journals. If they publish nonsense, they would go out of business quick. > It was from this century; less than 100 years ago. I didn't say within 100 years. I said from this century. Go grab a dictionary ... or anything else. > The journal was very reputable Proof by assertion. Zetsu's only friend. > and if they published bullshit crap, > their reputation would be destroyed. Well, you DO serve as a living example of THAT, at least. > The most pesuasive evidence, now > we come to that, is in the demonstration itself. That's really only persuasive if you don't care what's actually going on. But that's not science. It's anecdote. How about moving over to faith.vision ... with Uncle Otie ... and your little ongoing circle jerk? >only persuasive if you don't care what's actually going on. What do you think is actually going on? That the children memorized their snellen cards? That it must have been accomodative spasm? That the improvements were all faked? Which one will it be. > >only persuasive if you don't care what's actually going on. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which one will it be. Improved blur recognition. Do you need me to repeat the whole concept? You may. I won't. [You are an INCREDIBLY tiring little man.] Life isn't a snellen chart, sadly. But, see that's the debate we already went through. When you can see the snellen, you can see everything else. Take an example, I'll try and explain. Say, a child looks at the blackboard and can't read it, but then reads the snellen perfectly, and then afterwords reads the blackboard with perfect sight; that's the thing that kills your point. Doesn't it make sense, or what. I'm trying to be clear as possible, but tell me how it doesn't make sense. > But, see that's the debate we already went through. > When you can see the snellen, you can see everything else. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the thing that kills your point. Doesn't it make sense, or what. I'm > trying to be clear as possible, but tell me how it doesn't make sense. The real reason that it doesn't make sense is that you're simply wrong. Go back and read the "Walnut Street" example ... or go do ... well .... anything else other than post here, huh? I got quite good at recognizing letters. My vision AND visual acuity ... suck. What I do is a parlor trick. What YOU sell is snake oil. That's why I don't try to convince people that I actually SEE any better than I really DO see. I'd be lying and deceiving them. Like you. Forget about street signs. It's eyesight, you either know it's better; or you don't. You don't go around saying 'hey everyone I've got perfect sight' when all you've done is improved blur recognition, now do you? You just have perfect sight. > Forget about street signs. > > It's eyesight, you either know it's better; or you don't. > You don't go around saying 'hey everyone I've got perfect sight' when > all you've done is improved blur recognition, now do you? You just > have perfect sight. No. This is where you become a bit of a f.cking idiot yourself. Lena believes that somebody who now wears different pants or a different shirt HAS LOST WEIGHT. It seems that she believes this no matter WHAT the scale indicates. In that sense, she's a bit of a f.cking idiot herself. IF she's trying to convince people that she can help them change the shape of their bodies, then she may be right. But if the topic is losing weight, then she's not. Science is a way of not fooling ourselves ... and you're a fool. My little parlor trick is cute ... but it hasn't improved my eyesight at all. Now ... WOULD you ... kindly ... f.ck off? Thanks. Your parlor trick is certainly cute. But it hasn't improved your eyesight at all. In contrast, the snellen chart does. > Your parlor trick is certainly cute. > But it hasn't improved your eyesight at all. > In contrast, the snellen chart does. Keep saying it. Maybe ... some day ... somebody will believe you. And they will have been swindled. NOW would you ... kindly ... f.ck off? It has been proven, see. No one has been swindled. > It has been proven, see. I keep forgetting: if YOU SAY something is true, then it must be true, right? Wrong. > Your parlor trick is certainly cute. > But it hasn't improved your eyesight at all. > In contrast, the snellen chart does. Please, tell us a little more how to do that? Are there certain letter combinations or print styles you have to use? Cause I've had a damned hard time getting them to improve with the standard "TZVECL." Is there an incantation or potion I'm missing, a certain flavor of incense that I need to burn in order to make this happen? I'm presbyopic and I can't see up close. EVERY time I try "relaxing" my eyes they get BLURRY, not BETTER. Please tell me WHY there are no listings in the phone book for places I can go and get this fixed? -MT >Please, tell us a little more how to do that? Mike, fix your eyesight with rest. Relaxing and not accommodating are different. When you look at the near point, converge your eyes but relax while you do that. It is hard at first, but you begin practice with diamond type then move down to 1.5 point, photographically reduced, see your sight is benefited. The standard TZVECL, you could use that. You don't just read it once and improve immensely; that is rare to happen; you read it every day with each eye. >Are there certain letter combinations or print styles you have to use? Whichever suits your mind, whichever you enjoy looking at. Some people prefer to use different styles, white on black, black on white, different variations of colours. They find it is a help. Variation is good, the eyes enjoy it. > Mike, fix your eyesight with rest. You have no clue and I'm wasting no more of my off-day on you. -MT > Say, a child looks at the > blackboard and can't read it, > but then reads the snellen perfectly, Those children never come into my office. The ones who come into my office see blurry on the snellen chart too. Is your snellen chart clearer than mine? -MT When the child reads perfectly the snellen, the other objects are also seen perfectly. This point raised, because Neil had used the argument of blur interpretation. My example being a counter. > When the child reads perfectly the snellen, the other objects are also > seen perfectly. Nearsighted children don't "read perfectly the snellen." -MT >Nearsighted children don't "read perfectly the snellen." Perfect sighted children do. >Those children never come into my office. Of course not. They do not practice the method. When the child reads perfectly the snellen, the other objects are also seen perfectly. This point raised, because Neil had used the argument of blur interpretation. My example being a counter. > Well it is proven but you have to search it: > > New York Medical Journal, July 29, 1911, vol. 94, no. 5, pp. 237-238 that is not proof. that is simply a report in an old journal that contains no controls or has no statistical analysis. do a google search on "evidence-based medicine". your understanding of what constitutes proof, and what is actually scientific observation versus someones opinion and interpretation, is sorely lacking. you said you came to this newsgroup to learn, but instead you came here under false pretenses using false names. you are Rishi who is an idiotic Italian troll who tries to make money off of people by selling them books and giving them false unproven information. you are a con- man. |
Reply to this Message |
 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
|
©2009 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.